tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4343773643758367735.post150494565971023418..comments2023-10-29T11:15:37.625-04:00Comments on sleeping alone and starting out early: why I am not a constructionistJenna McWilliamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07767988531102621970noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4343773643758367735.post-72638780848849038762010-04-13T20:32:00.888-04:002010-04-13T20:32:00.888-04:00Hi Jenna,
I wish I had read your post before las...Hi Jenna, <br /><br />I wish I had read your post before last Thursday's class. There was something about last week's readings that bothered me a lot but I just couldn't put my finger on exactly what it was. You said it in class but I was thinking on my own discomforts and didn't get what you meant back then. Reading your post made it clear for me: the readings don't seem to care about context. <br /><br />Although I haven't decided yet about my stand on constructionism or constructivism, I agree with your point of view when you say:<br /><br />"If it's true, for example, that marginalized kids are more likely to find success with tools like Scratch, then what matters to me is not what Scratch offers those kids that traditional schooling doesn't, but what types of knowledge production the constructionist context offers that aren't offered by the other learning contexts that fill up those kids' days"<br /><br />Just like Maggie and Allison point out, it is about supporting knowledge production (and I'd add, in a specific context) an then figuring out (if it's necessary), how technology can support it.Computación y Sociedadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02770380863066505235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4343773643758367735.post-70783044404484086902010-04-07T22:20:06.562-04:002010-04-07T22:20:06.562-04:00Hey Jenna,
Alison and I were talking about just th...Hey Jenna,<br />Alison and I were talking about just the issue of putting the tool on a pedestal, as if it is the thing that is going to solve all of your problems. It is indeed about deciding what you want to accomplish - how should your students be different when they have left your class (to paraphrase my colleague, George Rehrey)?<br /><br />I also had some problems reading the Volman and Van Eck article. I have had to admit to myself that I actually have a very white male view of the world (for a woman), but enough with the hand-wringing already. Girls, sometimes you just have to tell the guys off. As for the Carstarphen and Lambiase paper, I admit that I have only recently been baptized into the whole ethnographic research thing, but at some point we are going to have to characterize some of these case studies in a more quantitative way. Really, 33 women and 10 men? To quote Eric Mazur, "the plural of anecdote is not data".<br /><br />And thanks for some nice definitions of constructivism and constructionism.<br /><br />maggieMaggie Riccihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00158916131885884424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4343773643758367735.post-46583190975291963502010-04-07T20:35:02.345-04:002010-04-07T20:35:02.345-04:00Hi Jenna,
coming from an teacher stand-point, I t...Hi Jenna,<br /><br />coming from an teacher stand-point, I think you hit the nail on the head when you said:<br /><br />" People think the tool, or the slight modification of it, is the breakthrough, when the breakthrough is in how we shift instructional approaches through integration of the tool--along with a set of technical skills and practices--for classroom instruction."<br /><br />Something that has really got me thinking this semester is that too many people think that just because a teacher is utilizing technology in their classroom they are automatically put in the "cutting-edge-technology-using-awesome-great-teacher-club" when it's not even really about the "using" of the technology as it is, why/how is the technology supporting the learning. It doesn't matter how many pieces of technology can be stuffed into a classroom, without the consideration that the technology is very little if not for the theory, framework and instructional goals behind it, would be setting up any user/implementor for failure. And not that failure is always a bad thing (shout out to Maggie!), but I think what a lot of people forget to ask when considering using technology in the classroom is "what is the best way to use this software/hardware to accomplish the goals I have set?"<br /><br />I really wish/hope that classes like P574 were available to educators because it would bring about a whole new perspective to using technology in the classroom. <br /><br />nice reflection!<br /><br />AlisonAlisonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4343773643758367735.post-17291520371691078972010-04-07T15:53:02.663-04:002010-04-07T15:53:02.663-04:00Hi Jenna
My 2 cents worth is to accept the uncerta...Hi Jenna<br />My 2 cents worth is to accept the uncertainty and "tension" at the borders of the competing views and to tack back and forth, not cheery pick, but rather embrace alternative discourses with their historical and sociocultural tensions. By reading the historical roots of the competing theories and the underlying assumptions it often creates a dialogical space where a synthesis MAY start to form that sees the competing theories as dialectical and really in a figure/ground pattern. For example Martin Packer has shown that both social constructuionism and sociocultural theory are concerned with epistemology [knowledge construction] and that all epistemologies have ontological assumptions that are foundational to their theories. He would point out that all knowledge is situationally constructed and contextual and HISTORICAL constructions. <br />Both social constructionism and sociocultural theory have historical roots in continental philosophy.