> Children come to the classroom with
>notions about the physical world that are often quite different from
>scientists and often quite resistent to change. But then we have also
>found that just experiencing also does not work. (There has not been good
>support for Papert's discovery learning)
Bill,
I do not believe your claim "children come to the classroom with
notions about the physical world that are often quite different from
scientists and often quite resistent to change".
A kind of "preconceptions" are also mutually, collaboratively, situatedly
constituted with a teacher, an experimenter who give students to strange,
sometime very funny, nosnsese problems or who try to organize the very
strange langauge game.
"Often quite resistent to change" is also collaborative
accomplishment.
According to a way of collaborative organizing contexts,
even "conceptual change" of Newtonian Physics is not
so difficult although it is not appropriate to call that change
as "conceptual change".
Careful interaction analysis will demonstrate it very clearly.
So, more concretely speaking than my previous mail, I think we should
carefully analyse how "preconceptions" are socially, reciprocally
constituted.
Martin' s phrase is very approprate for the things such as
"preconceptions".
Original is
At 9:15 AM 5/3/98 -0700, Martin Packer wrote:
>The knowing and learning
>subject is always both active and acted upon--and subjectivity is shaped in
>interaction; so that the cognitive activity that constructivism emphasizes
>is itself the product of participation in particular social practices,
>culturally and historically situated. The very formation of an 'inner'
>mental realm, one of deliberation and cognition, is a product of specific
>practices and forms of relationship.
Ueno' s paraphrasing is
"preconceptions in mind" is shaped in interaction; so that
"preconceptions in mind" that constructivism emphasizesis itself
the product of participation in particular social practices, culturally
and historically situated. The very formation of an "inner preconceptions",
mental realm, one of deliberation and cognition, is a product of specific
practices and forms of relationship.
This practice should be analysed as possible as concretely.
One big reason why "preconceptions are often quite resistent to change"
is coming from this interaction or practice and the formulation of
this interaction. In other words, one's formulating the interaction
as "preconceptions" itself is the big stumbling block for science
education.
If one does not reanalyse this interaction or practice, he/she
will eternally regret the same thing, that is just your phrase.
> Children come to the classroom with
>notions about the physical world that are often quite different from
>scientists and often quite resistent to change. But then we have also
>found that just experiencing also does not work. (There has not been good
>support for Papert's discovery learning)
Naoki Ueno
NIER, Tokyo