Subject: Re: Non-linear learning and Constructivism
From: Ania Lian (ania@lingua.arts.uq.edu.au)
Date: Mon 24 Jan 2000 - 01:59:47 MET
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 10:59:47 +1000 (EST) From: Ania Lian <ania@lingua.arts.uq.edu.au> Subject: Re: 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 19 Jan 2000, Bob Leamnson wrote:
> 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.
To me it seems that Muhammed proposed curriculum as instruction and vice
versa. The difference between the two is that of the level not
organisational princple. While his curriculum forms the upper boxes of the
graph with its reference to "subject matter content", the instructional
boxes are just implications of the above and form its "thematic units,
teaching strategies, academic tasks". Btw there is no graph in the paper
which would represent the relationship between curriculum and instruction,
but I imagine the organisation proposed in a form of a graph
While his hierarchy may seem obvious to some, I would have thought that
the division between the goals and the method is more along the lines of
the principles rather than detail. Goals, i.e. curriculum, in my view,
seems like naming what we want the course to achieve. Instructional phase
seems to require an explication of the relationship between goals and the
means.
In Muhammed though the instructional box is nothing else but mentioning of
the subcategories of the goals again. The lack of organisational
principles which would mark a division between curriculum and instruction
shows in his paper as he puts tasks, teaching strategies, and thematic
units in the same slot. What is missing here are the principles for this
organisation other than a refrence to an intuitive division between the
"general concept" and teh "vehicle".
In practice, the divisions in Muhammed translate as follows:
Curriculum: we want the learner to learn English.
Instruction: they will talk about sport, leisure, TV, politics. They will
do so in context which will develop in them, say, appropriate advance
organisers (teaching strategy), and in tasks that require from them
demonstrating of the knowledge acquired....
The instructional phase thus is nothing else but explication of what is
assumed that speaking a language involves. In my view though, we may think
what we want about the issue what it means to speak a language. But so
far, Muhammed's instructional phase does not tell us *why* the vehicle
chosen should let us deliver what we promise to deliver.
Maybe the division itself is redundant and unnecessary?
(2) Re: linear:
> 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.
I do not understand this point because linear processing has not been
explained. But do you mean Bob that we perceive sounds digitally? Sorry
this is not sarcastic, I just cannot see the point here and so I search
for the possible opposites. It would seem to be that we do perceive things
in batches. How else?
(3) re: A. Seaton
> Andrew Seaton is also driving a nail, this time "constructivism."
> [...] That we "build our own knowledge" is
> almost a tautology; we can't build someone else's knowledge and they
> can't build ours.
I know that all my work is built on the principle that seems almost a
tautology. But let me ask: Why would you suggest it is often that students
study and then during exam or so they seem unable to mobilise the things
that they learnt? Is it because what they understood was theirs and they
just forgot it? Contrary to you, I would argue that most things we study
at school are not about building our knowlegde. I would suggest that what
we do at school is about preparing students to be capable to build someone
else's knowledge once, as Lyotard puts it, the novice is transformed into
an accomplished equal (Lyotard, 1992: 24). I hope the power-element here
regarding the issue of what knowledge is comes through Lyotard's sarcasm
quite clearly.
(4) re: constructivism
> 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.
There is a slight difference between reality being objective and an
objective reality being an object? How do you suggest this difference can
be put into practice?
(4) why technology?
> 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.
While a continual reassessment of the intellectual beliefs that guide our
teaching is mandatory to any educator, I cannot see how invention of chalk
can stimulate a change from feudal to capitalist society. It has never
been inventions that created a change: change seems always to have been
more a matter of application, i.e. of what was done with chalk. If chalk
did not change the practice, the practice did not change. Along the same
lines, computer-pages may replace book-pages. But this does not yet mean
that we have an educational revolution at hand. If we do want a
revolution at the level of educational principles, we have to look at the
principles themselves. If we do however think that the principles are fine
and all we need is computerised book-pages, then we have a revolution in
presentation of book pages not in education as a system.
Ania Lian
ania@lingua.arts.uq.edu.au
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mlal2
keep checking my IFETS-site:
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mlal2/lists/ifets/ifets.htm
---------------------------------------------------------
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 : Mon 24 Jan 2000 - 02:25:38 MET