<br /><br />LarryLarryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11806353112851938069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4343773643758367735.post-73263352013385094672010-04-07T13:22:38.224-04:002010-04-07T13:22:38.224-04:00I'm going to throw in an analogy that might be...I'm going to throw in an analogy that might be helpful. Or not helpful. Or ignored altogether. I think i'm agreeing with your last point, though, @Jenna. <br /><br />If you and i are working on separate theories of "glass fullness," your theory might focus on the water (it's half full), and mine on the air (it's half empty), but at the end of the day (or the beginning of the next) we're both still staring at the same glass and some water, and the theory to which Melissa will gravitate is the one that helps her to achieve her goal, whether that be to understand hydrodynamics, to slake a thirst, to understand human optimism, or to predict the social outcome of a spillage incident.<br /><br />2 cents.Christian Briggshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07223245158646171336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4343773643758367735.post-64706712872223801382010-04-07T12:54:41.944-04:002010-04-07T12:54:41.944-04:00@Melissa,
Agreed--but I don't believe that the...@Melissa,<br />Agreed--but I don't believe that theories about learning can be synthesized <i>across</i> the two major camps: sociocultural and cognitivist. Each set of theories takes certain truths to be self-evident, and the truths in themselves conflict. These guys can't even agree on what knowledge, learning, or cognition are--and if you have to spend your time debating these terms you're never going to get to the heart of the issues that matter to learning scientists.<br /><br />Additionally, there's a point at which the argument 'runs out.' It's possible that the argument 'runs out' when you have to start explaining why you believe learning is x and not y. The answer, in the place where the argument runs out, is something like this: "I just do. I just believe this because it aligns with my personal experiences and my research interests and the things that I think matter most about educational research."Jenna McWilliamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07767988531102621970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4343773643758367735.post-12992931040164665562010-04-07T12:44:19.975-04:002010-04-07T12:44:19.975-04:00I'd like to ask one more question...ahem-hem.....I'd like to ask one more question...ahem-hem...how are theories created? I think that synthesizing theories or cherry-picking is perhaps how past theories and future ones are and were created...or started...or discussed...or further synthesized...How else can progress be made?Melissahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02227114228288099984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4343773643758367735.post-72479843176881928202010-04-06T22:15:40.283-04:002010-04-06T22:15:40.283-04:00Now that that's been settled, does anyone want...Now that that's been settled, does anyone want to comment on the actual contents of my post?Jenna McWilliamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07767988531102621970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4343773643758367735.post-79282271847892262172010-04-06T22:09:13.688-04:002010-04-06T22:09:13.688-04:00@jenna Yeah, I guess whether it's ok to synthe...@jenna Yeah, I guess whether it's ok to synthesize, use select parts from, and/or occasionally but not always use different learning theories has to do with whether a given theory is mutual exclusive with another theory. Or, perhaps, whether part of a theory is mutually exclusive with part of another theory. <br /><br />@adamaig From my personal experience I'd agree that it's important to be grounded in a certain theory or practice and the frameworks that come along with them. Continued application of a given framework allows one to fully understand it in context, and also to see what its limits are. I'd imagine it's not useful to go and try to synthesize or explore intersections between learning theories before one has sufficient grounding in at least one theory. At the same time, I've found that every framework has it's limitations, and part of the challenge of people seeking to explain the world is to push up against those limitations and find explanations at those edges of understanding. Looking forward to seeing you too!Rafihttp://www.empathetics.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4343773643758367735.post-61398027465249946012010-04-06T21:59:45.903-04:002010-04-06T21:59:45.903-04:00@Melissa cherry picking tends to mean--in practice...@Melissa cherry picking tends to mean--in practice--that the important assumptions and nuances are forgotten or ignored, which ultimately undermines the claims a researcher would want to make. Because designs should be instantiations of theory driven hypotheses, this ends up being a violation of scientific rigor--regardless of conducting design studies or not. If you can figure out a coherent way to articulate the justification for a design, then you aren't really cherry picking, you're establishing an argument which should have filled in those gaps in accounted-for assumptions and nuances in the process of arguing for the design.<br /><br />However, if someone is presenting a design which has a lot of disconnected components with no articulable theory for why they are all present it suggests the designer hasn't really thought through what they are doing, and its hard to contribute to science that way. On the other hand, maybe you throw a few things together and ask "what emerged?" which can lead to interesting findings, but it is really hard to do that right and contribute to scientific understanding.