Constructionism (was Re: XP on OLPC - a contrarian view)

[Martin Langhoff]

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Albert Cahalan <acahalan at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 5:38 PM, Edward Cherlin <echerlin at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 11:46 AM, Albert Cahalan <acahalan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 6:28 AM, Martin Langhoff <martin.langhoff at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Stop here, and please _read_ on constructionism. (Hint: most of the
>>>> tricks have to do with what happens _without the teacher around_).
>>
>> Sorry, people can't learn Constructionism simply by reading.
>
> That is simply appalling. The words that come to my mind are:
> nonsense, unlearnable, faith-based, bullshit, and excuses

Hang on! I think Edward meant exactly that you have to learn
Constructionism by using it to teach, to learn.

> I'm also reminded that one doesn't really understand a concept
> until they can teach it. If you can't teach me, then perhaps
> your own understanding is weak.

Exactly what I think he is saying.



m
-- 
 martin.langhoff at gmail.com
 martin at laptop.org -- School Server Architect
 - ask interesting questions
 - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first
 - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff