<div dir="ltr">On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 9:51 PM, Walter Bender <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:walter.bender@gmail.com">walter.bender@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><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;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">> marvin minsky who don't use the C___ word<br>
<br>
</div>Marvin used to use spell-check not as a way to find misspellings, but<br>
as a way to find to words not in the dictionary so that he could avoid<br>
them: those words tend to lead to confusion. This would apply to<br>
connectivism, connectionism, constructivism, etc.<br>
<br>
I think we need to come up with a clear, purposeful story, not because<br>
teachers are simple, but because the complexity of getting any change<br>
into any bureaucracy is difficult.</blockquote><div><br>hi walter,<br><br></div></div>actually marvin invented has new words to describe aspects of how we might think that are not explained clearly with existing words, eg. <br>
imprimer -<br>
"An imprimer is one of those persons to whom a child has become attached"<br>
"Caregiver" is not sufficient since attachments can form without physical care<br>
The idea of learning by being "reinforced" by success or by "trial and
error" does not explain how we develop completely new goals or "values"
or "ideals". It would be potentially dangerous if strangers could
easily alter our higher level goals<br><br>panalogy -(parallel analogy)<br>
"Charles gave Joan the book"<br>
Physical Realm - book moves from Charles to Joan<br>
Social Realm - is Charles generous or hoping to ingratiate himself?<br>
Dominion Realm - Joan now controls the book<br>3 meanings of give which may be reflected in how things are connected in our brains<br><br>one problem with the constructivism word (I think invented by Piaget) is that along the way (or has it always been like that?) it has lost a clear meaning - this might have happened when it was co-opted by some academics and education departments to reframe curriculum guidelines under the banner of social constructivism, which sometimes means throw away science, maths content and replace it with fuzzy socially "meaningful" process skills (eg. debate about the pros and cons of nuclear reactors but don't bother about how they work)<br>
<br>Is papert's new word constructionism (n not v) still meaningful and useful? If the meaning has been lost or diluted then is it a useful exercise to try to recover it? I think it is - the new minsky words show that we do need new words to describe things that are not clearly described by our existing vocab.<br>
<br></div>