Make your own free website on Tripod.com
Discussion Board
Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 97 times 
Date: Mon Feb 11 2002 12:32 pm
Author: Instructor <email>
Subject: Read Instructions carefully
Modify Forum Remove Forum

Activity Activity 2.10: Group Debate

In this activity, go to the designated Discussion Forum to discuss, elaborate, and most of all, debate the following position commonly held by cognitive information processing theorists:

POSITION: "Knowledge cannot be instructed (transmitted) by a teacher, it can only be constructed by the learner."


Instructions :

1) Identify you debate team:
 
Oppose Position Support Position
Student03
Student04
Student14
Student05
Student08
Student02
Student05
Student11
Instructor
Student19
Student01
Student15
Student09
Student13
Student07
Student06
Student12
Student10
Student18
Student08

2) Complete the online poll to record your personal position on the above assumption.

3) As in the previous debate, tag your messages by function. This time, please include team membership following the tags with (S) = supporting team, and (O) = Opposing team. For example: Enter "EVID(S) message title" to enter evidence in support of the position, and "EVID(O) message title" to enter evidence to support an argument in opposition to the position. For some reason, Blackboard cannot distinguish the + and - signs when using its search function. With the search function, you can easily list all arguments, evidence, and critiques posted by each team to help you assess team performance!

4) To receive full credit for this activity, you must post a minimum of 4 messages and complete the online polls.

5) Cast you vote in the online poll to determine which team won the debate! The results of the polls (before & after) will be posted by your instructor.
 
 
 
 

Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 33 times 
Date: Mon Feb 11 2002 7:44 pm
Author: Student04 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: POSo - Flawed statement
Remove Forum

"Knowledge cannot be instructed (transmitted) by a teacher, it can only be constructed by the learner."

This statement is flawed. A teacher can instruct learning, just as it is possible for learning to be constructed by the learner. More learning occurs from instruction than from learners synthesizing material that is read or thought about.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 32 times 
Date: Mon Feb 11 2002 8:53 pm
Author: Student11 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: EVIDo Re: POS - Flawed statement
Remove Forum

I also think the statement is flawed. While traveling in Germany briefly last summer, my husband needed to use the restroom. Unfortunately, the restrooms did not have pictures to indicate which was the men's room and which was the ladies room. My husband constructed his own theory by analyzing the words "damen" and "heron" based on what he knows of them. He concluded that damen must be the mens room because it contained the word "men" in it. He also figured that heron would logically be the ladies room because he recognized the word "her". As I am sure you can guess, his method of constructing this knowledge failed him and he was caught using the ladies room. It took a surprised German woman (I'll call her the teacher) to teach him to use the correct restroom.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 33 times 
Date: Mon Feb 11 2002 9:16 pm
Author: Student08 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: POSo Teacher guides experience
Remove Forum

I would disagree with the statement because I believe the teacher guides the student through the instruction to accomplish the instructional goal. Student08
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 46 times 
Date: Mon Feb 11 2002 9:20 pm
Author: Student10 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: POSs - Agreement
Remove Forum

POSITION: "Knowledge cannot be instructed (transmitted) by a teacher, it can only be constructed by the learner."

I agree with this statement in that knowledge is not something that can be instructed. Information can be presented in an instructional manner, and then the learner must take this information and construct it in such a way that it becomes knowledge for the learner. Knowledge cannot be taught, only information can be given.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 35 times 
Date: Mon Feb 11 2002 9:24 pm
Author: Student10 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: CRITs Guidance is not Knowledge
Remove Forum

I agree that a teacher can guide a student through the material and help them to achieve their goals, however, it is the student who has to turn this guidance into a willingness to learn, and therefore a desire to acquire knowledge. A teacher can guide a complete classroom of children through the subject matter, but not everyone will have the desire to "take the information home", and study it, learn it, and allow for it to become knowledge. Some students will gain the knowledge, and some will not.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 30 times 
Date: Mon Feb 11 2002 9:35 pm
Author: Student08 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: ARGo Communication is the key.
Remove Forum

I think the biggest flaw in this statement is the lack of communication there would be if only the student was responsible for learning. The teacher is the person who sends out the Instruction,the student then receives and processes it,then it is the teacher who ask questions, gives a quiz or a test to receive feedback to determine if learning has occurred or knowledge has been gained. Without this interaction between the student and the teacher there would be no proper assessment of what was learned or what the student knows. Student08
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 29 times 
Date: Mon Feb 11 2002 9:42 pm
Author: Student10 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: EVALs Communication paramount
Remove Forum

I think we are on the same track...the communication would have to be there from the teacher to the student, but then the student has to know what to do with the info to "learn" it, and at that point it becomes knowledge. The teacher should facilitate the learning process. Although I have had classes where the instructor really did very little in terms of guiding or instructing and the students had to read the book and learn it by themselves completely.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 28 times 
Date: Mon Feb 11 2002 10:30 pm
Author: Student08 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: ELABo Communication paramount
Remove Forum

I think it goes both ways. The teacher can do very little, just repeat what is written in the lesson or the student can have very little interest in the lesson and not encode the information. Either way very little meaningful learning is taking place. Student08
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 29 times 
Date: Tue Feb 12 2002 9:49 am
Author: Student08 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: POS (S)
Remove Forum


Teaching lays the foundation for what to do while The learner takes it upon themselves to learn the material. Learning happens when the teacher guides and the student follows.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 28 times 
Date: Tue Feb 12 2002 10:36 am
Author: Student13 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: ARGs Learning Goals
Remove Forum

POSITION: "Knowledge cannot be instructed (transmitted) by a teacher, it can only be constructed by the learner."


A teacher can instruct that Columbus sailed in 1492, but this is meaningless trivia and not "learned" information until the student can identify his reasons for sailing and the world changing implications of that voyage. Likewise, knowing that
12 x 20= 240 is nothing but a mental exercise if the student cannot calculate how many dozen donuts are needed for a breakfast meeting.
Both these examples show that information must be constructed by the learner to find meaning.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 29 times 
Date: Tue Feb 12 2002 11:23 am
Author: Student08 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: CRITo Learning Goals
Remove Forum

I would suggest that the reason that the student was able to construct a meaning learning experience was because the teacher transmitted the proper mental template to the student through instruction. An example would be a student solving a complex algebraic problem. The teacher would chain parts of the problem in small steps in order for the student to comprehend them. Only after sufficient practice and questioning the teacher would move on to advance portions of problem till the student was able to solve the entire problem at once. Student08
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 40 times 
Date: Tue Feb 12 2002 12:53 pm
Author: Student14 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: ARGo Learning vs Knowledge
Remove Forum

Your thoughts are based on the assumption that knowledge is the same thing as learning. I think knowledge is the same thing as information. So learning is the acquiring of that information.

Put simply, I am arguing that your thoughts would only be correct if the statement to be debated was "Learning cannot be instructed...."
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 31 times 
Date: Tue Feb 12 2002 6:08 pm
Author: Student16 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: ARGo No absolutes…
Remove Forum

This statement sounds like an absolute. I must certainly disagree.

From the dictionary:
Knowledge: What one knows, fact of knowing.
Instruct: Give knowledge, show how to do, teach, train, educate.
Construct: Put together, fit together, build.
Learning: Gaining of knowledge or skill.

I will argue that “Knowledge”, a state of knowing, can be “Instructed” by a teacher, but it will depend on whether the student’s mind will “Construct”, build anything with it.
Where knowledge is a state of being, the others are acts. The teacher instructs to place the student into a state of knowledge. The act of teaching is to give instruction. The student may or may not be actively seeking a state of knowledge. It is up to the teacher to control the environment and present the instruction in such a way as to move the student into the state of knowing. The teacher must present the information in understandable forms. The student must then make the necessary external and internal efforts to construct the information presented by the teacher into usable forms for the mind. These forms lead to knowledge acquisition.

I will compare this to eating. We must feed our body in order to remain healthy and live. However, we can’t simply present raw food to the body. We must properly prepare and digest it for the body to be able to access and use the essential life giving elements within the various things we eat. So, as we prepare and deliver food to the body, the teacher prepares and presents instruction/information to the student. Likewise, as the body digests the food we eat, the student’s mind constructs the information presented by the teacher into usable forms that result in a state of knowing.

All this is to say that it is a mutual process. The teacher and student must both actively engage if the process is to occur. The teacher can facilitate or hinder the process by the forms chosen for presenting the information. The student can close off the process by shutting down the mind. I will not go so far as to say that it is a 50/50 proposition, but it certainly lies somewhere in between.

