Re: LOGO-L> behaviourism

[KERRB@Magill.UniSA.edu.au]

gary mccallister <mccallis@mesa5.mesa.colorado.edu> wrote:-

>     I see no dilemma.  It has become a cliche to talk about learning 
>styles and the many methods people use for learning.  What is obscured by 
>an emphasis on learning styles (or any other theory) is that most people 
>learn different things different ways and at different times in their 
>life.  

It's true that different learning styles have had a lot of good press in the 
decade but what strikes me is that Schools, particularly secondary, are still 
dominated by behaviourist methods, eg. look at any maths textbook -- rich 
topics are broken down into little pieces followed by countless drill and 
practice exercises. Within the population as a whole there has been a shift 
away from the belief that behaviourism is the best or only way to learn but 
that shift isn't reflected in Schools. Lets say, for instance, that 10% of 
people would now prefer a constructionist style education for their kids -- 
well there are not enough schools around for them to send their kids too. Its 
not just a cliche, it does actually mean something -- kids are being bored out 
of their brains and it *could* be different.

>If every person has to rediscover Archimedes principle for 
>themselves (constructivism)we are doomed.  Archimedes was one in a 
>million, brilliant and with a unique background.  What constructivism 
>does is allow people to grasp the principle more quickly and 
>completely because of shared physical experiences.  

To understand Archimedes principle deeply you would have to rediscover it -- 
this would not preclude a teacher pointing you in that direction and answering 
questions as you went along. In Schools many students could answer questions 
and get "correct" answers about A.P. without actually understanding it or being 
interested in it.

>Further more, I am 
>not sure one learns to think clearly because stumbles around with some 
>data they collected.  

Disagree. Frustration is *great* for learning. Its nice to have someone to ask 
as well when the frustration level becomes too high. Continual spoonfeeding is 
bad for learning. There needs to be a balance but School is organised in such a 
way that its difficult for teachers to tolerate even a slight level of student 
frustration (1 teacher: 25 kids classroom), "can't do this sir, its crap".

>One criteria for clear thinking is the possession 
>of some reliable facts.  There are places, times, subjects, and people 
>when memoriazation simply has to be used.  

True but memorisation is part of all learning, whether rote or creative. 
Learning facts will never account for creative thinking.

>Repetition is the Mother of 
>all learning.  That Behaviorism works very well in certain instances is 
>not surprising.  That has been demonstrated by Skinner and others very well.

Repetition is a part of all learning but not the Mother. Variations on the 
theme is the crux of creativity (Hofstadter).

>     If I were to pose the question on the list, "What is the best home 
>tool; hammer, screw driver, or pliers?", I would be mocked.  The obvious 
>response is, "what do you want to accomplish?"  Educational theories and 
>methods are tools (like text books, tests, lab exercises, field trips, 
>drill and practice, etc.) and their selection should fit the task.  Seems 
>to me that you just found a good tool for your needs.

I found a good tool for the School needs. I'd rather kids learnt quadratics by 
programming them themselves (what I did) but the School environment (eg. the 
way time is organised) does not permit this to happen.

-- Bill Kerr
---------------------------------------------------------------
Please post messages to the Logo forum to logo-l@gsn.org.  Mail
questions about the list administration to logofdn@gsn.org.  To
unsubscribe send    unsubscribe logo-l    to majordomo@gsn.org.