Re: Piaget and asundry

[PHRP@FHSUVM.FHSU.EDU (Roger A. Pruitt)]

> Rauber, Joel Phys wrote:
> > [ ... ]
> >
> > Several days back, someone brought up the use of MAPLE (or was it
> > MATHEMATICA) in the introductory class; and made the comment about how the
> > use of this calculational technology would enable students much earlier in
> > their careers to investigate more abstract and sophisticated material; I
> > think even implying its use in lower grades than university ones.  There are
> > limits to this, which I think Piaget addressed.
> >
> > Joel
>
>    In response to an earlier post, I think that one reason that Piaget
> is no longer fashionable among Physics people is that Piagettian ideas
> allowed us to understand and categorize some of our successes and
> failures but never produced any systems that produced better
> instruction.  At least, no systems were publicized that produced better
> instruction without using up very large amounts of instructor time.  I
> think that there is a lesson for contemporary efforts in there also.
> --
> Maurice Barnhill, mvb@udel.edu


One of my colleagues here pointed out that the reason that Piaget is no
longer fashionable among physics people is that grant money for educational
research in this area is not easy to get.

Roger Pruitt