“Knowledge can only be constructed by the learner…” taken to the extreme, this argument fails. If you place a person in a totally sensory deprived environment, nothing would be learned. The mind would have nothing with which to construct knowledge. In my view, the entire world is a teacher, the environment and all that lives within it. The mind must have a teacher of some form. Without sensory input no constructs can be made, no learning is possible.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 24 times 
Date: Tue Feb 12 2002 6:37 pm
Author: Student04 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: OTHo Re: EVID(O) Re: POS - Flawed statement
Remove Forum

I was also taught a valuable lesson while in Germany...the same one as your husband.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 28 times 
Date: Tue Feb 12 2002 7:41 pm
Author: Student02 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: POSo Disagree
Remove Forum

I totally disagree with the statement that instructors cannot transmit knowledge nor that the responsibility of the learning can only be constructed by the learner.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 23 times 
Date: Tue Feb 12 2002 8:06 pm
Author: Student02 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: ARGo GRE exams
Remove Forum

Before applying for this master's program many of us had to take the GRE exam. Books that talk about taking tests recommend avoiding answers with generalization words like "always", "never", and "only." This statement uses ONLY.

Also today's ed-research digest vol 1 #791 shared helpful writing hints including #14. One should NEVER generalize.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 31 times 
Date: Tue Feb 12 2002 9:14 pm
Author: Student05 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: ARGo
Remove Forum

My team must strongly oppose the statement. Because if it were true that knowledge can never be instructed than it makes the purpose of the course, the institution that sponsors it and the profession of teaching meaningless.

The statement is proven false by the increasing complexity of our lives and our technology. The human value of our current state of our technology can be questioned by the likes of the Unibomer, but the fact that it exists can not be deniged

The entire march of human history is the story of the transmission and enlargement of knowledge from one person to another, from one generation to another, one millennium to the next. If it were true, that knowledge cannot be transmitted only constructed, than each person, each family, and each generation would have to start human history anew.

Even without books, computers, libraries, and universities with distance learning. Knowledge was transmitted from one generation to the next by simple instruction, demonstration, and accumulation. It is this ability to accumulate knowledge that is one of the aspects that differentiates humans from other life forms.

Each generation, of domestic or wild animals must rely on its instinct and a very limited body of knowledge that can be transmitted by a demonstration without language. All the accumulated wisdom of the Alpha dog disappears with his demise.

The human ability to learn from others people's mistakes allows us this golden opportunity to try and avoid making the same mistakes over and over again.

The almost universal human desire to transmit knowledge starts with legends fables and other stories of instruction.

It progresses to the establishment of schools and universities.

So here we are, a group of students trying to become more knowledgeable teachers.

If we didn't all totally believe that we could learn from one another other how to better instruct others, we wouldn't be in this program.

Of course human knowledge can be instructed! That's just what I did about the fallacy of the debate statement.

You may not agree with my argument. But the fact that you learned about my position, is only because I just explained it, proves the point.

Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 26 times 
Date: Tue Feb 12 2002 9:18 pm
Author: Student14 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: POSo Depends on type of knowledge
Remove Forum

I disagree with the statement "Knowledge cannot be instructed (transmitted) by a teacher, it can only be constructed by the learner."

I agree with other postings that basically say that this statement is false because it is a generalization. For the most part, knowledge is transmitted, and then constructed - a combination of the two, rather than "only" one or the other.

I do think that some types of knowledge can be instructed by a teacher, without a student having to "construct" it. Straight facts, such as a date in history, for instance. Although the learner has to commit that fact to memory, I do not see that as an act of "constructing" knowledge.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 27 times 
Date: Tue Feb 12 2002 9:30 pm
Author: Student10 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: EVALs
Remove Forum

I agree with you...teaching only lays the foundation and it iss till ultimately up to the learner to want to acquire the information.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 27 times 
Date: Tue Feb 12 2002 9:35 pm
Author: Student10 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: ARGs Guidance
Remove Forum

The example of the teacher and the algebra problem is a prime example of guidance, but this is not learning. again the teacher is providing the material, offering the guidance, and ultimately it is up to the student to learn the material.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 32 times 
Date: Tue Feb 12 2002 9:42 pm
Author: Student10 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: EVIDs Learning vs Knowledge
Remove Forum

Knowledge and learning are very closely related. Knowledge is defined as the stateof knowing;learning. Learning is defined as gainign knowledge. With that in mind, these two words are practically synonyms.

I stand firm with my thoughts that information is presented or instructed, but the knowledge is later gained by the learner according to how the learner constructs the given information.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 25 times 
Date: Tue Feb 12 2002 9:48 pm
Author: Student10 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: POSs Depends on type of knowledge
Remove Forum

I am in agreement that knowledge generally results from a combination of the two. However, I would make a minor change to your statement "For the most part, knowledge is transmitted, and then constructed", because I do not see it as knowledge until the mind constructs it accordingly. I would say "Information is transmitted..."
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 26 times 
Date: Wed Feb 13 2002 10:48 am
Author: Student11 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: ARGo Re: ARGo
Remove Forum

Excellent argument Student16. I believe that it is a symbiotic relationship between the teacher and the learner that enables learning to take place. However, to say that it can ONLY be constructed by the learner is to overgeneralize the process. My profession as a teacher would be obsolete if I were unable to instruct students.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 28 times 
Date: Wed Feb 13 2002 11:20 am
Author: Student04 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: QUESo Re: EVALs
Remove Forum

Have you ever been instructed in something,not realizing you learned it? Things you don't contemplate or think about, then one day find yourself confronted with sonething to do with the subject and realize that you did learn about it. This kind of learning happens all the time. Little bits of information that form in your subconscious from some obscure instructor or teacher.

I don't believe that a person must make a conscious effort to learn everything that can be learned. Sometimes, learning happens without our being aware.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 25 times 
Date: Wed Feb 13 2002 11:28 am
Author: Student04 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: POSo Re: POSo Teacher guides experience
Remove Forum

Student08...I agree with you. The instruction and the instructor are the integral parts of most learning that takes place.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 22 times 
Date: Wed Feb 13 2002 12:10 pm
Author: Student12 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: CRITs Instruction vs. Learning
Remove Forum

"More learning occurs from instruction than from learners synthesizing material that is read or thought about."

I think this statement is flawed. If the instruction is ineffective or does not meet the learning preference of the student, it may not invoke learning. Learning occurs only when the student is able to make meaning of the instruction, and apply it to their prior knowledge. Instruction is only one means of imparting information. For example, instruction about learning theories only presents the information. Learning occurs when the student synthesizes the information and comes to their own conclusion about learning theory.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 28 times 
Date: Wed Feb 13 2002 12:24 pm
Author: Student02 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: EVIDo The book says...
Remove Forum

According to Marcy Driscoll, the author of the book we are studying, (p.11) a learning theory includes three components: results, means and inputs. In order for a learner to construct knowledge they must first have an input. Take the word "input" and break it into two parts: in and put. The knowledge or information must first be put in to the learner in order for them to process it.

She goes on to say about inputs (p11), "What triggers the process (of learning) to occur?" The answer would be the instruction transmits which in turn sets off the triggers. Cannot have the learning WITHOUT the instruction.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 29 times 
Date: Wed Feb 13 2002 9:26 pm
Author: Student06 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: EVIDs : Mathematically Speaking
Remove Forum

The following quote indicates one stand on the use of constructivism in the teaching of math.

"Students need to construct their own understanding of each mathematical concept, so that the primary role of teaching is not to lecture, explain, or otherwise attempt to "transfer" mathematical knowledge, but to create situations for students that will foster their making the necessary mental constructions. A critical aspect of the approach is a decomposition of each mathematical concept into developmental steps following a Piagetian theory of knowledge based on observation of, and interviews with, students as they attempt to learn a concept."
-
Calculus, Concepts, Computers, and Cooperative Learning (C4L)
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 27 times 
Date: Wed Feb 13 2002 9:32 pm
Author: Student03 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: QUESo
Remove Forum

Where did you come down on the issue of the brain and the mind in the previous debate? Seems that the knowledge and instruction of information are part of the same debate. Student03
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 20 times 
Date: Wed Feb 13 2002 9:46 pm
Author: Student03 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: CRITo
Remove Forum

I see nowhere about a discussion on its use of meaningfullness as part of the sentence. I see knowledge ie facts being provided by the teacher to a learner who then shows mastery of the data. Given the ability to use the information in ways other than a formula goes back to the brain and mind dicussion from our previous debate. I would say the teacher provides data ie knowledge and the learner then uses the data to constuct their point of view or thoughts. The data is still the same that was provided by the teacher.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 18 times 
Date: Wed Feb 13 2002 9:52 pm
Author: Student03 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: OTHo
Remove Forum

Student02: Glad I'm on your side with this debate. My survey was originally in support of this statement. Now I'm starting to be a convert.
My disagreement is along with Student02 that it is an absolute in its contention. I would submit that it is one of those "depends" relativistic situations. (does this pain me as I realy dislike relativism as a moral philosophy) The teacher could provide a set of facts and then provide a construct with the facts. The learner could also learn a set of facts and then construct the facts in a way not provided by the teacher.
Student03
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 18 times 
Date: Wed Feb 13 2002 10:00 pm
Author: Student06 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: Re: EVIDs …
Remove Forum

In response to your stand I it is possible that constructivists would no doubt agree that if one was sensory deprived, no learning would be a consequence of the deprivation. Your statements that "In my view, the entire world is a teacher, the environment and all that lives within it. The mind must have a teacher of some form. Without sensory input no constructs can be made, no learning is possible." My belief differs because of my view of the teacher in the debate statement would be one who was definitely concerned with the outcome of the input given. I am not sure that the entire world would be a teacher in that sense.
In support of the constructivist view, the environment does indeed lead to a learner's increase in knowledge.

