[IAEP] Concise explanation of Constructionism from the Learning Team

[Albert Cahalan]

Edward Cherlin writes:
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:11 PM, Albert Cahalan <acahalan at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Edward Cherlin <echerlin at gmail.com> wrote:

>>> What would I search for, and in which list? Searching for
>>
>> I forgot about lo-res.org, where the post resides.
>> http://lists.lo-res.org/pipermail/its.an.education.project/2008-July/001361.html
>
> Oh, that nonsense. Carol Lerche dissected your post quite well.
> "Burning straw men", she said.

Not. One of the 3 links did indeed mention the whole-language crap.
(not that it doesn't seem to match up perfectly with these ideas)
Carol's reference to "the article" suggests that she read only one.

The study is indeed a bit old, and it does focus on the younger crowd.
I don't believe either issue is significant. Humans are humans.

There is an unjustified, and even proven wrong, suspicion that there
could be some problem with self esteem. First of all, that isn't the
point of a math program. Second of all, it has been shown that real
acheivement in a real math program is better for self esteem. That is
even mentioned in the links I provided, proving that they were not read.

There is an unjustified, and even proven wrong, suspicion that
higher-order thinking may be lacking. Project Follow Through covered
this. In numerous complaints against the crummy math programs,
mathemeticians have pointed out that higher-order thinking will not
come easily to students who can not quickly manipulate numbers.
That said, I doubt that it is reasonable to solidly prove anything
about something as ill-defined as higher-order thinking; I think I'll
trust the many mathemeticians who have commented on the matter.

> Project Follow Through did not investigate _Constructionism_, and the
> report does not lead to the conclusion you draw. The actual conclusion
> was that woolly-minded "systems" based on Dewey and on Piaget's
> _Constructivism_, with no tested lesson plans, failed abysmally, and
> that the one "system" that did include tested lesson plans was usable,
> and thus the winner of _that competition_. To conclude from this study
> that no other method is viable is one of the most woolly-minded
> notions possible.

Until you find a few $billion to redo the study with your favorite
methods, we can conclude that no other method is proven to be viable.
Meanwhile, it is only right to use the best proven method.

> Now we in the Sugar community propose to think through and test a set
> of lesson plans on both discovery and mastery (which would include
> those basic skills you are pressing for). No woolly-mindedness
> allowed.

No wonder the terms are such a mess. When shown dismal failure,
you redefine them. Trying to get a grip on this stuff is like
trying to get a good solid grip on Jello.

>> That sounds like a Math Appreciation course.
>
> I suppose they _all_ sound like Math Appreciation, to *you*. It is
> actually quite difficult to get college students who have been taught
> how to calculate using numerical representations of vectors to grasp
> that a vector is not any of its numerical representations. It exists
> prior to the choice of an orthonormal basis for calculating
> components.

We call those students Art History majors. We could teach them
Math Appreciation, but that won't turn them into engineers.

>> It's a lot
>> like a Music Appreciation course: an easy "A", and you
>> don't really have to learn how to do the Math/Music.
>> Superficial understanding is not of great value.
>
> Among the greatest virtues of both Math and Music is that they deal
> with mastery and performance, which cannot be faked. Unlike, say,
> Literature or History. Or Music Criticism, or the Philosophy of Math.

Right. Without the numerical fluency, you're not teaching Math.

>> So you are OK with this:
>> http://mathematicallycorrect.com/ml1.htm
>>
>> More:
>> http://mathematicallycorrect.com/nychold.htm
>
> Of course not. It's woolly-minded rubbish. It has no connection with
> Constructionism, either.

It claims to be. It seems you wish to dispute that claim, at least
as soon as the horrible results are obvious. While words do not have
inherent meaning, they certainly do have generally agreed upon meaning.
You may well claim that somebody stole your favorite word... oh well.

>>> You have not named or linked to your alleged study. So, again, links
>>> or it never happened.
>>
>> Maybe it's still in your inbox.
>
> Yes, now that I know what terms to look for I can find it. But let's
> try this once more. Project Follow Through says nothing about
> Constructionism. Do you have any refutations of Constructionism?
> Links, or it didn't happen.

I gave you links, and it did happen. I don't care to shout at
a rude person who wants to cover his ears. It's 100% obvious
that you haven't actually read the links that I provided. You
probably never had any intent to read them; it looks like you
just say "Links, or it didn't happen." to shout me down, hoping
that I will be too busy/lazy to do the Google work for you.