Subject: Non-linear learning and Constructivism
From: Bob Leamnson (RLEAMNSON@umassd.edu)
Date: Thu 20 Jan 2000 - 03:07:25 MET
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 21:07:25 -0500 (EST) From: Bob Leamnson <RLEAMNSON@umassd.edu> Subject: Non-linear learning and Constructivism
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Muhammad has provided a great service by setting us a well-
defined problem with delineated parameters. Using web resources as
they are found, (as opposed to designing a course for presentation on
the web) must be a common problem for thousands of teachers. Two
recent postings on the POD listserv (Sally Kuhlenschmidt and Linda
Nilson) suggest that teachers really are struggling with the question.
Muhammad's definitions of curriculum and instruction (and the
differentiation between Educational Curriculum and Web Curriculum)
would, if accepted, provide guidelines for a useful discussion.
Unfortunately, these words come burdened with emotional freight
and fan the embers of ideology that glow in the hearts of many. The
converse of an old adage might be appropriate here: "To a person
intent on driving a nail, everything looks like a hammer."
Ellis, for example, saw in Muhammad's statement issues of "chaos,
complexity and Gaian theories"--elements that completely escaped my
notice. The nail Bill seeks to drive is something called "non-linear
learning." While not defined, non-linear learning seems to be
anything different from a bad kind called linear learning--something
supposedly introduced by literacy (the written word).
One is forced to believe, then, that the only "good" learning in all
of human history has been that which has come from direct personal
experience and mimicry. This would have to follow because at no
time could anyone learn by being told something, because speech is, if
anything, even more linear than writing. Amazingly, all the people
who built the computers and networks that Bill is fond of learned
everything the wrong way--linearly.
More baffling still is the justification for learning a new way on the
basis of brain physiology. In the first place, no one, since the
microscope was brought to bear on brain tissue, has ever suggested
that neurons were connected in non-branching linear arrays. This is
ad hoc revisionist history created to support an idea. It has been
known for many years that neurons make multiple connections (a
thousand and more) to other neurons. Since the brain has a finite
number of cells, this can only mean multiple connections with other
cells, and that leads inexorably to branching networks, feedback, and
multiple re-entry loops into the web. This is not a recent discovery,
and certainly not one that suggests a new way to learn.
I have not read of any serious disagreement with Edelman's
suggestion that given mental processes (memories, mental speech,
logic, etc.) each involves *primarily* specific webs and networks of
neurons. You will find nothing in Edelman or any other brain
physiologist, however, that says that these complex webs *cannot* be
formed by processing linear perceptions. And because we live in
time, all perceptions by definition are linear. Neither speech, nor
sound, nor visual input can be perceived in batches, i.e., non-linearly.
Andrew Seaton is also driving a nail, this time "constructivism."
Regarding constructivism, I find two salient ideas, both in Xiandong's
elements (which Andrew quotes) and in other essays I'm familiar
with. One is a certain "open-endedness" to desirable learning,
suggesting it's more important "that" something is learned, than
"what" is learned. This leads to the gimlet-eyed view of curriculum
and content. The second salient idea is that learners "build their own
knowledge." This is based (I think) on the obvious truth that each
individual perceives input differently, meaning that we all have
different brain states in view of our prior experiences and knowledge.
All new experiences are therefore perceived in context, which must be
different for each individual. That we "build our own knowledge" is
almost a tautology; we can't build someone else's knowledge and they
can't build ours.
These ideas become still more obvious if we adhere to Keith
Devlin's (InfoSense) distinction between "knowledge" (what's there in
an individual's head) and "information" (symbols that stand for
concepts.) (Devlin would find Seaton imprecise in saying that
Muhammad suggests "education is the transmission of knowledge."
More accurately one might say that "teaching is the presentation of
information." [I would suggest here, as I have elsewhere, that
education is a two-body process and consists in learning that has been
facilitated by teaching, whether by speech, writing, example, or
machine.] Knowledge is what the learner makes of information.)
But if constructivism is soundly based (as a learning
phenomenon), extreme constructivism goes valiantly into uncharted
waters. It's something of a step to go from "building one's own
knowledge" to the belief that such knowledge is therefore essentially
private, unique, and not commensurable with anyone else's
knowledge. And it's an astonishing leap to then posit the irrelevance
of curriculum and content. When Seaton postulates the desired
attributes of an educated person he includes "complex thinker,"
"active investigator," and "effective communicator." But all of these
beg the questions: "Thinking about what?" "Investigating what?"
"Communicating what?" The idea that anyone's knowledge, self-built
or otherwise, should correspond to some objective reality seems out of
vogue in the post-modern world. For the rest of us, content remains
important.
Several of the responses pose the question: (hinted at also by Ania
Lian), should technology facilitate and enhance what we are now
doing, or sould we make a radical change and do whatever the
technology makes possible?
The most self-assured responses advocate the latter--everything has
to be re-thought to take advantage of the technology. After reading
Tyack and Cuban's 1995 book, "Tinkering Toward Utopia," I'd advise
against too much optimism. A meticulously researched history of
educational innovations, revolutions, and paradigm shifts leads these
writers to conclude, "schools change reforms much more than reforms
change schools." As they note, every new idea, no matter its source,
gets the acid test when the classroom door closes and a teacher faces a
class. Innovations, they found, can be completely subverted,
dismantled, modified, or hybridized, until the originators would
hardly recognize them. Cuban suggests that it is the social, cultural
context of teaching that is, for some reason, resistant to change. I'll go
out on a limb and disagree here with Cuban's explanation.
I don't think that there is enough contact between teachers and
enough sharing of ideas and philosophy to enable anything like
cultural immutability. I can't imagine a conspiracy among teachers.
It's much more likely that teachers have more or less individually
worked out the methods that are best suited to achieve their goals. If
they all tend to do similar things, it might be that (as biologists find in
the phenomenon known as convergent evolution) acting individually,
they have converged on the best way to cope with the demands placed
on them. I believe it was H. L. Mencken who proposed the only
scheme that had any chance of effecting a wholesale change in college
teaching. He urged that we "hang the professors and burn the
buildings." Short of that modest proposal, I suggest that every
proposed revolutionary change or paradigm shift will find itself
pruned, transmogrified, or (in Cuban's words) "hybridized." While
hope springs eternal I'm sure, history is against radical change in
education (with emphasis on "radical.")
And in case there is any doubt, I'm decidedly in the camp that
holds that technology should be used to improve in any way it can,
what teachers have long known to be the elements of good teaching.
Bob Leamnson
---------------------------------------------------------
Forum website: http://ifets.ieee.org/
Forum's contact person: kinshuk@massey.ac.nz
Info on Join/Leave List: http://ifets.ieee.org/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Thu 20 Jan 2000 - 07:04:03 MET