"Two specific features of constructivist philosophy hold particular promise. The first is the notion, borrowed from research in child development, that play and experimentation are valuable forms of learning (c.f. Daiute, 1989; Garvey,1977; Herron & Sutton-Smith, 1971). Play involves the consideration of novel combinations of ideas, and the hypothetical outcomes of imagined situations and events. It is a form of mental exploration in which children create, reflect on, and work out their understanding." (Strommen & Lincoln, 1992,Technology and child-driven learning section, para. 3) accessed at
Constructivism, Technology, and the Future of Classroom Learning
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 24 times 
Date: Wed Feb 13 2002 10:02 pm
Author: Student03 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: JUDGo
Remove Forum

This was a well reasoned commentary on showing when teaching or transmitting knowledge obviously occurs. I would not try to deny the overall argument. I agree with the contentions that throughout history knowledge has been transmitted. The piece not discussed was when the learner constructed the facts in a way that hasn't been done prior to them via new theories, inventions or just a new way of doing something. I agree with my team mate on the opposing view, but believe the middle ground of recognizing that learners can construct knowlege should be acknowledged.
Student03
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 20 times 
Date: Wed Feb 13 2002 10:08 pm
Author: Student03 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: ARGo
Remove Forum

I absolutely agree with you but once again yours is a position that is totally onesided and leaves no ground for a middle discussion. The debate is an either or type of construct and I believe that in reality the sense is really "either or" can occur. The teacher can teach knowledge ie facts and the learner can take in data ie facts and then construct them as they wish. The two complement each other and a good teacher now how and when to use them. There is a place for both and Constructivism as I've read and learned embraces both points of view.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 17 times 
Date: Wed Feb 13 2002 10:16 pm
Author: Student03 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: ARGo
Remove Forum

I don't think that we need to mathematically understand why 1 + 1 = 2. It just is----sometimes simple facts are needed to build the basis for greater understandings. Then go on to the use of what you discuss. This type of discussion led our children into the learning to read without phonics. Sometimes the basics are learned by rote and just because that is what is best. I don't think Constructivism disagrees with that either. Mastery of the basics is a necessity.
Of course now it is possible I've let the doors open for another type of debate but............that's OK too.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 23 times 
Date: Wed Feb 13 2002 10:28 pm
Author: Student06 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: JUDGs
Remove Forum

Your point about the two complementing each other is well taken. The guiding or directing is very important when it is assumed the learner will have a certain anticipated output as a result of his or her "construction." I will still contend that the learner constructs knowledge whether the output is what is expected or not.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 28 times 
Date: Wed Feb 13 2002 10:49 pm
Author: Student06 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: ELABs Learning Goals
Remove Forum

The role of the teacher can make all the difference. Yet as a constructivist teacher, the key in my view is to activate what knowledge is already present in order to create additional knowledge based upon the experience.

"Constructivism has important implications for teaching. First, teaching cannot be viewed as the transmission of knowledge from enlightened to unenlightened; constructivist teachers do not take the role of the "sage on the stage." Rather, teachers act as "guides on the side" who provide students with opportunities to test the adequacy of their current understandings.

Second, if learning is based on prior knowledge, then teachers must note that knowledge and provide learning environments that exploit inconsistencies between learners' current understandings and the new experiences before them. This challenges teachers, for they cannot assume that all children understand something in the same way. Further, children may need different experiences to advance to different levels of understanding." (Hoover,1996,para. 5-6) The Practice Implications of Constructivism
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 17 times 
Date: Thu Feb 14 2002 2:08 am
Author: Student01 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: ARGs Definitions...
Remove Forum

Unfortunately I am entering this debate a little late in the game. However, it seems to me that before we can even argue this statement, we all need to be working with a similar definition of "knowledge" and "instruction." (though I think this is easier said then done) If we go back to chapter one, we see that there are many different epistemological orientations. Maybe you believe that knowledge is absolute and equates with truth (i.e. objectivism), or maybe that knowledge depends on the knower's frame or reference (i.e. interpretivism), or finally that absolute knowledge is a worthy but unreachable goal and therefore we should go with "what works." Where you stand on this issue probably defines where you stand on this argument.

Also, what about instruction? What does it mean to instruct? According to chapter one, instruction is the "deliberate arrangement of events to facilitate a learner's acquisition of some goal." According to this definition, the teacher is a facilitator. To me, this means the teacher teaches the information, and the students construct the information into a usable form that works for them (i.e. knowledge). And now that I've said this, I think I've come full circle to the first question of epistemological orientation. And personally, I tend to lean towards the pragmatism/interpretivism side of the house vise the objectivism side.

This entire statement has been somewhat train of thought, and I apologize if I failed to make at point?!)

-Student01
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 27 times 
Date: Thu Feb 14 2002 2:19 am
Author: Student01 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: EVIDs The book says...
Remove Forum

Nice analysis. So you're saying that you cannot have learning without instruction? Make sense, but I'm pretty sure I can think of some time when I learned something WITHOUT being instructed. Okay, here's one - Let's suppose I stare into the sun, and then realize afterwards that it hurts my eyes when I do that, and oh, by the way, I can't see so well either. I just gained the knowledge that when I look into the sun, it messes with my eyesight. There was no instructor presenting this lesson; just me and the sun. However, I still managed to construct some knowledge.

I think my example is pretty bad, but you get the idea. Does anyone out there have a better example to help that prove that learning can occur without instruction.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 30 times 
Date: Thu Feb 14 2002 7:21 am
Author: Student02 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: CRITo Back to the statement
Remove Forum

Student01, the point of learning from other sources is understood but what does that have to do with the statement that we are debating?

The statement says the teacher CANNOT instruct. ONLY the learner can construct knowledge. Where is the instructor's position in the learning process if only the learner can construct the information?

I do agree we learn in many different arenas from a variety of inputs.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 22 times 
Date: Thu Feb 14 2002 11:40 am
Author: Student08 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: ELAB (S)
Remove Forum

I think you are on the right track even though your eyes are smoking. You can get input from an instructor but it is the learner who takes that input and translates it into knowledge. I stand on the belief that Instructors show us the skeleton of knowledge and the learner fills it in
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 20 times 
Date: Thu Feb 14 2002 11:48 am
Author: Student08 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: EVAL (S)
Remove Forum

I think you are right in a lot of cases but the learner has to be willing to absorb the knowledge transmitted.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 21 times 
Date: Thu Feb 14 2002 11:54 am
Author: Student02 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: EVAL (O) Understood
Remove Forum

Student17,

My point is to emphasize the words used in the statement itself. I don't disagree with the concept learners can process information differently. I disagree with the omission of the instructor's involvement.

Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 22 times 
Date: Thu Feb 14 2002 12:06 pm
Author: Student02 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: CRITo Quote
Remove Forum

Student06
Your input has been remarkable. How do you find all those resources? But to keep with my assignment you quoted "Students need to construct their own understanding of each mathematical concept." However, how do they know what the mathematical concept is in the first place? Do they have to search the internet to find it? Even then someone had to provide that concept.

Your emphasis on the student constructing the knowledge is good but it still leaves out the first part of the statement that says Instructors cannot transmit the knowledge. Where do they fit into the equation? As you put it, a math equation might look like this:

Nebulous information (NI) somehow found itself to the constructivist learner (CL) who then constructed the information which produced learned knowledge (LK). NI + CL = LK?

