The biggest overlook of Clark’s comes from Kozma’s rebuttal of his behaviorist outlook of education and instruction. This tradition attempt to atomize actions to their root, seeing linear relationships between cause and effect with an emphasis on attempting to control as many things as possible. Kozma (1994) points out what is “[m]issing in [clark’s] studies are any mentalist notions or descriptions of the cognitive, affective, or social processes by which learning occurs”. This argument seems to be an excellent example of the shift from behaviorism to constructivism, which seems to be the underlying difference in the two authors’ arguments.
In this vein, I side more with Kozma in the ‘will or does media influence learning’ debate. Just as with most extremist arguments, the exciting nuance lies in the middle. Being a firm constructionist, I believe you need to make to understand. Most things will do in a situation, but not anything. For example, if we want to teach circuits, voltage, and resistance, it sure would be great to get our hands on some wire and resistors. This could be accomplished with household electronics or something like a Snap Circuit®. However, teaching the same principles with paper drawings and equations just won’t do the trick.
Hey Matt,
I too tend to find myself siding with Kozma (although not as much as previously). I agree that Clark ignores one of Kozma’s central points of learning being embedded in situation full of emotions and social interactions. As the ability to learn anything at any time has progressed with the ability to carry computers in our pockets I wonder how the social landscape of learning will evolve?
However, I wonder if Clark might take your example of using household electronics or SnapCircuit to learn circuits as support for his position? Clark might say that since there are a variety of media that seem to be useful in the teaching of circuits, it must be some underlying method of instruction, and not the attributes of the media itself, which results in learning. This is where I find myself more sympathetic to Clark than I was previously. I think his point that we need to pay careful attention to the methods by which media is used is an important and productive message. Many times media are used carelessly because it is new and novel, not necessarily because it is more effective.
Hi Matt,
You wrote: “Being a firm constructionist, I believe you need to make to understand. Most things will do in a situation, but not anything. For example, if we want to teach circuits, voltage, and resistance, it sure would be great to get our hands on some wire and resistors. This could be accomplished with household electronics or something like a Snap Circuit®. However, teaching the same principles with paper drawings and equations just won’t do the trick.”
What, in your view, is the difference between behaviorism and constructivism and constructionism? Is constructivism and constructionism essentially the same thing, or are there important differences? Help me understand what you see as the difference between “making” a circuit using Snap Circuit or “making” a circuit by drawing it on paper. In both cases, isn’t the learner “constructing” his or her understanding as a constructivist or constructionist would want her to?
Most importantly, I think your excellent response raises BIG QUESTIONS like the role of THEORY not only in understanding the question: Will or Does Media Influence Learning, but in shaping and defining the questions that get asked, the debates that occur, and the trajectory of a disciplinary field.
We’ll pick this up in class.
schellma said
Hey Matt,I too tend to find myself siding with Kozma (although not as much as previously). I agree that Clark ignores one of Kozma’s central points of learning being embedded in situation full of emotions and social interactions. As the ability to learn anything at any time has progressed with the ability to carry computers in our pockets I wonder how the social landscape of learning will evolve?
However, I wonder if Clark might take your example of using household electronics or SnapCircuit to learn circuits as support for his position? Clark might say that since there are a variety of media that seem to be useful in the teaching of circuits, it must be some underlying method of instruction, and not the attributes of the media itself, which results in learning. This is where I find myself more sympathetic to Clark than I was previously. I think his point that we need to pay careful attention to the methods by which media is used is an important and productive message. Many times media are used carelessly because it is new and novel, not necessarily because it is more effective.
I felt the same shift in my thinking about Kozma. Transitioning from a general reading a critique of the points to using the MMS lens brings out a few holes in what I saw as an impenetrable argument the first read-through.
The landscape of learning will be interesting as we progress, one thing I always think about is a Sagan quote, “We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.” Trying to balance the availability of education with its distribution, access, and motivations will be of utmost importance for us as the future unfolds.
Reading you put the point about commercial products for the understanding of circuits so plainly has me rethinking my original point. I guess my point would be reduced to a more positive view of Clark’s points with the caveat that physical learning should take precedence.
Christine Greenhow said
Hi Matt,You wrote: “Being a firm constructionist, I believe you need to make to understand. Most things will do in a situation, but not anything. For example, if we want to teach circuits, voltage, and resistance, it sure would be great to get our hands on some wire and resistors. This could be accomplished with household electronics or something like a Snap Circuit®. However, teaching the same principles with paper drawings and equations just won’t do the trick.”
What, in your view, is the difference between behaviorism and constructivism and constructionism? Is constructivism and constructionism essentially the same thing, or are there important differences? Help me understand what you see as the difference between “making” a circuit using Snap Circuit or “making” a circuit by drawing it on paper. In both cases, isn’t the learner “constructing” his or her understanding as a constructivist or constructionist would want her to?
Most importantly, I think your excellent response raises BIG QUESTIONS like the role of THEORY not only in understanding the question: Will or Does Media Influence Learning, but in shaping and defining the questions that get asked, the debates that occur, and the trajectory of a disciplinary field.
We’ll pick this up in class.
The distinction between constructionism and constructionism is a point of tension within my own thinking. I would mainly divide them along the lines of being social or individual. A student constructs their own understanding through making a circuit on paper or by lighting up a house in a constructivist manner. The social act of creating/building a thing that can be used by others or experienced by others in a meaningful way changes the ‘v’ to an ‘n’. Even more basically, I would reduce the difference between behaviorism, constructivism, and constructionism to more of an argument of identity. The feeling of involvement and persistence through difficulty improves as we go from individualistic understanding to self-expression through the performance of identity by constructing (with an ‘n’).
Administrators:
Christine Greenhow
Diana
cainwil1
Ming
Forum Stats:
Groups: 7
Forums: 13
Topics: 25
Posts: 70
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 0
Members: 89
Moderators: 0
Admins: 4
Most Users Ever Online: 51
Currently Online:
2 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)