On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 11:24 PM, <<a href="mailto:Andreas.Trawoeger@wgkk.at">Andreas.Trawoeger@wgkk.at</a>> wrote: <div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <tt>Bryan Berry <<a href="mailto:bryan@olenepal.org" target="_blank">bryan@olenepal.org</a>> schrieb am 07.07.2008 12:56:23:</tt> <div class="Ih2E3d"> <tt>> >The power of the Sugar activities is in the opportunities they give for </tt> <tt>> >self-directed problem-based learning. Achieving this is much more about how </tt> <tt>> >teachers "set up" their classes and not about following a preset plan. </tt> <tt>> >Self-directed problem-based learning does not always follow a preset plan, </tt> </div><tt>> >the teacher, the "guide on the side" gives things a nudge from timeto time, </tt> <div class="Ih2E3d"><tt>> >more recognising when learning is working well than following a preset plan.</tt> <tt>> </tt> <tt>> Tony, we are comparing apples w/ oranges here. Your situation in</tt> <tt>> Australia resembles in almost no aspect the situation of a typical</tt> <tt>> Nepali school. Your advice may be great for a western school but it is</tt> <tt>> not very applicable to Nepali schools for cultural, economic, and social</tt> <tt>> reasons.</tt> <tt> </tt> </div><tt>I think what is often overlooked is the high pressure teachers have to operate. Western politicians like to boost about the wonderfulness of our education system and how much we encourage {replace with nice sounding term}.</tt> <tt>In reality our curricula are extremely stuffed and the pressure to know XYZ by tomorrow is enormous. This quite often forces teachers to forget all the wonderful new learning methods and replace them with classical instructionist based teaching.</tt> <tt>In Austria we have a couple of self-directed learning strongholds in primary schooling and a long tradition in producing excellent school books. But I wouldn't wonder if actual teaching in an ordinary Austrian school isn't that much of a difference than a school in Nepal.</tt> <tt>cu andreas</tt></blockquote><div> </div></div>I think in australia and by the sound of it also in austria and nepal the biggest block to the introduction of constructionist methods is teachers who don't feel comfortable with it - constructionism is very far from the norm in australian schools (tony's examples were selective) Perhaps where Nepal differs is that the general culture is one where teacher authority is respected and the expectation from students and parents is that the teacher be the "sage on the stage" - if so, that is harder btw I teach in a "disadvantaged school" in Australia and am given much more leeway, to do what I want provided it works, than would happen at a wealthy private school here - also if kids refuse to sit still and hear a lecture then the teacher has considerable pressure to try something else (may not apply in nepal, I don't know) IMV new classes tend to be instructionist because groups pass through stages such as dependence, rebellion, cohesion, autonomy -- and this takes time as well as the right methods if teacher is not familiar with the software then lessons tend to be didactic until teacher becomes more familiar because teacher does not have the skill level to answer wide ranging questions about "how do I do this?" aspects of constructionist learning can be introduced early but for it to flourish takes: (a) time, quite a lot of (note alan's 3 year trial period) (b) expertise in software being used (c) knowledge of taking classes through the stages mentioned above (d) culture that accepts innovative approaches some ideas from seymour papert about teacher requirements here: <ul><li>Skilled in modern learning theories and psychology</li><li>Skilled in relating to a variety of children</li> <li>Skilled in detecting new, important elements of their student's culture</li><li>Skilled in cross curricular applications</li><li>Skilled in computing</li><li>Able to apply a variety of skills creatively</li></ul>