xfly
Posts:
1
Registered:
12/8/04
|
|
Re: The straw man
Posted:
Mar 8, 2003 12:15 PM
|
|
On 27 Aug 1999, S. Jystad wrote:
>Newton Leibnitz wrote:
>(note that I am only quoting the relevant part of his posting)
>
>>Here is the part I always love to rub in
>>constructivism's face: Since constructivism (philosophically) says
>>that students must construct their own knowledge it implies
>>immediately that no one can instruct a teacher how to use
>>constructivism in the classroom (if you did, you would be
>>contradicting the theory). They must be allowed to construct their
>>own knowledge just as their students must. For instance, Jack's
>>teacher constructed his own knowledge of constructivism and
therefore
>>should be looked upon as a valid form of applied constructivism
>(since
>>it was constructed) whether you think it is misguided or not. If
>>this upsets you (and I am sure it does), then you are starting to
>feel
>>the rage that most mathematicians get when they hear stories of
>>children who are allowed to construct inherently wrong mathematics
in
>>classrooms run using constructivism. What is so humorous is that
the
>>constructivist philosophers are not even immune to their own theory.
>>But since it is their theory, they shouldn't wine when it is applied
>>correctly to produce principles which they detest - unless, of
>course,
>>the theorist are willing to admit that their theory is wrong.
>
>My version of constructivism says that (biochemically) (I think this
>corresponds to Jack's 'real world') a student constructs their own
>synapses which constitute the students knowledge. I challenge both NL
>and Jack to come up with a means to construct meaningful synapses in
>a student's brain by a method external to the student. The ability to
>give a student a shot which would replace a year of instruction would
>be an educational panacea, and a bit frightening.
>
>No where in constructivism have I ever read that 'Since the student
>constructed it, it must be correct.' Consider the tale of the blind
>men and the elephant. One constructs an understanding of an elephant
>as a rope, another as a tree, etc. They are all constructing
knowledge
>about an elephant that is incorrect. This applies equally well to
>constructivist theory in particular. One can construct their own
>knowledge of constructivism which is not a valid form of applied
>constructivism. Once constructed incorrectly by the instructor, it
can
>and probably will be applied with detrimental results to the
>classroom.
>
>Again, the straw man appears. You have successfully blown away a
>version of constructivism which does not exist. Well done!
|
|
