Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
David Simmons wrote:
The constructivist teaching seems to provide no room for occasional
destructivist revolutions--the punctuation in the smooth equilibrium.
What a powerfull statement !
But I'll still feel the need to counter balance it. Eventhough I very
mush charmed by Dr Simanek view of a gouldian evolution of scientific
knowledge, I'm tempted to diagree with it's objections on constructivism
since it's application is not on the history of sciences, but on
didactics.
First, I disagree with your unbalance argument that implicitly reject
constructivist. A sophism could be detect when a association is made
from an agreed statement that contructivism is not the Final Answer to
education and the fact that it's only a fad. Furthermore, neologisms or
catchy new words has you said are still the heart of an evolving
laguage, an evolving science.
Secondly, the epistemiologic approach underlining constructivism should
not gouvern the sequence of events in a classroom. This study field
helps nevertheless to grasp the obstacles of tranfering knowledge.
Therefore, in education, the process of evolution of human history or of
creatures is not the most efficient way to transmit knowledge. As Papert
insist, learning is neither a linear process, but a more systemic
phenomenom. We nevertheless have to progress toward a process
respectfull of the human way to organize new knowledge.
Thirdly, one should be carefull with the argument that most
preconceptions are wrong. On the contrary, most are based on the
interpretation of lifetime encountered events. The importance of
learning process is merely not the transfert of an aristolean view to a
galilean view of mechanics, but on an analytic understanding of a
phenomenum (at least for HS).
I must admit that here in Quebec, we suffered a gread deal from
constructivist manuals. Almost blank pages fill with over generalized
questions: Describe what you see...