<br /><br />My 0.02$adamaighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00149638742933911910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4343773643758367735.post-20377444825286417922010-04-06T21:52:14.268-04:002010-04-06T21:52:14.268-04:00Well, in my view drawing from multiple (often conf...Well, in my view drawing from multiple (often conflicting) learning theories makes it easier to end up with a less rigorous, less robust theory to explain learning. It's like saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" or "I never called myself a maverick": It opens you up to accusations that your pants are, in fact, on fire.<br /><br />Additionally, I don't think it's feasible to draw from the two major competing camps of learning theories, sociocultural and cognitivist, because I believe they exist in irreconcilable contradiction to each other. Others believe differently, though, including many many people whose intellect I respect greatly, so I'm open to the possibility of changing my mind.Jenna McWilliamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07767988531102621970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4343773643758367735.post-29164527178481417332010-04-06T21:46:00.953-04:002010-04-06T21:46:00.953-04:00why would cherrypicking be bad thing in this conte...why would cherrypicking be bad thing in this context?Melissahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02227114228288099984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4343773643758367735.post-89357384698013992782010-04-06T21:17:48.365-04:002010-04-06T21:17:48.365-04:00@Rafi, alignment matters at a practical level beca...@Rafi, alignment matters at a practical level because it helps maintain consistency. If you don't ground your work in a theory, it also makes it harder to make convincing statements about why an effect might be observed, what contributes to that effect, etc. At a philosophical level--my PhD is the first place I have encountered any philosophy of science, regardless of a Physics BS, and Comp. Sci. MS--alignment helps bridge across philosophy, theory, and practice. This however doesn't mean that the intersections of learning theories shouldn't be explored, and there are some nice articles that try to do that in attempts to bridge from the individual to the social. Looking forward to seeing you soon.<br /><br />@jennamcwilliams I really would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the following two pieces on the <a href="http://rapunsel.org/index.php?s=rapunsel" rel="nofollow">RAPUNSEL</a> project (Flanagan, Howe, and Nissenbaum, 2005, 2007), and this piece: Turkle, S., & Papert, S. (1990). Epistemological pluralism: Styles and voices within the computer culture. Signs, 16(1), 128-157. For me this piece was a nice view, and points to some of what underlying issue is in my opinion, and doesn't read like the articles you pointed to which seem focused on the superficial.adamaighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00149638742933911910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4343773643758367735.post-50615510838038619792010-04-06T20:48:10.055-04:002010-04-06T20:48:10.055-04:00I recently observed a discussion between two very,...I recently observed a discussion between two very, very well respected learning theorists who took different perspectives on the issue you raise here. One took a similar position to yours, while the other argued that not aligning yourself with one learning theory amounts to cherrypicking. And of course, there are lots of people who stand on each side. I think it's like picking the approach that best suits your interests: It'll either make sense to draw from multiple theories, or it won't.Jenna McWilliamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07767988531102621970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4343773643758367735.post-86425424858934751372010-04-06T20:36:58.637-04:002010-04-06T20:36:58.637-04:00Interesting stuff. The post did leave me with a b...Interesting stuff. The post did leave me with a big question that's been brewing in me for a while though - does one need ally oneself with a particular learning theory in order to be do good learning sciences research, design innovative learning environments, facilitate effective classroom discussion, or create sound educational policy? Rather than "being a constructionist", can't one simply use constructionist methods when they're most appropriate? Or, better yet, use constructionism in concert with situativity when she encounters something that neither explains perfectly on its own (such as online fanfiction or fansubbing communities?)<br /><br />I see dangers in holding too closely to identities - they often get politicized, cause sensitivity and internal turmoil when it isn't warranted, or just allow us to fall into our base instincts to huddle into tribes that are disinclined to challenge internal assumptions (not to mention generally <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_self" rel="nofollow">preventing ultimate happiness</a>. <br /><br />There are certainly positive and useful identities to have to be sure, but it would seem to me that in terms of learning theories, my inclination is to believe that we'd be more effective in whatever role we find ourselves if we considered them tools to be applied in relation to specific problems rather identities to be taken on in relation to... what? Is it just a matter of having a useful heuristic by which to quickly categorize yourself or others based on practices, words, and beliefs?<br /><br />#kindareadyforgradschoolRafihttp://www.empathetics.orgnoreply@blogger.com