Ania Lian (ania@lingua.arts.uq.edu.au)
Wed, 16 Jun 1999 16:44:27 +1000 (EST)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 16:44:27 +1000 (EST) From: Ania Lian <ania@lingua.arts.uq.edu.au> Subject: Re: Pedagogy & Constructivism
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.gmd.de/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, 11 Jun 1999, Les Howles wrote:
> But as I develop instructional materials, courses, and modules I personally
> don't care about philosophy and neither do most the customers, clients and
> faculty I consult with. What we are most concerned with are learning
> outcomes.
And what is an outcome?
> In fact, disciplining myself to formulate clear objectives which can be
> observed and validated (I don't always want to it) has been extremely
> beneficial and contributed greatly to the quality of instructional products
> I've developed.
The notion of things being clear because they appear to us clear, and more
importantly, because we get feedback that others understand us too, may in
fact be a most dangerous weapon in education environments. We teach,
students get results, things go smoothly. But is this how life is? Is
smooth how we would describe the task of thinking or doing sciences etc
is? The notions of quality, benefit, greatness, or contribution, if not
qualified, become no different than assertions of one's own value. The
task of qualifying, though, requires thinking and thinking requires a
model for thinking. Without it, our educational greatness may be nothing
else than a razor in the hands of a monkey. Theories or educational models
are not to be obeyed: they are to be developed. It is the naive teaching
in schhools or unis that somehow gives the impression that not only
everything has been invented already, but also that theories are
models already finished, exhausted and just sitting there ready for their
application or rejection. Any hardcore constructivist or behaviourisst or
"cognitivist" would be suprised at any assertion of such a great success.
Reality is that we are still in nappies.
> I also pay a lot of attention to learner engagement and
> involvement in acquiring and applying new knowledge and skills as well as
> cognitive strategies used by individual learners (I guess one could say
> this emphasis comes out of a constructivist orientation).
cognitive strategies would be something that constructivists would look at
(like monkies at the fire) and wonder where to stick this somewhat complex
looking object with not much utility. This is an example of my point: we
take from the theorists names (like cognitive strategies), or concerns
(like that with an individual who is "engaged"), marry them in a manner
that we pride ourselves as being untheoretical. While the way of marrying
might have been, the truth is, the objects that got married were taken
straight from the theory. Does such a procedure have a potential to
explode right in our faces? Maybe it would so much earlier if we did
chemistry rather than work in the field whose
> The point is,
> as an instructional designer I don't really care what's considered
> constructivist or behaviorist and I wouldn't want to be classified as
> either. I guess you could say that philosophically I lean toward
> constructivism but practically when operating in the real world designing
> instruction I'm a pragmatist with a behavioristic leaning.
Even the name of being a pragmatist is taken from the field of dicourse
that not only is theoretical, but also in its form, makes one sound, say,
educated because that person seems to make a choice interms which are
theoretically based. However, if one looks closer, the ignorance of theory
and, yet, the image that one did make a choice stand in conflict with one
another. Why? Because, was teh choice informed? If it was not, it was not
a choice but simple name dropping with the hope to appear what one denies
one wants to be. One can seek ways for thinking about oneself: the problem
only is when we are faced with the process of decision making which has
consequences reaching further than one's eye can predict (or see).
> I have been lectured to till I'm ready
> to pass-out on the virtues of constructivism. Quite frankly, it all seems
> so philosophical and religious to me. I ask why do constructivists always
> fall back on didactic lectures to convince us that this new educational
> philosophy is so superior? Could you please do something more innovative
> than lecturing and preaching. Or, is there a place for lecturing when
> trying to teach certain content?
Good point: maybe those constructivists understood their task in a way
that either was not that constructivist or, maybe, there is room for
improvement? I think that one can start thinking right here without
necessarily hoping that we can go on and abondon qualifying all together.
Maybe we just have to qualify better: I would wholeheartedly applaud this
idea.:-)
with best wishes,
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 Wed 16 Jun 1999 - 08:50:08 MEST