OR are you saying ..
Constructed Learner - Instructor = Learned Knowledge?
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 27 times 
Date: Thu Feb 14 2002 12:08 pm
Author: Student02 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: JUDGo Back to math . . .
Remove Forum

Instruction(Teacher) + Construction(Learner) = Learned Knowledge
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 22 times 
Date: Thu Feb 14 2002 12:20 pm
Author: Student02 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: OTHo A little humor
Remove Forum

Switching Sides
Tuesday, February 5, 2002
A life long supporter of the labour party was lying on his death bed when he suddenly decided to join the Tory party.

"But why?" asked his puzzled friend, "You're labour through and through… Why change now?"

The man learned forward and explained, "Well, I'd rather it was one of them that died and not one of us."

Source: The Comedy Zone
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 19 times 
Date: Thu Feb 14 2002 3:55 pm
Author: Student06 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: ELABs
Remove Forum

Student02,

A number of years ago, I read an article in the "Mathematics Teacher" which introduced me to the constructivist philosophy. As I understand it a true constructivist does believe that their input is important, but the end result, the learning must be done by the student. Often, especially, when I was younger and less experienced, I would state to students, " I wish I could learn it for you, but I can't." As member of the team supporting the argument for the debate, I will take that stand. The concept of constructivism has been and is still widely discussed and used in the teaching of geometry. While in college, I studied "discovery learning" which was as I now realize, a constructivist point of view. Another term closeley related to this is a learner-centered approach. The teacher may motivate, but not necessarily transmit the knowledge directly to the student. The student needs time to sort out how this new experience is or is not like previous experience and formulate the "knowledge" as a result of that process, not the mere transmission from the teacher.



Student06
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 26 times 
Date: Thu Feb 14 2002 3:57 pm
Author: Student06 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: ELABs Back to math . . .
Remove Forum

As far as my experience with teaching and constructivism, I would adjust it slightly.

Constructive Learner + Previous Knowledge + Environmental Input + Time = Learned knowledge.

The environmental input would include the teacher and the guidance the teacher provides. This is definitely a learner-centered theory.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 28 times 
Date: Thu Feb 14 2002 6:06 pm
Author: Student08 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: ELABo Entry skills
Remove Forum

Student06 & Student02, I like the way you have simplified the topic of this debate into a formula. It makes it easy to see which inputs will result into the desired outcome. I think Student06 you bring up an interesting point about entry behaviors; this is an area I'm realizing is very important to any learning process. I think this points out a good reason why it is important to have a teacher presenting the information. The teacher has the ability to adapt to the learning mode that the students are most comfortable with. This eliminates any cookie cutter approach to instruction. I think in any classroom you are going to find a variety of learners who have different learning styles and ability levels. It is up to the teacher to provide the instruction in various ways and change the pace of instruction so that no student gets left behind (see Student11's definition of juxtapositions of instructional content). Student08
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 20 times 
Date: Thu Feb 14 2002 6:39 pm
Author: Student13 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: EVIDs
Remove Forum

Your comment reminded me of a teacher I once had who made absolutely no sense at all, but the tests continued to come. Our class naturally divided itself into several groups: Those who dropped out, Those who tried to make sense of what she was saying (and continued to struggle, I might add), and then those who formed a study group outside of class. Instruction is simply a "cue" that helps in the encoding processes.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 18 times 
Date: Thu Feb 14 2002 7:20 pm
Author: Student13 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: CRITs Self-teaching
Remove Forum

What about the many great leaders who were self-taught? Abe Lincoln, Leonardo DaVinci, Bell?
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 19 times 
Date: Thu Feb 14 2002 7:37 pm
Author: Student04 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: ARGo Re: CRITs Self-teaching
Remove Forum

They are not representative of the worlds popluation. There are many great people who were self-tauget.Then there are the hords of people who owe their knowledge to the great teachers of their day. I think it goes both ways. What about Helen Keller?
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 21 times 
Date: Thu Feb 14 2002 8:15 pm
Author: Student13 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: CRITs
Remove Forum

Regarding your statement: "What triggers the process (of learning) to occur?" The answer would be the instruction transmits which in turn sets off the triggers. Cannot have the learning WITHOUT the instruction."

IF our position was "Knowledge cannot occur without instruction" that would be true, but the position is "Knowledge cannot be instructed by a teacher..."

(I am assuming the word teacher refers to a human body.) : + }

Inputs can come from experiences, books, discussions(as in this class)or teachers.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 24 times 
Date: Thu Feb 14 2002 9:04 pm
Author: Student14 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: ELABo Absorption or construction?
Remove Forum

This is an interesting discussion with good points. Student16 originally stated that "If it were true, that knowledge cannot be transmitted only constructed, then each person, each family, and each generation would have to start human history anew."

Student03 added that knowledge is very often transmitted, but sometimes it is constructed. An example of "constructing" knowledge would be "constructing the facts in a way that hasn't been done prior to them via new theories, inventions or just a new way of doing something."

We all oppose the statement, because the sentence we are debating allows no room for both transmission and construction. I think that knowledge is not always "constructed." Sometimes it is transmitted, and then absorbed. Other times it is transmitted and then constructed. Occasionally, knowledge could be just constructed in the case of a self-taught individual, as was mentioned in another posting. However I would maintain that someone who is self-taught had to have knowledge transmitted from someone, at some early point in their life. (i.e. someone had to teach them how to read and speak the language). Someone who does not know the first thing about reading and writing would not be able to "construct" this knowledge without transmittal from an instructor of some sort.

Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 20 times 
Date: Thu Feb 14 2002 9:12 pm
Author: Student14 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: ARGo Not always constructed
Remove Forum

Ok - It is fair to say that "information" is transmitted. But I believe the second part of that sentence is that sometimes knowledge is just absorbed, rather than always constructed in the mind. (see where I talked about this in my posting just below this one).
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 23 times 
Date: Thu Feb 14 2002 9:38 pm
Author: Student10 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: CRITs Words of the Statement
Remove Forum

I have to point out that the statement we are debating says "Knowledge cannot be instructed by a teacher..."
whereas you are referring to the statement as saying "the teacher cannot instruct".

I think we are all in agreement that the teacher can certainly instruct...we are simply debating whether the teacher can directly instruct knowledge...
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 23 times 
Date: Thu Feb 14 2002 10:09 pm
Author: Student03 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: JUDGo
Remove Forum

Student06: I think the discussion I read at your link discusses Constructivism almost as another option rather than a theory. In addition I did not perceive it saying that the teacher couldn't be a "sage on a stage" rather that Constructivism didn't allow the construct of knowledge that way. It almost came across as a teacher style.
Student03
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 19 times 
Date: Thu Feb 14 2002 10:13 pm
Author: Student03 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: ARGo
Remove Forum

Student06: Time to agree to disagree as I think we're back to how the mind or brain works discussion. The basics are not a construct---now the person can provide the wrong answer back and then they have constructed their own data but the basics of data are just that and no more. There is nothing to construct.
Student03
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 21 times 
Date: Thu Feb 14 2002 10:18 pm
Author: Student03 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: OTHo
Remove Forum

Very well stated----got to the point about the "self-made person." Good comeback on that issue----they are probably just much better with the use of less instruction plus there is something to be said about ones gene pool being better than others to allow a genius to develop ie heredity does count and yes environment is a factor too but much less in my opinion that heredity. I'll leave religion out of the discussion, but ones God and their provisioning of knowledge could be included in the debate.
Student03
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 23 times 
Date: Thu Feb 14 2002 10:24 pm
Author: Student03 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: JUDGo
Remove Forum

Interesting that we eventually have ended up in the middle ground of the discussion. It is almost like in politics where one could argue the two main political parties are either "left of center or right of center." Our debate is starting to center to the point of "mostly instruction with some constructtivism" or "mostly constructivism with some instruction."
Student03
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 19 times 
Date: Thu Feb 14 2002 10:28 pm
Author: Student03 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: OTHo---switching sides?
Remove Forum

Student02: Do you really wish to die for this debate just so that you have the pleasure of decimating their numbers? So competitive.
Well done----have put the humor site in my Favorites.
Student03
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 20 times 
Date: Fri Feb 15 2002 12:11 am
Author: Student01 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: ELABs Back to the statement
Remove Forum

Okay. I guess my statement came off the wrong way. I didn't mean to offend you, I was just commenting on YOUR last statement which said "Cannot have the learning WITHOUT the instruction." I guess I didn't realize that learning from other sources was simply "understood."

Anyway, back to the debate, and the statement, "Knowledge cannot be instructed by a teacher, it can only be constructed by the learner." As someone else pointed out, it doesn't say the teacher cannot instruct, only that knowledge isn't transmitted to the student through the teacher's instruction, but rather the knowledge must be constructed by the learner. As far as where the teacher fits in, I think Student10 said it quite well we she said "...a teacher can guide a student through the material and help them to achieve their goals, however, it is the student who has to turn this guidance into a willingness to learn, and therefore a desire to acquire knowledge."

