<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)"> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="country-region"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"/>  <style>  </style> </head> <body lang=EN-AU link=blue vlink=purple> <div class=Section1> <o:p> </o:p> I agree that many aspects of industrial era schooling have worked against creativity, peer teaching and learning, etc <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> But not sure that I'd conclude <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> > If let go<o:p></o:p> > freely, kids will be eager to teach each other new discoveries, they <o:p></o:p> > happily help each other, and they learn at their own pace<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Some will, no doubt ... and I like the notion of schools and society discovering ways to personalise learning, moving to age related learning, allowing pursuit of personal interests etc <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I think there is a role for letting go and see what learning happens <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> But I also think there is a need for adult guidance, scaffolding, direction, feedback, etc, for most kids, in most areas - its how this is done that is critical <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> It's a challenge for lots of teachers schooled in more traditional settings - most of us - letting go in some areas while providing structure in others <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Some students will also prefer traditional pedagogies in some areas - and not necessarily because they're brainwashed <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> (for example I think bells ringing to segment the learning time into discrete subjects is a hangover of industrial mind sets ... and I don't particularly like it - especially when it herds 25 or so students who happen to be the same age into a common subject ... yet it so happens, much as I wouldn't have guessed it as a strategy, that we've discovered that my own little boy likes the oven bell ringing to help him accept its time to get ready for bed .... (my daughter though, shows no such inclination...) ) <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I also think it's a worth considering what you mean by the "sugar learning environment" as the alternative to traditional education <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> If a student is happily engaged in some exploration / task here, they are still drawing on the work of adults, oppressive or not, who have substantially designed the environment etc - tried to make it rich enough, accessible enough, etc <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Instructionism can be harder to see when its presented as well written tutorials, well designed learning environments (physical or virtual) etc <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Even if the child explores them at their pace they are benefiting from an instructionist skill set at some key places <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I think its possibly naīve to dispense with adult structure and guidance, in some form, for most kids <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Might have misread your point of view though <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Cheers<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Rob <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> PS<o:p></o:p> Reading Seymour Paperts "Mindstorms", he uses the analogy of "Mathland" to pinpoint something that is very wrong with traditional maths education. <o:p></o:p> Makes the point that if we judged (US) students' learning of French by average fluency following a course of study, we'd have to conclude that most weren't really wired for it. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Yet take the same set of kids and raise them in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">France</st1:place></st1:country-region> and they'd all become fluent speakers. So its not that kids can't learn this - there's something in the context of how we're trying to do it, that is alienating kids. Uses this as analogy of how "school maths" is largely alien to real mathematics, and atypical of the joy and challenge of real mathematics, and also of possible uses of computers as possible remedy, and of Logo style approaches in particular, providing a more natural context with which to explore and learn mathematics - a possible "mathland" where it all happens more naturally. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> all seems reasonable - yet one reservation I would have about pushing that argument too far, is that the same kids would probably need lots of instruction, even if raised in France, before they could *write* French well - (English speaking kids seem to need lots of instruction in English). <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> so ... one could draw the conclusion that even when we have leveraged the richest approaches to learning maths/science with software (and I really like the idea of kids building simulations), in constructionist ways, there is a likely still a need for lots of direct instruction and training, to become fluent in some areas .. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> French writing, as well as speaking, as the parallel for natural maths learning, might fill out some of the constructionist perspective <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p></o:p> PPS I accidentally sent this (minus the PS re Papert and Mathland) to Bert instead of the list <o:p></o:p> His reply is below (from the little I know of Montessori, it seems broadly compatible with the approaches (more negotiated and personalised education) that i hope education systems adopt more widely) <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> > -----Original Message-----<o:p></o:p> > From: Bert Freudenberg [<a href="mailto:bert@freudenbergs.de">mailto:bert@freudenbergs.de</a>]<o:p></o:p> > Sent: Saturday, 24 May 2008 8:54 PM<o:p></o:p> > To: Costello, Rob R<o:p></o:p> > Subject: Re: [IAEP] Constructionism<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> >Ah, I didn't mean to imply we do not need teachers. <o:p></o:p> >But, as you say, they need to be guides and not drill instructors. I <o:p></o:p> >had my own kids in a public school for exactly one week, where the <o:p></o:p> >first thing they would learn is to sit still and listen to the teacher <o:p></o:p> >for 45 minutes, then be quiet outside for 15 more, then return.<o:p></o:p> >After that one week my daughter said she "hated school", even though <o:p></o:p> >before she was very eager to go. Her twin brother did not say it <o:p></o:p> >openly but you could tell he wasn't happy either. Thank goodness we <o:p></o:p> >managed to move them to a Montessori school with great teachers and a <o:p></o:p> >very open atmosphere. > They now enjoy learning.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> In case you intended to send this to the list, feel free to forward my reply, too.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> - Bert -<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> > -----Original Message-----<o:p></o:p> > From: its.an.education.project-bounces@lists.sugarlabs.org<o:p></o:p> > [<a href="mailto:its.an.education.project-bounces@lists.sugarlabs.org">mailto:its.an.education.project-bounces@lists.sugarlabs.org</a>] On <o:p></o:p> > Behalf Of Bert Freudenberg<o:p></o:p> > Sent: Saturday, 24 May 2008 6:23 PM<o:p></o:p> > To: Alex Belits<o:p></o:p> > Cc: Education; olpc-open<o:p></o:p> > Subject: Re: [IAEP] Constructionism<o:p></o:p> > <o:p></o:p> > (pruning the cc list)<o:p></o:p> > <o:p></o:p> > On 24.05.2008, at 02:10, Alex Belits wrote:<o:p></o:p> > <o:p></o:p> > > Eben Eliason wrote:<o:p></o:p> > >> It seems like a relatively hard problem to address with the strict <o:p></o:p> > >> teacher/student model, but seems it could naturally be resolved in <o:p></o:p> > >> an environment which encourages peer collaboration, since a) the <o:p></o:p> > >> teacher can depend on the bright students to assist in helping <o:p></o:p> > >> those who require a little more time to grasp the concepts (and <o:p></o:p> > >> let's face it, you can learn just as much by teaching) and b) <o:p></o:p> > >> because the bright students can work together to challenge each other as well.<o:p></o:p> > ><o:p></o:p> > > I disagree. Most kids, bright or otherwise, are completely <o:p></o:p> > > unprepared for the role of teachers, and they should not be forced <o:p></o:p> > > into it. To improve education one has to make it interesting (what <o:p></o:p> > > is not the same as entertaining), so students have positive motivation to learn.<o:p></o:p> > > Fear of<o:p></o:p> > > anything that a school can impose on a student will never overcome <o:p></o:p> > > fear of social ostracism that a well-performing student will face in <o:p></o:p> > > the environment where students find learning to be an unnecessary <o:p></o:p> > > burden imposed by adult oppressors, even if the student <o:p></o:p> > > independently finds the subject of study and learning process to be <o:p></o:p> > > interesting.<o:p></o:p> > <o:p></o:p> > This is a sad conclusion. You indeed describe what happens in many <o:p></o:p> > schools. But it's *not* the kids that are "unprepared for the role of <o:p></o:p> > teachers" that are at fault here, but the oppressing adults. If let go <o:p></o:p> > freely, kids will be eager to teach each other new discoveries, they <o:p></o:p> > happily help each other, and they learn at their own pace (which is <o:p></o:p> > why mixed-age classes work so well). This also scales much better <o:p></o:p> > because suddenly you have not only one teacher per class but maybe 30.