Subject: Re: Non-linear learning and Constructivism
From: Ania Lian (ania@lingua.arts.uq.edu.au)
Date: Mon 24 Jan 2000 - 03:25:04 MET
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 12:25:04 +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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am sorry for re-sending this mail but I have noticed few errors that
needed correction:-(
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 Muhammad proposed curriculum as instruction and vice
versa. The difference between the two is that of the level not of the
organisational principle. While his curriculum forms the upper boxes of
the graph with its reference to the "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 the goals and
the means.
In Muhammad though the instructional box is nothing else but mentioning of
the subcategories of the goals again. The lack of the 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 reference to an intuitive division between the
"general concept" and the "vehicle".
In practice, the divisions in Muhammad 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 to
demonstrate 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 of what it means to speak a language. But so
far, Muhammad'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 exams, 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 knowledge. 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 should 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 an invention of
chalk can stimulate a change from a feudal to a 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. Since
chalk in itself implies no change in the practice, the practice is not
changed by chalk. 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
please, 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 - 04:10:35 MET