Once again, I apologize if I came off the wrong way in my last statement. I guess that's the problem with chats, you don't get to experience all the other forms of communication (i.e. facial expressions, tone of voice, etc).
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 22 times 
Date: Fri Feb 15 2002 12:15 am
Author: Student01 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: POSs I agree
Remove Forum

Student03,

I agree. I think that most of us stand somewhere in the middle, and trying to argue TOTALLY for one side seems to be difficult (I know it is for me).

-Student01
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 22 times 
Date: Fri Feb 15 2002 8:17 am
Author: Student06 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Elabs
Remove Forum

My interpretation is quite similar to yours. I further interpreted that option to be the application of the theory, which is the basis of my support. Theoretically it would seem that the constructivist does not believe the "sage on the stage" approach is actually the learning process.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 18 times 
Date: Fri Feb 15 2002 8:36 am
Author: Student06 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: POSs I agree²
Remove Forum

Student03 and Student01,

One extreme or the other does not seem to work based upon this debate. Per individual learning style, a person may gravitate more to one pole or the other so to speak.

Student06
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 23 times 
Date: Fri Feb 15 2002 3:03 pm
Author: Student02 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: ELABo
Remove Forum

No offense taken - Student01. Am enjoying the debate because it forces me to look at things from many different angles thus making this learning experience richer. Hope you are too.

My point continues to be the need to look at the way the statement is constructed (no pun intended). It is a sentence written with two statements joined together. Some of the debate appears to be arguing one side of the statement and not both. That is what I keep trying to say in my arguments but am probably not doing a very good job.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 19 times 
Date: Fri Feb 15 2002 3:07 pm
Author: Student02 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: Re: OTHo---to be or not to be
Remove Forum

Do not wish to die for the debate but felt the debate needed a lighter side. And yes, since we lost the last round am hoping we can win this one.

But agree with others, we have to debate not necessarily what we totally agree with beforehand but the debate opens our eyes to other perspectives which in the end can help us be better instructors.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 21 times 
Date: Fri Feb 15 2002 3:11 pm
Author: Student02 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: EVALo
Remove Forum

After a long week of discussions, I believe the statement has flaws.
"Knowledge cannot be instructed (transmitted) by a teacher, it can only be constructed by the learner."

1st Flaw) The first part of the sentence is not true - teachers can transmit knowledge and there seems to be a consensus in our class

2nd Flaw)The second part of the sentence overgeneralizes when it uses the word ONLY. We all agreed a person can learn from experiences, outside sources and people other than a teacher.

3rd Flaw) Together two wrongs don't make a right.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 19 times 
Date: Fri Feb 15 2002 5:49 pm
Author: Student14 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: ARGo
Remove Forum

I would argue that students do construct learning sometimes, but initial understanding of the concept must be transmitted to the student, in order to empower them to construct knowledge into different shapes and forms. Or as Student02 said, "how do they know what the mathematical concept is in the first place...someone had to provide that concept."

Really it seems the center of the argument is that you say a "teacher may motivate, but not necessarily transmit the knowledge directly to the student."

I argue that knowledge is first transmitted by a teacher...it serves as the input and possibly the trigger, as Student02 mentioned in an earlier posting. Then sometimes construction may occur. Knowledge has to be transmitted somehow, some way, or how else would we learn how to speak, read and write? In the case of illiteracy (learning disabilities aside), that person may not know how to read because no one has ever shown them how to read. You don't just KNOW how to read - someone has to transmit the letters and the words, so that you can begin constructing your own sentences (pardon the pun).

Really the statement up for debate is an either/or situation: "Knowledge cannot be instructed (transmitted) by a teacher, it can only be constructed by the learner" - . The statement does not allow for transmittal and then construction.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 27 times 
Date: Fri Feb 15 2002 6:36 pm
Author: Student09 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: POSs No Instructor...
Remove Forum

I am in support of the following:
POSITION: "Knowledge cannot be instructed (transmitted) by a teacher, it can only be constructed by the learner."

I honestly believe that I have gained much more knowledge in my life from situations in which there was no instructor than situations in which there was one; therefore, the knowledge from these situations (in which there is no instructor) would have to be constructed by me (the learner.)

Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 26 times 
Date: Fri Feb 15 2002 6:49 pm
Author: Student09 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: EVIDs - I agree with you
Remove Forum

This argument goes to the very heart of my personal learning theory.
In my theory I stated that learning is the acquisition of knowledge, both useful and useless, by any experience or cause, either intentional or coincidental. (And coincidental knowledge would have to be constructed by the learner because it is not instructed by nature.) I feel that all people learn far more than they can readily recall. Any information picked up or perceived by any sensory experience is part of our ongoing collective thought process. We gather and accumulate much more information than our brains can possibly process, and yet, all of this is stored to become part of our subconscious thought process.
Our environment plays a part in everything that we do. We construct our ideas for the way things are by our reactions to our environment. Instruction may play a part in our learning, but, in the end, we will only get out of it what we want to.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 22 times 
Date: Fri Feb 15 2002 7:03 pm
Author: Student01 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: OTHs good to hear...
Remove Forum

Student02,

I'm glad to hear that you did not take offense to my first comment. It's so hard sometimes to know exactly where folks are coming from with their statements. What do they say, communication is like %80 non-verbal? So that makes emails and chats a little hard to read sometimes!? Anyway, I too am enjoying the debates. And please, feel free to keep me on track if I tend to wander off! Thanks.

-Student01
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 22 times 
Date: Fri Feb 15 2002 7:04 pm
Author: Student09 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: ARGs Unreliable Instruction
Remove Forum

For an argument in support of this position, I have to bring up the question of unreliable instruction. What if the instruction given is not true? For example, let's say that an attorney is gathering information for a trial, and he knows that a witness (who is indeed supposedly instructing him in his knowledge of the events of the case) is lying. This attorney has to construct his own knowledge from the information that has been transmitted by the teacher (witness.)
As learners, we also have the right to reject parts of our instruction, and construct our own knowledge from the parts that we do accept (if any.) If we did not construct our own meaning from instruction, would there ever be new ideas? Wouldn't we just regurgitate facts that had been handed down to us? From the example in the text: wouldn't we still think that the earth is flat?
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 25 times 
Date: Fri Feb 15 2002 7:16 pm
Author: Student09 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: CRITs Instructional Mistruths
Remove Forum

What if the instructor is guiding his students down the wrong path? What if Galileo never constructed his own meaning from the instruction that was presented to him that the sun revolves around the earth?
Luckily, we have the power to reject the knowledge of our instruction and construct our own knowledge from it (or without it.) Obviously, people involved in the field of learning theories have done so. If not, we wouldn't be having this debate (and they wouldn't have either.) Everyone would have just accepted the first learning theory that was devised, and our textbook would be much shorter.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 17 times 
Date: Fri Feb 15 2002 7:18 pm
Author: Student01 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: ARGs nicely put...
Remove Forum

Student02,

Nicely put! I agree 100% with your second flaw, however, I'm not sure about he first? I think I question the two words "transmit" and "knowledge." What exactly does it mean to transmit? My American Heritage Dictionary says to transmit is "to send from one person, thing, or place to another." However, people are not exactly like computers (as we saw earlier in our first metaphor exercise), and therefore we can't just upload or download information (or knowledge) and assume the other person has got it. Secondly, did we come to a consensus on knowledge? I haven't actually read all the comments, so maybe we did? But from my perspective it seems that a person's definition of knowledge is very important in determining where that person stands on this statement.

When the day is done, however, I agree with you that the statement overall is flawed. Did I just submit and say "uncle" on this issue? Oops, sorry team!

