Re: From Laura

[Brian McInnes <bmcinnes@PNC.COM.AU>]

: Ludwik Kowalski forwarded the following e-mail from PHYSLRNR

> A valuable website is http://www.gwu.edu/~tip/index.html
> which describes itself as follows:
>
> TIP is a tool intended to make learning and instructional
> theory more accessible to educators. The database contains
> brief summaries of 50 major theories of learning and
> instruction. These theories can also be accessed by
> learning domains and concepts.
>
> I have found it very useful, as it gives references for each
> of the learning theories. You can also look up by domains
> such as computers or math or problem-solving.

A valuable companion to this contribution is Dewey's (Dykstra)
response to the same list which gives the following warning:

Laura, thanks for the "tip."  I worry a lot about quick and easy
descriptions.

I cannot speak for all of the rest of the theoretical descriptions,
but holding up Bruner as the sole representative of constructivism and
then writing what was written doesn't make sense to me.  I could
understand it if von Glasersfeld or even Novak were held up as the
sole representative of constructivism, but not Bruner.  It seems to me
that Bruner deserves his own category as an educational theorist.
Sadly, the use of the word "construction" which occurs twice in the
"exemplary" quote from Bruner does not refer to the same thing as the
term is used for in constructivist philosophy.

It also appears to me that the description of Piaget is dated.  There
are more recent publications in which stage theory is not so
prominent.

I'm not sure they really accomplish their goal with TIP, but it's an
interesting resource.

<end of Dewey's comments>


Brian McInnes