[IAEP] [Grassroots-l] Concise explanation of Constructionism from the Learning Team

[Bill Kerr]

On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 11:47 AM, Bastien <bastienguerry at googlemail.com>wrote:

> Hi Bill,
>
> "Bill Kerr" <billkerr at gmail.com> writes:
>
> > She relates this to a philosophical divide in approaching maths dating
> > back to Whitehead and Russell's Principia Mathematica, in which all
> > maths is reduced to logic. Hence the contrast between and intuitive
> > and constructive approach on the one hand compared with a rule driven
> > and formal approach on the other.
>
> Very clear, thanks.
>
> > So, Cynthia, is reporting on Papert's views that the content of school
> > maths needs to be changed as well as the process of how it is taught
> > (computers offering new opportunities here).
> >
> > I think that's a very strong and positive feature of her book, that
> > she situates the discussion as part of a historical and philosophical
> > debate on the nature of maths.
>
> I should definitely read her book!
>
> > So, the answer to your question is that it's about both the nature of
> > mathematics and pedagogy but arising from Papert's view of the nature of
> > mathematics (contrasted to the purely logical, rule driven approach) and
> that
> > the learning of mathematics could be structured better to fit the natural
> ways
> > by which children learn, as discovered by Piaget.
>
> Another bit of personal cautiousness here.
>
> Education is both about what teachers should teach and what children can
> learn.  The first side is partly conventional and partly adapted to the
> second one.  The scientific inquiry on how the mind works might provide
> new ways of understanding how student naturally learn, but it does not
> provide directly with /what/ they should learn, even less with what and
> how the teachers should teach.
>
> I'm mentioning this because sometimes, when we think of the natural ways
> of learning, we more or less implicitly infer that the content of what
> we teach and the methods of teaching should consequently evolve.  Which
> is partly obvious and partly misleading: it's obvious in the sense that,
> if you discover that your teaching methods are not efficient for you
> goals, then you should amend them; but it's also misleading because it
> masks the role played by the conventions in deciding what and how you
> want to teach.  As if the arbitrary parts of conventions should dissolve
> themselves by the sheer discovery of the "natural ways" of learning...
>
> (And I was not arguing with what you said, I just took the opportunity
> of saying what came to my mind!)
>
> Ok, rant's over :)
>
> --
> Bastien


As well as the practical and traditional limitations imposed by existing
school systems I think alan kay's description of the "non universals"
provides a good counterbalance to the natural learning approach

   - reading and writing
   - deductive abstract
mathematics<http://learningevolves.wikispaces.com/nonUniversals#maths>
   - model based
science<http://learningevolves.wikispaces.com/nonUniversals#science>
   - equal rights
   - democracy
   - perspective drawing
   - theory of harmony<http://learningevolves.wikispaces.com/nonUniversals#thHarmony>
   - similarities over
differences<http://learningevolves.wikispaces.com/nonUniversals#simDiff>
   - slow deep thinking
   - agriculture
   - legal systems


"What's interesting is to look for things that are not universal, that seems
to have some importance as well. Most people have lived and died on this
Earth for 100,000 years without reading and writing, without having
deductive maths and model based science .... (goes through non universals
list)

These are a little harder to learn than the ones on the left because we are
not directly wired to learn them. These things are actually inventions which
are difficult to invent. And the rise of Schools going all the way back to
the Sumerian and Egyptian times came about to start helping children learn
some of these things that aren't easy to learn. It can be argued that if you
are trying to be utopian about education what we should be doing is helping
the children of the world learn these hard to learn things. Equal rights is
a really good one to help children learn. No culture in the world is
particularly good at it"
- transcribed from alan kay's europython 2006 keynote

more about this at
http://learningevolves.wikispaces.com/nonUniversals
(work in progress)

cheers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20080817/55618acb/attachment.htm