Using Big Words

Perhaps it is cheating, but I am going to use my third learning journal post to examine some of the big words I continue to come across and look up, but can not seem to keep in my head.

Studying words without their context was an example of bad teaching/learning practice in the readings in the two weeks we discussed Situated Cognition in class, however, I find that my lack of understanding of these words severely limits my learning. The first problem is that I don't understand what the author is trying to get across  The second, and more debilitating issue, is that not understanding a word in the course of reading an article causes me to lose my flow and "come out" of the reading. This is not only inefficient as it take extra time to do the reading, it slows the whole understanding process down.

Given that this course is about constructivism, I have been trying to "gloss" over my misunderstandings and hope that the class discussions will fill me in. Sadly, for the most part, this has not happened and has casued mounting frustration with each week.

And so for this week, I regress into a more solo cognitive effort - however, I will attempt to make reference to my classmates posts and the readings (if I can find the patience and the time!)

heuristic - experience-based techniques for problem solving, learning, and discovery; methods are used to speed up the process of finding a satisfactory solution; mental short cuts to ease the cognitive load of making a decision. (ref). 
From Pea (1993, page 48) - "distributed intelligence.... is a heuristic framework for raising and addressing theoretical and empirical questions..."

microgenesis - The concept of microgenesis refers to the development on a brief present-time scale of a percept, a thought, an object of imagination, or an expression. It defines the occurrence of immediate experience as dynamic unfolding and differentiation in which the ‘germ’ of the final experience is already embodied in the early stages of its development. (ref)

ontogenesis - a theory of the development and structuring of the individual that takes into account the individual's origins and the conditions of his or her development. ... Defining ontogenesis, or the development of the individual, requires examination of what constitutes the mind and what the primary conditions of its organization are. What is called for is nothing less than a clear understanding of the origins, developmental stages, and earlier states of an individual's history. (ref)

phylogenesis - the processes of evolution and acquisition particular to a species (ref)

From Pea (1993, page 72) - "What constraints govern the dynamics of such distribution in different time scales (e.g. ...microgenesis, ontogenesis, cultural history, phylogenesis)?"

dialectical - any systematic reasoning, exposition, or argument that juxtaposes opposed or contradictory ideas and usually seeks to resolve their conflict -- or -- discussion and reasoning by dialogue as a method of intellectual investigation; specifically : the Socratic techniques of exposing false beliefs and eliciting truth -- or -- the Platonic investigation of the eternal ideas (ref) - This is kind of what I thought it was, but now I am more confused....

Dialectical psychology (Riegel, 1973) postulates that one's mental processes move freely back and forth among all the Piagetian stages, meanwhile "transforming contradictory experience into momentary stable structures." .....Here the meaning of "dialectic" will be taken to be number (8) in the article "Dialectic" in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "...the logical development of thought or reality through thesis and antithesis to a synthesis of these opposites." (ref)
45
From Pea (1993, page 78) - "One of the central implications of the dialectical perspective on human nature arises when we look at the ceoncept of development itself."

While googling words and concepts may not be a traditionally constructivist activity - these past 45 min have been fruitful. For I reviewed the Pea article and the notes I took in the margins a few times while looking for the words again. And google is a wonderful activity causing one to weave and discover while connecting concepts. 

Now if only I can recall these definitions when I encounter them again - and if not, I have created some distributed intelligence that I can rely on!


Pea, R.D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions. Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47-87). NY: Cambridge University Press

Where do facts belong?

I've been putting off my second journal entry for two reasons. First, I am struggling to keep up with the posting I need to do on a weekly basis on top of work, research, and kids. Second, and a much larger cause, is that I am wholly intimidated by the task of writing something that is required to be connected to others. It would be so simple to record my thoughts and the issues I'm grappling with. But, to have to read over the last 5 weeks of postings, and then all of my classmates learning journals and then come up with something that reflects my thoughts and incorporates theirs is overwhelming to say the least. The last few weeks has opened up my mind to the idea of social cultural learning and learning in context and all the other relationship stuff, but it hasn't changed 41 years of preference for solitude!!!!!

However, I am ever the good student, so I shall make an attempt.

After two weeks of classes, the two questions ruminating in my head were:

- if knowledge is constructed, where do facts belong?

- I agree that truth is relative, but 1 + 1 does equal 2 regardless of my biases, my previous knowledge, or whether I agree with that fact. So if meaning is 100% constructed and I believe 1 + 1 = 3, does that make it right?

In week one, we were asked to explore our own leanings towards objectivist or constructivist. Many people in the class posted that they leaned towards constructivism, but acknowledged the value in both theories. Megan said it excellently with, "Both constructivist and objectivist approaches should be used as tools, used when necessary, to provide the best possible education for all students."

When introduced to the ideas of Bruner, I started to see where facts belong. Bruner talks of categories, implying that knowledge can be reduced to facts which can be manipulated. Russell quotes Bruner as  "To perceive is to categorize, to conceptualize is to categorize, to learn is to form categories, to make decisions is to categorize." 

And now along comes Dewey and I am confused again. He states: "(i ) that the educational process has no end beyond itself; it is its own end; and that (ii) the educational process is one of continual reorganizing, reconstructing, transforming". As a scientist, I fully agree that knowledge is a process and that it is continually being refined – but where does one start?

If knowledge is full constructed, if meaning is solely socially construed, then belief is on an equal playing field with perception. If a child comes to the conclusion that hot air sinks at the end of her science lesson and she has constructed that knowledge through her observations – is she wrong?

 So I am struggling with is - but I just watched this video - which although it talks about contructivism in the political science paradigm has helped me clear some things up. 

Ok.... I am getting it.... slowly. Really it is our collective consciousness that develops reality. So the "fact" that hot air rises is something that society believes because a number of people have observed it and believe it to be "true". Someone some day may make a different observation and convince others that this different observation is the new "truth". 

Ahhhhhhh..... so contructivists are advocating that students discover the collective consciousness rather than just being told what it is. 

It's late, I haven't figured out how to quote my classmates and weave in the readings, but I've had my ah-ha moment and shall try to sit down later this week and tackle my other questions. 

Sigh