Ania Lian (ania@lingua.arts.uq.edu.au)
Thu, 10 Jun 1999 09:53:55 +1000 (EST)
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 09:53:55 +1000 (EST) From: Ania Lian <ania@lingua.arts.uq.edu.au> Subject: Re: Pedagogy or Learning?
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.gmd.de/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sun, 6 Jun 1999, Glenn Ralston wrote:
> > Those of us who argue against the proponents of an EXCLUSIVE type of
> > pedagogy, often called constructivist, which is open-ended,
> > inquiry-oriented, and learner driven are only trying to make the point,
> > implied by Owen's remark, that a pedagogy need not be Constructivist for
> > cognitive, constructive learning to take place.
A notion of an exclusive type of pedagogy is often argued against on the
basis that the other may well be right too. There are few intersting
aspects t this point:
(a) I would bet that in the models of learning that we propagate and
practice, we are all more the same than different in terms of the
objectives that we strive for and the means which we adopt in order to
achieve them. I see a reason here for a closer examination of what we
think that we are doing and what we actually do.
(b) If the other is in fact right, then this means that we are locked in a
neverending loop: there will be *always* some other is who *is* right. So
what is the solution?
One of my Chinese PhD-friends suggested to make room in the pedagogic
environment for all that preexisted so far: a kind of 'give 1 minute, or
2, to all ways that have been invented so far: he saw it as a
ballance-kepping method. The problem is: what do we do with the ways which
will happen as opposed to those which already happened? How can we make
room for them too? And another thing, as soon as one may try to say: but
let's leave out future out of it: remember, future is only what
your own notion of future dictates to you.
This means, as the constructivists may argue: it is a line which is
obvious to you for reasons which are obvious to you and not necessarily in
clear-cut terms for all to behold. In fact physicists, socilogists and
anthropologists, all may contribute here with a point of view which will
see the notion of future as more problematic than it meets the ordinary
eye of an ordinary grammarian. So the point is: if we are to be so
inclusive rather than exclusive, how do we remain true to our beliefs
without compromising and, as I made the point in (a), in the end,
perpetuating the old beliefs and doing what has always been done and hence
never bringing a change?
Ania Lian
---------------------------------------------------------
Forum website: http://ifets.gmd.de/
Forum's contact person: kinshuk@ieee.org
Info on Join/Leave List: http://ifets.gmd.de/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu 10 Jun 1999 - 03:44:50 MEST