-Student01
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 23 times 
Date: Fri Feb 15 2002 7:23 pm
Author: Student09 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: EVIDs Instruction-less experiences
Remove Forum

I completely believe that 'learning happens without our being aware.' As a matter of fact, there often is no instructor. Our experiences create knowledge. Sometimes these are instructional experiences, many times they are not.
How can an instruction-less experience be transmitted by the instructor? This would have to be an example of the learner constructing his own knowledge.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 21 times 
Date: Fri Feb 15 2002 7:25 pm
Author: Student07 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: ELABs Quantom Physics
Remove Forum

Another example where constructivism is the only possible approach is in quantum physics.
How does one explain the basic physical particles? One cannot objectively observe them, so one has to construct an explanation for what one does know or has observed. Is it the absolute truth? It is until someone comes up with a better explanation, which has occured several times in history. At that point, reality changes because the new explanation better fits the facts.
What is the absolute truth about particles? Who knows? There may not even be any electrons, photons, quarks, charmed quarks, etc. But an explanation has been CONSTRUCTED that seems to explain the facts.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 21 times 
Date: Fri Feb 15 2002 7:30 pm
Author: Student07 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: CRITs Instructor Necessary?
Remove Forum

Instructors (and I am one) don't want to admit this, but learning can take place in the total absence of any communication between an instructor and a student based on the student's innate desire to learn and explore for oneself. In this case, the instructor, and communication from instructor to student, is peripheral and unnecessary. Instead, in this instance the acquisition of knowledge is totally student driven.
The great leaps in knowledge in history, for instance Einstein's theory of relativativy, are not instructor driven at all, but rather driven by the student alone.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 21 times 
Date: Fri Feb 15 2002 8:37 pm
Author: Student03 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: JUDGo
Remove Forum

Student07:
No argument with you on this subject of quantum physics----maybe wait a century or two and then it may be as simple as 1 + 1 = 2. In the meantime, I'll stick with the basis that Mastery of the Basics is instructed by a teacher, while higher order items are constructed. I know that is splitting the argument. I think that is where I am settling and as I believe Truth is more important than "winning" a debate, my current position is as stated.
Student03
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 16 times 
Date: Fri Feb 15 2002 11:05 pm
Author: Student11 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: JUDGo Re: ARGo
Remove Forum

Student14,
I think you took the words right out of my mouth. The basic argument here ends up being the exact wording of the statement, which I do disagree with. I can think of several things I have learned over the years that would have been impossible if not for a teacher or mentor instructing me. Once I was instructed, I then constructed that knowledge into my own schemata.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 18 times 
Date: Fri Feb 15 2002 11:44 pm
Author: Student12 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: CRITs Always constructed
Remove Forum

I think all knowledge, whether instructed or self-taught has to be constructed. The brain has to create a place to store the information, and so must construct a memory, usually by pairing it with prior knowledge or a sensory stimulus that is somehow related. In order to "absorb" information, it must be processed by the brain.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 17 times 
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 12:12 am
Author: Student12 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: ELABs Knowledge defined
Remove Forum

Student01,
You and Student06 both stated this very well. Knowledge is the state of knowing. This cannot be instructed. The teacher can transmit "information" to a learner, but "knowledge" cannot be transmitted. It is only the learner who can form knowledge. If a teacher could transmit knowledge, then all students would learn equally well, in the same way.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 19 times 
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 12:33 am
Author: Student12 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: EVIDs Invention
Remove Forum

Good point, Student13! If we didn't construct knowledge, would we have progressed as a culture? Those great minds that have been mentioned (Einstein, Gallileo, Bell, DaVinci...) built on their knowledge. The inventions and technology we know today were created from knowledge, but not necessarily from instruction.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 21 times 
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 9:07 am
Author: Student02 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: OTHo Email netiquette
Remove Forum

Totally agree Student01. It is hard to know what or how someone is saying something using the email without the non-verbal cues. I'm sorry too if it sounded like I was offensive not intended at all. In fact, if I was in a F2F class I'm not sure that I would be as involved with the debate.

To be in a DL course one has to learn how to write very clearly. Please let me know if I am off-track too.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 17 times 
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 9:41 am
Author: Student04 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: JUDGo Re: ELABs Knowledge defined
Remove Forum

I think the "instructor" transmits "knowledge" to the learner. Learners can learn without "constructing" anything. Just setting and learning.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 17 times 
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 9:47 am
Author: Student04 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: ELABo Re: ELABs Quantom Physics
Remove Forum

What about music? Everyone hears music in their own way. If in a humanities class, you better hear what the professor is hearing...for the test. He will instruct you how to listen to the music and hear what he hears so you can pass his test. Without his instruction, you would not be able to construct the same meaning (probably) and pass his test.

Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 19 times 
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 9:52 am
Author: Student04 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: ARGo Re: POSs No Instructor...
Remove Forum

If you can think of one instance where you gained knowledge from instruction, you just disproved the statement.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 17 times 
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 10:17 am
Author: Student07 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: QUESs: Music Composition
Remove Forum

How does one compose a new piece of music? Does one learn it from an instructor? Or does one construct that piece of music. Indeed, a talented music composer (and I am not one of them) can create something entirely new or rearrange existing information in an entirely new way. That is, he constructs a new reality that is pleasing to the ear.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 18 times 
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 10:30 am
Author: Student07 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: ELABs: Vulcan Mind Meld
Remove Forum

I honestly can't think of a single instance where knowledge was transmitted to me from an instructor. The only example I can think of this occurring is the ficticious "Vulcan Mind Meld" from the orginal Star Trek series, where the Vulcans were capable of direct transmission of knowledge from one to another.
An instructor must make information relevant by jogging loose thoughts and memories of context, practical application, and previous experience that prompt the student to construct the knowledge. Otherwise the information is put forth by the instructor and even if the student makes an attempt to memorize it, without contextual meaning the information quickly evaporates from short term memory, never transforming itself into knowledge.
Why can a kindergarten student not study college level material? Because that student has not yet constructed an adequate foundation for the college level material to have meaning. Without that foundation, the information has no relevance and cannot be learned. If knowledge can be transmitted from instructor to student, the foundation shouldn't matter.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 20 times 
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 11:12 am
Author: Student07 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: JUDGs: Teacher's Role
Remove Forum

I don't think there is a person in this class who could argue that there is not a role for the teacher in learning. Or we wouldn't be here. But....
The role of the teacher is not to transmit knowledge. It is to provide information, create a motivational environment, encourage, cajole, and so on. All the things we love to do. But the teacher CANNOT transmit knowledge. Boy are there times when I wish I could.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 24 times 
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 11:14 am
Author: Student16 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: ARGo learning, right or wrong…
Remove Forum

The beauty of this debate is that each side has valid arguments to support their half of the issue. The only clear answer is that the truth lies somewhere in between. In my opening argument I stated that all the world’s a teacher. The learner may take one point of view; such as the world is flat, and hold on to that as the final truth. Another learner may observe the world and conclude that it is not. Regardless of whether the conclusions are right or wrong, learning has occurred. The teacher may be the natural environment or another person. What I see as being essential is for there to be some teaching agent present for the learner to have something to take in and build knowledge with.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 20 times 
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 11:29 am
Author: Student07 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: CRITs: Accumulation of Knowledge
Remove Forum

Very powerful argument. So if I got it right, you are saying that Constructivism cannot explain the accumulation of knowledge.
I would say that there is no evidence that an accumulation of knowledge has occurred. An accumulation of INFORMATION has occurred. Vast improvements in systems for the storage and retrieval of that information, as well as in the media for distributing, encoding and decoding that information have occurred over the generations. This has made it easier for individuals to construct knowledge, but it has not transmitted any knowledge to any individual.
To me, the human mind has an incredible ability to construct knowledge, given easy access to information. Lets say you and I were both given the task of building a house. We both have to construct it. But I (like the early generation) am given a forest and some sand. I would have a very difficult time constructing the house. You, on the other hand (like a later generation) are given the trees already cut into lumber, the sand made into glass, a set of architectural drawings representing a house, a CAD program that allows you to look at any detail of the house you wish, and an identical house next door that you can go look at for an example if you are puzzled.
Who will have an easier time constructing the house?
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 28 times 
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 11:53 am
Author: Student16 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: CRITo Teacher as facilitator...
Remove Forum

Without any form of instruction, each generation would have to reinvent the proverbial wheel. The modern student has innumerable teachers. Any source of information is a teaching agent: books, video, all forms of communication, other people, and personal experiences. If a learner was left to survive without any guidance, I don’t think much progress would be made in constructing accurate knowledge. On page 387 of the text, reference is made to Spiro and “multiple juxtapositions” of instructional content. This is where the teacher revisits the same material, at different times, in rearranged contexts. The effect is to provide the learner with different conceptual perspectives to attain advanced knowledge acquisition. This is what I believe is necessary for the experience of sudden illumination, inspiration. Einstein, for example, could not entirely explain some of his work. He intuitively came to some of his conclusions. These were the result of his mind synthesizing various perspectives and arriving at new interpretations, new perspectives. I think that the text proposes that such illuminations could be facilitated by a teacher who “criss-crosses the landscape” of instructional inputs to enrich the student’s learning base. This will generate Einstein like illuminations in greater frequency among the learning population. The teacher is essential to the learning process as a facilitator of rapid acquisition of advanced knowledge.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 20 times 
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 12:15 pm
Author: Student16 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: ELABo The gifted teacher…
Remove Forum

