subbukk at gmail.com
Wed Jan 16 11:43:27 EST 2008
On Tuesday 15 January 2008 9:23:55 am Y.Sonoda wrote:
> According to "Construntionism" theory OLPC relies on, any children
> have their own "model of understanding the world" (that is "shema" and
> those are all different each other. As the children interact with the
> real world, they learn by themselves using their shema, "assimilating"
> this model to the phenomena first, and accommodating it to adjust for
> better understanding next. This causes new shema, or knowledge, and
> these new shema will be also assimilated and accommodated repeatedly.
> Along with these series of interaction with the real world, children
> "learn". On the other hand, the opposite idea is "Instructionism" in
> which teacher poses question and children answer.
The way Instructionism is practiced, the child is forced to assimilate and
accommodate the teacher's model of the world. Where the schema from real
world conflicts with those of the teacher, it is the latter that is
rewarded :-(. I have seen Instructionism work well a) when it is the student
who seeks out a teacher b) when such contacts are spaced out. The former
reduces frustrations and the latter limits domination by the adult.
I believe a teacher (or more correctly, a guide) is essential in the learning
process. Unguided constructionism doesn't work. Children left alone (see
www.feralchildren.com for extreme examples) never managed to learn higher
BTW, I am confused by this discussion thread. I thought OLPC was about
bringing learning environments into the reach of the neglected children -
those who don't have access to well-equipped school rooms or educated guides.
Does XO really make sense in environments that already have well-equipped
classrooms and teachers?
More information about the Devel