Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » Education » math-teach

Topic: Re: Learning for Understanding
Replies: 0  

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List  
GS Chandy

Posts: 7,234
From: Hyderabad, Mumbai/Bangalore, India
Registered: 9/29/05
Re: Learning for Understanding
Posted: Aug 9, 2013 4:07 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Wayne Bishop posted Aug 9, 2013 9:45 PM (http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9189701):
> At 11:45 PM 8/8/2013, Richard Strausz wrote:
> >Sorry GS, I wasn't clear. I was addressing Wayne.
>
> That's okay but "genuflecting to Wayne" would be more
> appropriate.
>

After having duly (and humbly) genuflected to Wayne and the other gods that are, I believe the question posed by Howard Gardner in his interview has not yet been adequately answered (after well over 30 postings at this thread; after hundreds or even thousands of investigations elsewhere). The question is:

"How do we preserve the imagination and the questioning of the 5-year-old mind, but replace the child's notions with well-founded theories and accurate conceptions?"

I'm NOT suggesting by any means that Howard Gardner (HG) has come out with the definitive answer to this question - except that he has provided us some useful ideas in his work on *'multiple intelligences'*. (*I believe that it would be more appropriate and accurate to think in terms of *'multiple dimensions of human intelligence'*. Though HG's *'multiple intelligences'* could possibly be justified - and he has I believed tried to justify - it is probably not worth the hassle, so I'll go with those *'multiple dimensions of human intelligence'*).

I further tend to disagree with Howard Gardner about his notions that we have a great many "well-founded theories and accurate conceptions" to replace what a child develops through naturally growing up - and I observe that much of what that child later develops (via conventional education imposed on him/her by us adults) is alas fatally flawed by our adult views of the world. [Howls of adult outrage - see below].

I AM claiming that our conventional mode of thinking about and discussing complex issues is severely flawed.

I DO claim that children do a far better job of ^'growing up'^ in the world we provide to them than do we adults in 'operating' it. (After the howls of outrage from angry adults have subsided a bit, check out "How a Child Learns", attached herewith).

[^Unfortunately for those children - all children - they are forced to 'grow up' into being flawed adults like ourselves. (More howls of outrage, doubtless)].

GSC


Message was edited by: GS Chandy



Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.