Posts
Individual constructivism
Knowledge is constructed by the learner from experience
- Learning results from a personal interpretation of knowledge
- Learning is an active process in which meaning is developed on the basis of experience.
These assumptions are based on credible research in cognitive psychology and human development. [ed.: no] Radical constructivists do not advocate goals, sequential instruction, aids to learning, or restrictions on content for learners because each learner is unique and educators do not know what the learners need or want to learn.
Moderate constructivists suggest that active and personal knowledge construction does not automatically mean all responsibility for developing a learning environment be placed on the learner. Deferring all information processing load of instruction to learners places an unrealistic burden on most learners for the vast majority of learning goals. For an operational model of instructional design for constructivist learning, see Mayer (1999)....
source:
ISD Knowledge Base / Constructivism
Steven J. McGriff
I dunno.
This may be splitting hairs.
2 comments:
"Knowledge is constructed by the learner from experience"
I still don't know (and probably never will) how I am going to learn about Tang and Song China by constructing knowledge from experience. Maybe time travel?
This so-called "constructivism" strikes me as an irrational cult.
It's refreshing to listen to this free-thinker rationally taking apart religion. He should add "constructivism" to the list.
http://hitxp.wordpress.com/tag/personalities/galileo/
Radical constructivists do not advocate goals, sequential instruction, aids to learning, or restrictions on content for learners because each learner is unique and educators do not know what the learners need or want to learn.
This is a non-sequitor. Educators may not know what learners need or want to learn, but since they're hired to teach them something, that's no reason not to advocate goals, sequential istruction, etc.
For example, I have been taught a number of times how to do CPR. I have never yet used it. I may never need to use it in the whole of my life. No educator can tell if I will need to use CPR. However, given that various people see value in me knowing how to perform CPR (it was a requirement of my first degree, my work required a qualified first aider on site, I wanted to learn how to do first aid when you're two days walk from help), goals, sequential learning and aids to learning make complete, logical sense.
What would teaching CPR look like in a radical constructivist world? Well, it wouldn't include the goal of keeping a person alive. Learners wouldn't be taught a sequential process for identifying if someone was breathing and then performing breaths and chest compressions, there wouldn't be a plastic dummy to practice on because that would be an aid to instruction. There wouldn't be little memonics like ABC (Airways, Breathing, Circulation), because that would be an aid to learning. And the course would never be finished because there would be no restrictions on content (so the instructor would keep adding things in).
I wonder, if a radical constructivist's kid was pulled from the water not breathing, would they prefer CPR to be applied by someone who went through a standard first aid course, with goals, sequential learning, and aids to learning, or CPR to be applied by someone who constructed their own learning?
Post a Comment