On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Edward Cherlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Edward Cherlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:52 PM, Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTE
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 11:47 AM, Bastien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> "Bill Kerr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > She relates this to a philosophical divide in approaching maths dating
> > back to Whitehead and Russell's Principia Mathematica, in which all
> > maths is reduced to lo
Hi Bill,
"Bill Kerr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> She relates this to a philosophical divide in approaching maths dating
> back to Whitehead and Russell's Principia Mathematica, in which all
> maths is reduced to logic. Hence the contrast between and intuitive
> and constructive approach on the
"Edward Cherlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Bastien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Bill Kerr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> • intuition
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> • different ways of looking at maths (constructive and intuitive compared
>>> with rule driven
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Bastien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Hi Seth and all,
>
> "Seth Woodworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Constructionism
> >
> > We are developing "Constructionism" as a theory of learning and
> education.
> > Constructionism is based on two different senses of
Albert to be fair constructionism as a term does not have much currency
here- and few associations, good or bad ... I was just disagreeing that
it stands for a failed experimental or idealistic approach
I'm not sure that I like it as a word, since, as you know, teachers can
be suspicious of nebulo
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 1:32 AM, Bastien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> "Bill Kerr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > • intuition
>
> [...]
>
> > • different ways of looking at maths (constructive and intuitive
> compared
> > with rule driven and formal)
>
> [...]
>
> > • other mathematicia
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 3:31 AM, Costello, Rob R
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I work in a real world school, and its not what it means there
Consider yourself lucky. Perhaps your school is just special.
Perhaps your whole country is special. In any case, you're in
an uphill battle if lots of peop
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Edward Cherlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:52 PM, Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> Unfortunately, the cold hard facts don't support the ideas.
>>
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Bastien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Bill Kerr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> • intuition
>
> [...]
>
>> • different ways of looking at maths (constructive and intuitive compared
>> with rule driven and formal)
It turns out that there is no essential di
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Edward Cherlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:52 PM, Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Unfortunately, the cold hard facts don't support the ideas.
>> In study after study, including the largest educational study
>> ever done, the
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:52 PM, Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Seth Woodworth writes:
>> [Future of Learning Group]
>
>>> We are developing "Constructionism" as a theory of learning and
>>> education. Constructionism is based on two different senses of
>>> "construction." It is groun
"Bill Kerr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> • intuition
[...]
> • different ways of looking at maths (constructive and intuitive compared
> with rule driven and formal)
[...]
> • other mathematicians who hold similar views - Poincare, Brouwer, Godel)
I'd be curious on how Cynthia rela
Hi Seth and all,
"Seth Woodworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Constructionism
>
> We are developing "Constructionism" as a theory of learning and education.
> Constructionism is based on two different senses of "construction." It is
> grounded in the idea that people learn by actively construct
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 9:06 PM, Costello, Rob R <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bill I agree that its risky to simplify down; and thumbnail definitions
> do oversimplify
>
>
>
> But I also think it must be possible/necessary, at some level, to do so
>
>
>
> Always having to say 'no, its more subtl
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 6:47 PM, Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> victor rajewski writes:
>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Albert Cahalan
>> wrote:
>
>>> You're using it exclusively, right...? (no bash, no MacOS, etc.)
>>>
>>> If it's not good enough for you, then it's definitely not
Bill I agree that its risky to simplify down; and thumbnail definitions
do oversimplify
But I also think it must be possible/necessary, at some level, to do so
Always having to say 'no, its more subtle or sophisticated than that'
can risk appearing as if there is no definite content or positi
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 2:30 AM, Costello, Rob R
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If constructionism means "the use of vague open-ended projects without
> instruction" then maybe more people would agree with you...
>
> But I can't see that anyone is really promoting that, except maybe as a
> paper ti
I work in a real world school, and its not what it means there
The challenge is how to balance the need for lots of instruction while
preserving the spirit of inquiry
Not entirely sure if you're just wanting to get a rise out of polarised
points of view, where accuracy or ability to see the whol
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 4:15 AM, Seth Woodworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Inspired by Sameer's recent conversations with a pair of Montessori
> Kindergarden teachers. I went to talk to Cynthia Solomon of the OLPC
> Learning team. We got to talking about the theory of Activities and a few
> ot
If constructionism means "the use of vague open-ended projects without
instruction" then maybe more people would agree with you...
But I can't see that anyone is really promoting that, except maybe as a
paper tiger to shadow box with
Eg constructivism (personal construction of knowledge) is not
victor rajewski writes:
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Albert Cahalan
> wrote:
>> You're using it exclusively, right...? (no bash, no MacOS, etc.)
>>
>> If it's not good enough for you, then it's definitely not good
>> enough to be forced on other people.
>
> That would be like expecting gnom
22 matches
Mail list logo