A truly gifted teacher is one who crafts a curriculum that is rich with a variety of information sources, activities, and presentation methods. This rich learning environment will maximize the learning experience for all students. I will agree that in some cases the students will not even be aware that learning has occurred until some later time. The student does not have to read every page of every book. The master teacher is the editor, navigating the students through an ocean of information to the essential facts. Without such guidance, most students would become lost.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 21 times 
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 12:17 pm
Author: Student03 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: CRITo
Remove Forum

This is a piece of cake----the latter generation would have an easier time. Why? They could and do access the information to have them walked "step by step" to build the home. Each piece of information is data that is taught to them ie knowledge. Now if the person wishes to deviate from the data provided to them and do something different, they are now constructing the information.
Student03
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 18 times 
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 12:22 pm
Author: Student03 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: ARGo
Remove Forum

Now we are into the taught and genius discussion, which I'll avoid. Us mere mortals are taught the notes first ie the teacher provides us the knowledge. Those who can then do better than rote playing and can use the nuance of music writing or playing are into constructing music.
Student03
PS: My continuing theme is we do both in learning; basics first are taught and then the person contructs the knowledge.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 22 times 
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 1:22 pm
Author: Student11 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: ARGo Re: CRITs: Accumulation of Knowledge
Remove Forum

I have read several times in this debate the statement "don't recreate the wheel". It sounds like the house analogy is just that. There is no need to build the house directly from the forest of trees and sand. Someone before us taught us a better way, as I am sure we will build upon and teach an even better way to the next generation (I hope). So, while I agree that we do build or construct our knowledge, for most of us we have had the help of a teacher or mentor to inform us of what has already been learned before.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 22 times 
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 1:52 pm
Author: Student15 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: OTHs
Remove Forum

I agree with your positon, Student10. Well put!
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 17 times 
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 2:03 pm
Author: Student15 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: POSs Literal Interpretation
Remove Forum

Although I am on the supporting side, I believe that the statement is very narrow. "Knowledge cannot be instructed (transmitted by a teacher), it can only be constructed by the learner." If I were to take the statement as literal as possible I would interpret it as saying that knowledge cannot just be transplanted into someone. I agree. It's not like we have some tube that sucks knowledge from one person and gives it to another. Information is presented to us in many different ways and we take that information and categorize it in schemas, pick it apart and interpret it so that it makes sense and we understand. It is our acquisition of the knowledge and what we do with it (ie. construction) that allows us to gain knowledge.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 22 times 
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 2:12 pm
Author: Student15 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: EVALs
Remove Forum

Constructing knowledge doesn't have to be a conscious effort. I believe that we learn sometimes without knowing it. This is were the earlier debate on our internal processes comes into play. Piaget talked about schemas and assimilation and associations. We do that subconsciously and in the process we expand our knowledge. I think that could also fall under constructing knowledge because we are making connections.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 20 times 
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 2:20 pm
Author: Student15 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: OTHs Teacher's Role
Remove Forum

Nicely put, Student07. I think all teachers wish we could transmit our knowledge to our students.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 18 times 
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 2:51 pm
Author: Student12 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: ARGs Building knowledge
Remove Forum

I believe all learning is constructed. "Regardless of what is being learned, constructive processes operate and learners form, elaborate, and test candidate mental structures until a satisfactory one emerges (Perkins, 1991a)." (Driscoll, p. 376)
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 19 times 
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 2:59 pm
Author: Student15 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: EVALs Mathematically speaking
Remove Forum

Wonderful quote. While I was studying to be an elementary teacher, the how to teach children mathematics class focused on the constructivist theory. Each student had to construct their knowledge so that instead of rote memorization of basic facts they knew why 1+1=2 and so on. I totally agree with constructivism for mathimatics. Students need to understand the concept behind the algorithms or else it is just procedural knowledge and they have not made connections.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 14 times 
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 3:45 pm
Author: Student09 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: JUDGs Excellent Point
Remove Forum

Student07,

Thank you for your excellent points. Before I started this debate, I strongly believed that I was opposed to the statement. Now that I have read the comments of others, and thought about how to defend the statement, I am truly in support of it. I agree that there is no way for an instructor to 'transmit' knowledge to a student. There has to be some construction of this information so that it can become knowledge. Your 'vulcan mind meld' point and the idea of teaching kindergarteners college material really drove this point home. Knowledge is power, but it is useless unless given in the proper context and then assimilated by the pupil.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 18 times 
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 4:31 pm
Author: Student13 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: ELABs complex learning environments
Remove Forum

Helen Keller is also a unique situation, but one we can't ignore. Her reality did not reflect the real world. It took a great teacher like Annie Sullivan to hold Helen in her "zone of proximal development." In our text, "teachers must not only coach students who lack prerequisite skills, but persuade those who are unwilling or unmotivated to engage in instruction." (Driscoll 381) Annie Sullivan helped Helen to view the world using the only sensory mode she had available- and it worked. "Students cannot be expected to learn to deal with complexity unless they have the opportunity to do so." (CTGV, 1991a,Driscoll p. 383)

Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 20 times 
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 4:52 pm
Author: Student13 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: ELABs
Remove Forum

I don't believe that constructivism is embracing a teacherless society. Your gifted teacher is probably emphasizing learning in context, providing meaningful activities, role-play, public-speaking opportunities, allowing opportunities for students to develop their own interests, is usings mulitiple modes and perspectives in the curriculum, and in addition stays late to help remediate those who need it. These are all Constuctivist conditions for learning- The teachers keep dworking until the student finds meaning.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 18 times 
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 4:53 pm
Author: Student02 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: EVIDo Jeopardy Game
Remove Forum

What is knowledge?
KNOWLEDGE applies to facts or ideas acquired by study, investigation, observation, or experience

What is learning?
LEARNING applies to knowledge acquired especially through formal, often advanced, schooling.

What is instruct?
1 : to give knowledge to : TEACH, TRAIN
2 : to provide with authoritative information or advice

What is transmit?
1 a : to send or convey from one person or place to another

All quotes taken from Webster's Online Dictionary
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 17 times 
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 5:05 pm
Author: Student14 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: POSo Somewhere in between
Remove Forum

I agree with you that the truth lies somewhere in between. And the statement is so narrow, it does not allow for that.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 17 times 
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 5:42 pm
Author: Student03 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: EVIDo
Remove Forum

Reading Driscoll's book on page 395, the Conclusion discusses that Constructivism may be a philosophy and thereby would not be in conflict or competing with other instructional heories. It would be "an alternative set of values that deserve serious consideration."
After going over Chapter 3, it continually reinforces the congnition theory. Constructivism is not the computer metaphor and on page 377 of Driscoll's book (Chapter 11) it reiterates that. So, what I like most of all from Chapter 3 is that "the instructor monitors student achievements and takes corrective action as necessary." This is where the teacher's actions are more important that the teacher's expectations.
Once again the input is important and the assessment of performance and thereby taking action to ensure performance is to standard. Teachers teach and the those who are good use all types of learning theories to help students learn.
Student03
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 15 times 
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 5:42 pm
Author: Student13 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: CRITs The Basics
Remove Forum

Just a few thoughts that popped in my head while reading this discussion:

We cannot teach the basics to anyone who is not ready to construct the information. I can try to teach my two year old that 2 times 2 is four, but she won't be able to construct that yet.
My mother couldn't learn how to use the internet because she wasn't ready to construct the knowledge. It didn't matter how we showed her- it wasn't happening UNTIL SHE wanted to buy something she couldn't get in tiny Lake County. Wow, it's amazing how quickly she picked up on it. Now the "flip-flop Grandma" is surfing the world.

Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 13 times 
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 7:36 pm
Author: Student04 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: OTHo Re: ELABs complex learning environments
Remove Forum

Nice research Student13.

Good debate!
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 18 times 
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 7:42 pm
Author: Student04 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: JUDGo Re: CRITo Teacher as facilitator...
Remove Forum

Student05,

I think you made our case with that one.

Yee Haw
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 17 times 
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 9:58 pm
Author: Student12 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: CRITs Not Step by Step
Remove Forum

All information is not learned "step by step" and not all learning is instructed. For example, I grew up watching my father build houses. Sometimes he showed me (or instructed) how to do a task (such as how to wire a receptacle or nail a shingle), but for the most part, I learned by watching, experimenting, and practicing. Consequently, as an adult, I was able to build my own house, without having to be instructed. My knowledge was constructed from engaging in and observing the practice of building a house. I do not believe it was "taught" to me.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 15 times 
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 10:13 pm
Author: Student12 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: CRITs Test Memorization
Remove Forum

"He will instruct you how to listen to the music and hear what he hears so you can pass his test. Without his instruction, you would not be able to construct the same meaning (probably) and pass his test."