<o:p></o:p> > <o:p></o:p> > That's one reason why we place so much emphasis on the collaborative <o:p></o:p> > nature of the Sugar learning environment. Another empowering role of a <o:p></o:p> > personal laptop is that kids do not have to rely exclusively on the <o:p></o:p> > teacher to get new information. They can get some of it on their own.<o:p></o:p> > <o:p></o:p> > Kids soak up ideas like a sponge. Let's make a sea of ideas.<o:p></o:p> > <o:p></o:p> > - Bert -<o:p></o:p> > <o:p></o:p> > _______________________________________________<o:p></o:p> > Its.an.education.project mailing list<o:p></o:p> > Its.an.education.project@lists.sugarlabs.org<o:p></o:p> > <a href="http://lists.lo-res.org/mailman/listinfo/its.an.education.project">http://lists.lo-res.org/mailman/listinfo/its.an.education.project</a><o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> d<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> > -----Original Message-----<o:p></o:p> > From: its.an.education.project-bounces@lists.sugarlabs.org<o:p></o:p> > [<a href="mailto:its.an.education.project-bounces@lists.sugarlabs.org">mailto:its.an.education.project-bounces@lists.sugarlabs.org</a>] On <o:p></o:p> > Behalf Of Bert Freudenberg<o:p></o:p> > Sent: Saturday, 24 May 2008 6:23 PM<o:p></o:p> > To: Alex Belits<o:p></o:p> > Cc: Education; olpc-open<o:p></o:p> > Subject: Re: [IAEP] Constructionism<o:p></o:p> > <o:p></o:p> > (pruning the cc list)<o:p></o:p> > <o:p></o:p> > On 24.05.2008, at 02:10, Alex Belits wrote:<o:p></o:p> > <o:p></o:p> > > Eben Eliason wrote:<o:p></o:p> > >> It seems like a relatively hard problem to address with the strict <o:p></o:p> > >> teacher/student model, but seems it could naturally be resolved in <o:p></o:p> > >> an environment which encourages peer collaboration, since a) the <o:p></o:p> > >> teacher can depend on the bright students to assist in helping <o:p></o:p> > >> those who require a little more time to grasp the concepts (and <o:p></o:p> > >> let's face it, you can learn just as much by teaching) and b) <o:p></o:p> > >> because the bright students can work together to challenge each other as well.<o:p></o:p> > ><o:p></o:p> > > I disagree. Most kids, bright or otherwise, are completely <o:p></o:p> > > unprepared for the role of teachers, and they should not be forced <o:p></o:p> > > into it. To improve education one has to make it interesting (what <o:p></o:p> > > is not the same as entertaining), so students have positive motivation to learn.<o:p></o:p> > > Fear of<o:p></o:p> > > anything that a school can impose on a student will never overcome <o:p></o:p> > > fear of social ostracism that a well-performing student will face in <o:p></o:p> > > the environment where students find learning to be an unnecessary <o:p></o:p> > > burden imposed by adult oppressors, even if the student <o:p></o:p> > > independently finds the subject of study and learning process to be <o:p></o:p> > > interesting.<o:p></o:p> > <o:p></o:p> > This is a sad conclusion. You indeed describe what happens in many <o:p></o:p> > schools. But it's *not* the kids that are "unprepared for the role of <o:p></o:p> > teachers" that are at fault here, but the oppressing adults. If let go <o:p></o:p> > freely, kids will be eager to teach each other new discoveries, they <o:p></o:p> > happily help each other, and they learn at their own pace (which is <o:p></o:p> > why mixed-age classes work so well). This also scales much better <o:p></o:p> > because suddenly you have not only one teacher per class but maybe 30.<o:p></o:p> > <o:p></o:p> > That's one reason why we place so much emphasis on the collaborative <o:p></o:p> > nature of the Sugar learning environment. Another empowering role of a <o:p></o:p> > personal laptop is that kids do not have to rely exclusively on the <o:p></o:p> > teacher to get new information. They can get some of it on their own.<o:p></o:p> > <o:p></o:p> > Kids soak up ideas like a sponge. Let's make a sea of ideas.<o:p></o:p> > <o:p></o:p> > - Bert -<o:p></o:p> > <o:p></o:p> </div> Important - This email and any attachments may be confidential. If received in error, please contact us and delete all copies. Before opening or using attachments check them for viruses and defects. Regardless of any loss, damage or consequence, whether caused by the negligence of the sender or not, resulting directly or indirectly from the use of any attached files our liability is limited to resupplying any affected attachments. Any representations or opinions expressed are those of the individual sender, and not necessarily those of the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. </body> </html>