Semantics can be touchy at times. Thanks for the clarification.
When I substitute "planning" for "abstraction", your questions make more
sense to me, but then I would say, no, we should not design courses so that
planning is the intended final endpoint because planning is only half the
battle, but also; no, students cannot be successful without planning because
planning IS half the battle.
Planning and Bricoleur (this is a term we do not use in school, so I hope I
am using it right:-) are BOTH necessary to the learning process. Your example:
>If you are painting a picture you could either:
>a) plan the whole thing in your mind first and then implement it.
>b) do it a stroke at a time, step back, see how you like it, another stroke
>etc.
>
>a) is the Planner style, (b) is the Bricoleur style (idealised). (a) involves
>more abstraction but (b) is just as effective. Both styles are legitimate.
When people draw, they blend (a) AND (b). It's not really an either/or
question, is it? If you watch students complete a drawing they are happy
with, you'll see them try to achieve the image that is in their mind's eye
AND look back as they progress to see how they are progressing. If a child
is unhappy with their work, it can be because their PLAN doesn't fit with
the feedback they get from periodically looking back.
Here at school, we spent some time looking into learning styles described by
Anthony F. Gregorc, who came up with four fundamental "mediation channels"
in which an individual could have one or more dominant channels, or styles.
They were: concrete-sequential, abstract-sequential, concrete-random, and
abstract-random. That awful word, abstract, comes back again, this time
having something to do with thoughts vs. objects. The dominant style affects
the way we interact with the world in a number of different frames of
reference. A few (of many) examples cited by Gregorc are:
FRAME CS AS AR CR
========================================================================
Key words Practical Probable Potential Possible
Thinking Instinctive, Intellectual, Emotional, Intuitive,
Processes methodical, logical, psychic, instinctive,
deliberate analytical, perceptive, impulsive,
correlative critical independent
Focus of Material Knowledge, Emotional Applications,
Attention reality; facts, docu- attachments, methods,
physical mentation, relationships, processes,
objects concepts, memories ideals
ideas
Creativity Product, Synthesis, Imagination, Intuition,
prototype, theories, the arts, originality,
refinement, models and refinement, inventive,
duplication matrices relationships futuristic
Environmental Ordered, Mentally Emotional and Stimulus-rich,
Preference practical, stimulating, physical competitive,
quiet, stable ordered and freedom; rich; free from
quiet, non- active and restriction
authoritative colorful
Use of Literal Polysyllabic Metaphoric, Informative,
Language meaning and words, precise, uses gestures lively, color-
labels, suc- rational; and body ful; words do
cinct, logical highly verbal language; not convey true
colorful meaning
An important point of Gregorc's approach is that everyone has at least some
of all four styles, but particular styles may stand out more than others. I
can see where this relates to the ideas posted about yin and yang. In my
understanding of yin and yang, they are opposites, but each contains a
little of the other, and you can't have one without the other.
Where do planning and bricoleur fit into Gregorc's paradigm? Is it in the
random/sequential components, or in the concrete/abstract, or something else?
Tom
---------------------------------------------------------------
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.