I question the value of the learning going on in a situation where the learner is instructed to pass a test. Is that knowledge? I think this actually supports the statement that knowledge cannot be instructed by a teacher. How many of those students will actually remember those music pieces once the test is over?
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 16 times 
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 11:34 pm
Author: Student12 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: CRITs Facilitator/Teacher
Remove Forum

I think you make a correct assumption when you state: "The teacher is essential to the learning process as a facilitator of rapid acquisition of advanced knowledge." The teacher is the facilitator of learning, but does not instruct (transmit) knowledge.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 16 times 
Date: Sun Feb 17 2002 8:08 am
Author: Student03 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: EVALo
Remove Forum

By your own statement you said "All information is not learned "step by step" so it would appear to me that you agree that some learning is learned "step by step." The point being that cognitive learning is an accepted theory of learning where Constructivism as a philosophy allows for cognition learning.
Student03
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 15 times 
Date: Sun Feb 17 2002 8:12 am
Author: Student03 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: EVALo
Remove Forum

Does this mean she couldn't learn or wouldn't learn. Was it construct or failure to receive input? I would argue it is a matter of desire to allow input. Not unlike a computer that can not receive input. Does that mean the computer can not construct?
Student03
PS: Glad your Grandma is surfing and enjoying. My Mom is still in the "refusenik" stage----to her loss in my opinion but she refuses to receive the input to know how to operate the equipment.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 15 times 
Date: Sun Feb 17 2002 10:10 am
Author: Student18 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: OTHs: Learning vs Knowledge
Remove Forum

I feel that knowledge we acquire is a result of what and how we learn from instruction. However, instruction can can come in many different methods. We can be instructed by people, nature, pretty much anything. Whether we take that instruction and apply it to future reference is where I see the knowledge coming into play.

-Student18
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 15 times 
Date: Sun Feb 17 2002 7:10 pm
Author: Student03 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: CRITo
Remove Forum

If you narrowly define the teacher as a person or as been said elsewhere the whole world is a teacher----so what in the world propelled Einstein and the other greats in history to develop their concepts? Certainly they had a basis of facts to draw upon that were taught to them by a teacher.
The problem in the debate goes to the narrowness and the polarized statement. It is somewhere in between.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 15 times 
Date: Sun Feb 17 2002 7:14 pm
Author: Student11 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: OTHo
Remove Forum

I tend to agree with you Student03 about the narrowness of the statement. It sounds like many of us fall somewhere in the middle.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 13 times 
Date: Sun Feb 17 2002 7:19 pm
Author: Student03 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: EVALo
Remove Forum

I keep listening to the word "transmit" used as if when a teacher provides the information in some format ie transmits, that the end result means or requires that the student receives the information. The receiver whether it be mechanical or human has to be in a receive mode ie working properly to take in the message and properly "read" it.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 13 times 
Date: Sun Feb 17 2002 7:21 pm
Author: Student03 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: OTHo
Remove Forum

Student11:
So how do we vote is the question? It will be interesting to see how this turns out----we're both right is the answer?
Student03
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 14 times 
Date: Sun Feb 17 2002 7:24 pm
Author: Student03 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: EVIDo
Remove Forum

Student12:
If you say the memory has to be constructed, it would sound a lot like Chapter 3 on Cognitive Information Processing--page 78, Table 3.1 on Summary of Memory Stages.
Student03
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 12 times 
Date: Sun Feb 17 2002 7:35 pm
Author: Student03 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: EVIDo
Remove Forum

I would say that the "teacher" needs to be more broad and that the teacher could be the words of a teacher long dead. How many of us have read a list of books labled something like The Great Books of History? Has not wisdom and knowledge been provided from the readings of Socrates, Shakespeare and Martin Luther? Great teachers in three different eras with three different aspects of approaching knowledge: philosophy, playwright and religion.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 14 times 
Date: Sun Feb 17 2002 7:41 pm
Author: Student03 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: EVIDo
Remove Forum

What I hear is a discussion of what you believe is best for the student to learn. This is once again a discussion of philosophy of which is best and not what can happen. By your own words you state that a teacher can teacher the basic information and knowledge via rote memorization. Teaching the basics and also the connections between the two is possible. It is highly possible that the Construcitivist philosophy allows a student to retain it better because they discover the information on their own. Chapter 3 in Cognition would support that type of discussion.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 14 times 
Date: Sun Feb 17 2002 7:53 pm
Author: Student03 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: EVIDo
Remove Forum

Student12: Objectivist theory reiterated on page 376 from Dricoll, states that "knowledge of the world comes about through an individual's experience of it. As this experience grows broader and deeper, knowledge is represented in the individual's mind as an ever-closer approximation of how the world realy is..." Juxtapose this to page 377 from Driscoll where she stated "knowledge constructions do not necessarily bear any correspondence to external reality."
My view is that knowledge should bear something to reality and not just some mind contruct of the person. I understand reality is how you define it vis a vis the example of the flat earth being "right" based upon the information availabe at the time.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 12 times 
Date: Sun Feb 17 2002 8:02 pm
Author: Student03 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: ARGo
Remove Forum

Game and point to Student02. A K through 12 education is required to acquire the knowledge taught in each level of schooling prior to attending college. Some acquire the information faster than others but gaining the knowledge is required and it can't be learned all at once. Lastly the flat earth was defined via the information provided to people. Even if you want to use a construct theory you still can't explain the flat earth theory as being nothing but wrong----neither side wins a debate using the flat earth for its argument. Objectivism is supported as it states it relies on external information and then continues to build upon it with further information----that is how we eventually came to know the earth was not the center of the universe.
Student03
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 14 times 
Date: Sun Feb 17 2002 8:05 pm
Author: Student10 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: OTHs Seeing Both Sides
Remove Forum

I can see how the truth could lie somewhere in between. I know that I have an opinion on this subject, but I can see how the statement that we are debating can be fought both directions. But it does make for a very interesting debate!
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 14 times 
Date: Sun Feb 17 2002 8:15 pm
Author: Student10 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: JUDGs The real question??
Remove Forum

This is a narrow statement to debate. I tend to think that the real question we are trying to answer is whether knowledge can strictly be "transmitted"? Or is knowledge something that is derived from information that is presented by an instructor. And when I say instructor, I am referring to anyone or anything that presents information. Someone in the class said the world is our instructor...and I agree.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 10 times 
Date: Mon Feb 18 2002 8:41 am
Author: Student13 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: ELABs motivation
Remove Forum

"I would argue it is a matter of desire to allow input"

Student03, that is just the point. Motivation is everything and outstanding teachers spend their entire careers working on how to improve this. But until the student can find some real reason to "own" the information, the knowledge will not construct itself into meaningful information.

Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 8 times 
Date: Tue Feb 19 2002 8:12 pm
Author: Student03 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: QUESo Is it an on/off switch?
Remove Forum

Student13: If you use the computer metaphor, then the motivation piece is nothing more than allowing the switch to be "on" versus "off."
Student03
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 10 times 
Date: Sun Mar 3 2002 5:36 pm
Author: Student05 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: CRITo Instructional Mistruths
Remove Forum

Galleiio used experimental observation using his telescope to support his theories. He just didnt "construct" this new knowledge. He found physical evidence that was at odds with the existing dogma and didnt fit with with a geocentric view of the univers.

Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 6 times 
Date: Sun Mar 3 2002 5:36 pm
Author: Student05 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: CRITo Instructional Mistruths
Remove Forum

Galleiio used experimental observation using his telescope to support his theories. He just didnt "construct" this new knowledge. He found physical evidence that was at odds with the existing dogma and didnt fit with with a geocentric view of the univers.

Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 5 times 
Date: Sun Mar 3 2002 5:51 pm
Author: Student05 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: ARGo Software construct
Remove Forum

Here is an example of pure constructivism. At my work some times our Information management group put some new software or a revised version of existing applications on the company intranet.

No training, no instruction, no explaination, each employee is expected to construct thier own knowledge, meaning and usefull from this new application.
Post response

Current Forum: Activity 2.10 Debate on ConstructivismRead 6 times 
Date: Sun Mar 3 2002 6:08 pm
Author: Student05 <email@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: ELABo Mosaic
Remove Forum

We may become aware of information through various means including formal instruction. Knowledge is constructed when we put that information together with other bits and piecs we \have accumilated along the way. Some people see the various bits of infromation as so many bits of shiny shards of colored glass while other are able to construct a stained glass mosaic.
Post response

Back to previous screen