I am most interested in these two words, as I struggle to parse what it really means to "learn" and how learning occurs. I would assert that learning happens within each learner's mind, depending on his or her engagement in the content. ( I am considering how much is filtered out while students are being exposed to the content.) I would suggest that learning cannot happen without students' desire to learn and that whatever any pedagogy may offer is nearly useless without student motivation to spark the learning.
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Robert Hansen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Dec 30, 2013, at 2:41 PM, Joe Niederberger <email@example.com> > wrote: > > More to the point -- your "proof" here isn't good enough. > In your parenthetical "reasons" you are essentially assuming the usual law > of signs. That doesn't pass muster if your goal is to prove that no other > law of signs is possible. > > > It?s a ?consistency? proof. Students in algebra do not yet have sufficient > background to justify these things deeply with formal analysis. > > If I were to guess, you confuse the emotion of math with its > pedagogy. > > I claim that the pedagogy is universal, while the emotion is up to the > individual. > > Bob Hansen > > emotion - what you like about math, which varies from student to > student. > > pedagogy - how mathematical awareness builds in a student, any student. >