Ania Lian (ania@lingua.arts.uq.edu.au)
Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:06:13 +1000 (EST)
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:06:13 +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 Thu, 10 Jun 1999, Martin Owen wrote:
> To clarify my position further. I ma not saying that constructive learning
> is a natural consequnce of a teaching methodology. What I am trying to say
> is that No matter what is used as an obeject of learning (conversation,
> drill package, LOGO... etc etc) the way a learner will engage with this
> activity in the world will be "constructivist"... beacuse that is the way
> learning takes place.
In this perspective, with which I would agree, it seems that the problem
of pedagogy is no longer that of making "it" (i.e. that which the theory
says, 'cos it will happen no matter what we do) happen but rather that of
the concern with the *conditions* of which the the learning outcomes will
be a product.
Now, if one does not believe in the theory/practice divide, one then may
go ahead assuming that no matter what conditions, the learning objectives
will be achieved since so matter how we construct the environment, the
practice will take care of itself. Well, where does such a position leave
the whole field of educational thought? Btw, if I were to give examples
from my field, second language pedagogy, after four years of study, $10000
later, most university courses ensure that the practice prevails and the
theories on which the learning environments build interfere least with the
schemes which organise learners' practical logics: this is why language
students continue to speak a foreign language in ways that resemble more
their first, rather the second, language.
> One reason is that
> behavioursim as a theory embodies a theory of practice. I do not think
> constructivism as a theory naturally embodies a theory of practice, which
> does not in any sense devalue its applicability in improving or informing
> practice.
In crude terms, it seems to me that the little I know of the modern
version of behavioursim, I am sure it will agree with the perspective of
constructivism that practice is shaped by history. I would think this is
plenty and enough to enrage the so called cognitivists who seek elements
stronger than history to show learning to be more like a process without
history (and its subjects).
> The historian AJP Taylor claimed he had strong opinions which he held
> weakly. Why should we discard opinions or belief? How do we create new
> models of understanding; new representations of our perceptions of the
> world?
This is exactly my point about being exclusive and inclusive. What I tried
to stress though was that in an attemptto be inclusive, pedagogues may in
fact be more exclusive than it meets their eye. Because where do
the inclusion and exclusion begin and end? I do think it something worth
looking at.
Ania Lian
ania@lingua.arts.uq.edu.au
http://education.canberra.edu.au/~andrewl/mlal2
---------------------------------------------------------
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 Fri 11 Jun 1999 - 02:14:53 MEST