take advantage of the almost abandoned my blog to spread a kind of synthesis of the current state of my personal constructivist model of education in progress and addressed to the immediate future.
The terms are general, then technologies can be identified.
1. the starting point of the constructivist concepts are not the individual but the spontaneous oral expression, with their "overlap of ideas," as they are born from discussions in class, perhaps guided by the resolution of a simple problem. These expressions must be captured immediately, literally and in writing, and then analyzed (step 2)
2. The analysis must ensure that the ideas have crossed different, reformulated in the form of complete sentences and the introduction of scientific terms, being a new, struggling to appear in the natural language of the community. The propositions, which represent the gradual transition from spontaneous language to language with scientific concepts, are reinterpreted and rewritten and reshot recombined in ways different, in a sort of "game" of language. With the game extended the language you can learn to use a sensible and dynamic concepts at a level of efficiency that would be impossible to obtain building concept maps. Missing is the epistemological awareness, you can not get from this type of practice.
3. This kind of awareness must be built first as mental maps (meaning those not on paper or computer, but those in the head, in my mind). How? changing the game language to require what is connected to what, or what sentence comes before and what comes after, as a result, the "game of it", etc.. You'll find that in doing so not starting from scratch, but that many of the propositions had already been connected and hierarchical spontaneously by the students during the exercises with the basic linguistic register of the discipline. It is simply to recover in terms of awareness all the necessary structural connections to gain an overall picture of the matter or, more precisely, a given domain of matter. For
is structured as human language, the meaning is not carried by individual words, and what happens spontaneously is not the formation of connections between concepts (which have a meaning but not meaning), but rather the establishment of connections between propositions (inclusive of meaning and concepts).
Obviously
a discipline (eg chemistry) can be equipped with its own highly specialized language and symbolic logic as well as concrete-manipulative, experiential.
The teacher should avoid such language 'internal', symbolic, technical, iconic, pictographic, etc.., Dominate the disciplinary practices and must ensure that any kind of discussion is translated back into the normal oral-written record. Thus avoid the objectification of the signs and symbols, as usually is done in mathematics and science subjects. So the main innovation in the teaching of science subjects to do is not to do more laboratory or using more technology, but in making the teaching-learning of these materials are most dependent on language and more like the humanities. Basically the "discovery of the hot water."
PS: Point 3 is more complex than I thought. There are significant qualitative differences between the ability to maintain meanings constructed using the same strategies on similar subjects in the first (fourteen, no stability) and third (sixteen, fair stability in the medium term) or fourth. This deserves further investigation. Perhaps Vygotsky comes to help in explaining this difference as a result of the transition is still not Temin generalizzazoine from lard to that for complex scientific concepts. It should however be a more specific strategy to adapt the language games in two years.
4. Once you begin to build the system in mind, the student will become aware of gaps and inconsistencies, will be able to use it to formulate a new argument. Therefore, the next step is to use scientific concepts to solve real problems just won, to deal with cases.
These are the prerequisites to achieve a deep understanding of the topics for all disciplines, which is no longer optional in secondary modern. The presence of this kind of understanding is recognizable in many forms: the ability to produce content, capacity to tackle new problems, ability to recognize the existence of problems and defects in the notice of texts and settings from external sources, ability to reconstruct the essence of a text when it is not explicit. The meaningful learning (and the meanings of their structure) in itself is not sufficient for this kind of performance. It is perfectly compatible with an "accepted" knowledge, that is opposite to that required in-depth understanding critical.
5. At this point the concept map can be constructed) to help manage the complex structure of meanings, b) to foster dialogue between different epistemologies developed by several students, c) to facilitate the integration of culture built locally with the cultural artifacts outside the learning community. But in any case we must start from the belief that a concept map. is not the point, and 2. will never be representative of all that we know and can do thanks to the proficiency of the language specification in many different contexts that arise in a discipline.
The program is clear and I have already tested with some success, in a year's work, in which students have been able to talk about organic chemistry certainly better than other previous groups. At the end of a journey that began long before I reached a some awareness (derived not only from the experience in the field, but from the deep reading of authors of reference, including especially Vygotsky) of what happened, what was done and I did and why it must be done.
technologies, how they can help to simplify the various stages? To suggest how to do what must be done?
0 comments:
Post a Comment