LOGO-L> Re: learning styles/left brain/right brain 
Author Message
 LOGO-L> Re: learning styles/left brain/right brain

Quote:
-----Original Message-----


Date: gioved 14 gennaio 1999 15.18
Subject: LOGO-L> Re: learning styles/left brain/right brain


>>  I believe it's because education (esp'y public ed.) has evolved in the
>>U.S. as a show and tell vocation, basic training: this is what you do,say,
>>etc. and this is how you do,say it etc. Education, since the days of John
>>Dewey (and whomever inspired him) has always had its experiential,
>>"cognitive" advocates; there are many in the U.S., but they are still in
>>the minority.
>>  But Frederick Taylor and B.F. Skinner really set the mold for the
century
>>with their insistence on *training* a fixed curriculum. That mindset has
>>set the teacher education curriculum, how information and ideas are
>>packaged, school administrations, the grading system, all of it.

Brian Harvey  repley:

Quote:
>I think you are giving too much credit to the institution of School if you
>think it is driven by anything as intellectual as Skinner's ideas (wrong
>as they are!).

>The purpose of School is not education.  The purpose of School is to
>reproduce the class structure of society, by educating the children of
>the rich and domesticating the children of the poor.

>The classic example:  Why is there so much emphasis on timetable in school?
>Why, for example, those headache-inducing bells every hour?  Answer: to
>give children the habits that will lead them to showing up to work at the
>factory on time, later in life.

I would like to say:
also in Italy,  for many years "" The purpose of School was not
education......"", and the high school is still so in good part; but  now,
the elementary and secondary school they have made many in ahead footsteps
through  the job  of  teachers's  groups (as The movement of Educational
Cooperation), they have very changed and at times capsized the model of
education that the society proposed.
In my school, the bells play twice only; to remember the time of the
entrance and the time of the exit......
Matilde

---------------------------------------------------------------





Mon, 02 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 LOGO-L> Re: learning styles/left brain/right brain
Quote:

> -----Original Message-----


> Date: gioved 14 gennaio 1999 15.18
> Subject: LOGO-L> Re: learning styles/left brain/right brain


> >>  I believe it's because education (esp'y public ed.) has evolved in the
> >>U.S. as a show and tell vocation, basic training: this is what you do,say,
> >>etc. and this is how you do,say it etc. Education, since the days of John
> >>Dewey (and whomever inspired him) has always had its experiential,
> >>"cognitive" advocates; there are many in the U.S., but they are still in
> >>the minority.
> >>  But Frederick Taylor and B.F. Skinner really set the mold for the
> century
> >>with their insistence on *training* a fixed curriculum. That mindset has
> >>set the teacher education curriculum, how information and ideas are
> >>packaged, school administrations, the grading system, all of it.

> Brian Harvey  repley:

> >I think you are giving too much credit to the institution of School if you
> >think it is driven by anything as intellectual as Skinner's ideas (wrong
> >as they are!).

> >The purpose of School is not education.  The purpose of School is to
> >reproduce the class structure of society, by educating the children of
> >the rich and domesticating the children of the poor.

> >The classic example:  Why is there so much emphasis on timetable in school?
> >Why, for example, those headache-inducing bells every hour?  Answer: to
> >give children the habits that will lead them to showing up to work at the
> >factory on time, later in life.

> I would like to say:
> also in Italy,  for many years "" The purpose of School was not
> education......"", and the high school is still so in good part; but  now,
> the elementary and secondary school they have made many in ahead footsteps
> through  the job  of  teachers's  groups (as The movement of Educational
> Cooperation), they have very changed and at times capsized the model of
> education that the society proposed.
> In my school, the bells play twice only; to remember the time of the
> entrance and the time of the exit......
> Matilde

> ---------------------------------------------------------------




LOGO is almost unkown thing. I believe the LOGO PHILOSOPHY is the way
to make changes in the whole educational system. As the green peace
movement, we need to unite and form THE LOGO PHILOSOPHY EDUCTIONAL
MOVEMENT.
I have not yet seen any message from Symour Papert and the like, Are
they with us?

LOGO IS THE ROAD TO CHANGE!!!!
---------------------------------------------------------------





Mon, 02 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 LOGO-L> Re: learning styles/left brain/right brain

Quote:

>The purpose of School is not education.  The purpose of School is to
>reproduce the class structure of society, by educating the children of
>the rich and domesticating the children of the poor.

The prestigious NCTM has stated:
 "Traditional notions of basic mathematical competence have been outstripped
by ever-higher expectations of the skills and knowledge of workers; new
methods of production demand a technologically competent work force."

The state in which I teach as said it it's Common Core of Learning:
 "More and more urgently, employers and our society as a whole need people
who are literate, flexible, prepared to meet new challenges and skilled a
solving problems."

It makes you wonder. The powers that govern schools seem to be more
interested in producing obedient competent workers than advancing learning
and knowledge for its own sake or for the student's sake.  Question: was
there ever a time in western history when it was not like this? What about
in non-western cultures?

Tom

---------------------------------------------------------------





Tue, 03 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 LOGO-L> Re: learning styles/left brain/right brain
Right now different segments of society want schools to be radically
different things;  glorified trade school, baby sitting service, etc.

Neil Postman in 'The End of Education, Redefining the Value of School'
makes a strong case for the idea that until we, as a society, decide on
the purpose of school and what is taught schools will continue to fail
their students.

regards


Quote:

> It makes you wonder. The powers that govern schools seem to be more
> interested in producing obedient competent workers than advancing learning
> and knowledge for its own sake or for the student's sake.  Question: was
> there ever a time in western history when it was not like this? What about
> in non-western cultures?

--
Frank Caggiano

http://www.atlantic.net/~caggiano/
ICQ# 20694472
http://wwp.mirabilis.com/20694472
---------------------------------------------------------------





Tue, 03 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 LOGO-L> Re: learning styles/left brain/right brain

Quote:

>I think you are giving too much credit to the institution of School if you
>think it is driven by anything as intellectual as Skinner's ideas (wrong
>as they are!).

>The purpose of School is not education.  The purpose of School is to
>reproduce the class structure of society, by educating the children of
>the rich and domesticating the children of the poor.

>The classic example:  Why is there so much emphasis on timetable in school?
>Why, for example, those headache-inducing bells every hour?  Answer: to
>give children the habits that will lead them to showing up to work at the
>factory on time, later in life.

You're right, of course, about the purpose of School, but becuase of the
egalitarian mythology in the United States, people here can't go around
saying it in public.  So they need an intellectual system and an
educational approach that supports the political agenda.

In educational technology Pat Suppes provides solid academic grounding for
the behaviorist approach, and his Computer Curriculum Corporation sells the
necessary software and machines.  The disintegrated learning systems of CCC
and other companies are most popular in schools and distrcits with many
poor children.  They are rare in wealthy suburban districts and elite
private schools, where Logo is far more popular.

--------------------------------------------------------
Michael Tempel                    tel: 212 579 8028
Logo Foundation                   fax: 212 579 8013

New York  NY 10024
http://el.www.media.mit.edu/logo-foundation/

---------------------------------------------------------------





Tue, 03 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 LOGO-L> Re: learning styles/left brain/right brain

Quote:
>It makes you wonder. The powers that govern schools seem to be more
>interested in producing obedient competent workers than advancing learning
>and knowledge for its own sake or for the student's sake.  Question: was
>there ever a time in western history when it was not like this? What about
>in non-western cultures?

The idea of *universal* schooling is historically quite recent.  Throughout
most of western history (and I think most non-western history, too, although
I'm not an expert) education was only for the elite, and therefore had a
very different character.  School-as-factory came in with universal schooling.

It's worth noting that in this century, regimenting students has not been
part of any person's explicit, conscious agenda (except in places like
military academies).  The institution of modern schooling *was* crafted
deliberately, with regimentation in mind, but that history has been lost
in shrouds of myth.  Most people in school systems accept without even
realizing it the idea that regimentation is the only path toward literacy
and even higher order thinking skills!

Or (like me, at Berkeley) they *do* think about it, and hate it, but feel
powerless to deflect the machine.



Tue, 03 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 LOGO-L> Re: learning styles/left brain/right brain

Quote:

>In educational technology Pat Suppes provides solid academic grounding for
>the behaviorist approach, and his Computer Curriculum Corporation sells the
>necessary software and machines.  The disintegrated learning systems of CCC
>and other companies are most popular in schools and distrcits with many
>poor children.  They are rare in wealthy suburban districts and elite
>private schools, where Logo is far more popular.

There's a lot of truth to this, but it's worth noting that Suppes is a Stanford
prof, and his technology is used in teaching (rich, elite) Stanford students in
certain math subjects.  Suppes himself would strongly reject the idea that his
programs are regimenting.  He'd point out that his programs tailor the sequence
of instruction to the needs of the student, going quickly past the things each
student finds easy and spending more time on the topics that that student finds
difficult.  And the student can log into the computer whenever s/he wants, for
as long as s/he wants, not tied to a fixed class period.

Not that I like Suppes's work.  But I think the central problem is not a theory
of psychology (behaviorism), but rather a social agenda, and a power structure
built around grades and detentions and the like.



Tue, 03 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 LOGO-L> Re: learning styles/left brain/right brain

Quote:

>>I think you are giving too much credit to the institution of School if you
>>think it is driven by anything as intellectual as Skinner's ideas (wrong
>>as they are!).

>>The purpose of School is not education.  The purpose of School is to
>>reproduce the class structure of society, by educating the children of
>>the rich and domesticating the children of the poor.

>>The classic example:  Why is there so much emphasis on timetable in
school?
>>Why, for example, those headache-inducing bells every hour?  Answer: to
>>give children the habits that will lead them to showing up to work at the
>>factory on time, later in life.

Michael Tempel replied:

Quote:
>You're right, of course, about the purpose of School, but becuase of the
>egalitarian mythology in the United States, people here can't go around
>saying it in public.  So they need an intellectual system and an
>educational approach that supports the political agenda.

>In educational technology Pat Suppes provides solid academic grounding for
>the behaviorist approach, and his Computer Curriculum Corporation sells the
>necessary software and machines.  The disintegrated learning systems of CCC
>and other companies are most popular in schools and distrcits with many
>poor children.  They are rare in wealthy suburban districts and elite
>private schools, where Logo is far more popular.

Interesting. I've never heard of Patrick Suppes CCC programs being used in
Australia and thought the whole notion had died since it never seems to be
reported in the media anymore.

I think Skinner's ideas are only wrong in that they are limited (the same
could be said of Piaget). Reward / success and punish / failure does work in
lots of cases. However, Skinner could never explain how people produce new
ideas that enabled them to solve difficult problems that could otherwise
not be solved.

Cynthia Solomon's research into Patrick Suppes work points out that computer
based drill and practice programs do work and in particular they work best
for disadvantaged students and schools. These programs do not work as well
for middle class students (Solomon, pp. 22 and 27, Computer Environments for
Children).

My interpretation: Middle class kids are more likely to do their homework
(put in their own time on lots of textbook type drill and practice, reward /
success) and so do not need the quick fix provided by the Suppes drill and
practice software. Although it is true that Logo used in constructivist,
exploratory manner is part of a high quality education I don't think it is
true that behaviourist drill and practice therefore equates with a poor
quality education. Rather constructivism and behaviourism are both different
parts of a high quality education, that are situated at opposite ends of a
continuum. It's just that in the middle class schools with "nice" kids the
teacher can often get away with not doing the skills training because the
kids have already done it at home, they have the support structure at home.

-- Bill Kerr

---------------------------------------------------------------





Wed, 04 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 LOGO-L> Re: learning styles/left brain/right brain

Quote:

>I think Skinner's ideas are only wrong in that they are limited (the same
>could be said of Piaget). Reward / success and punish / failure does work in
>lots of cases. However, Skinner could never explain how people produce new
>ideas that enabled them to solve difficult problems that could otherwise
>not be solved.

There's some research in which they measured kids' skills at something or
other, then rewarded them for working on it -- and the skills went up --
and then stopped rewarding them and measured again.  They went back down
below where they started.  At least in that experimental situation, the
extrinsic motivation replaced and eliminated intrinsic motivation.

That's the risk of extrinsic rewards, although indeed they work great for
many things while you apply them.



Wed, 04 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 LOGO-L> Re: learning styles/left brain/right brain
I've been reading books by Herbert Kohl lately:  The Discipline of Hope, 36
Children, Should We Burn Babar.  This discussion has a lot of connections to
Kohl.  He describes teaching poor children in a progressive way, the children
are responsive, intelligent and creative, but they need to be taught in a way
that adsresses their experineces - what is important to them.  Kohl, while
sometimes he is blowing his own horn, seems to be a very talented teacher.  I
would love to have his insight and energy.  But one of the things his books
teach me is that good teaching is all consuming - he burns out and has to do
other things (write books) every few years.

Though I have never taught in a poor school (only well of private schools)
Kohl's writting makes me question Bill Kerr's interpretation of CCC drill and
pracitce software data - I question the equation that poor equals
undisciplined/unmotivated.  But I do not have a theory which explains the data.
Bill, does Solomon's research start with poor and middle class students who are
paired according to ability, such that class is the "only" variable?

In Should We Burn Babar Kohl has an essay describing the history of progressive
education.  I was an eye opener for me to see that progressive education/Logo
philosophy is not really new.  The fight between regimented and child centered
has been going on for a long time.

An individual teacher can change how he teaches (easier said than done), but how
do we change the "educational system"?  Perhaps it is best that the change be
from the bottom up - one teacher at a time.  Creativity cannot be legislated.



Mon, 09 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 LOGO-L> Re: learning styles/left brain/right brain

Quote:

>>I think Skinner's ideas are only wrong in that they are limited (the same
>>could be said of Piaget). Reward / success and punish / failure does work
in
>>lots of cases. However, Skinner could never explain how people produce new
>>ideas that enabled them to solve difficult problems that could otherwise
>>not be solved.

Brian Harvey:

Quote:
>There's some research in which they measured kids' skills at something or
>other, then rewarded them for working on it -- and the skills went up --
>and then stopped rewarding them and measured again.  They went back down
>below where they started.  At least in that experimental situation, the
>extrinsic motivation replaced and eliminated intrinsic motivation.

>That's the risk of extrinsic rewards, although indeed they work great for
>many things while you apply them.

Dan Dennett has written a piece where he keeps the basic idea of
stimulus -->> response but extends it to our internal environments (which
was a no, no for Skinner). This step removes the extrinsic/intrinsic
objection by projecting Skinner's idea into inner space. Ch.5 of a book
called 'Brainstorms'. ('Why the Law of Effect will not go away'). He argues
that all creativity is an instance of generate and test which is just
another way of saying stimulus -->> response but it is working internally.

-- Bill Kerr

---------------------------------------------------------------





Tue, 10 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 LOGO-L> Re: learning styles/left brain/right brain

Quote:

>Though I have never taught in a poor school (only well of private schools)
>Kohl's writting makes me question Bill Kerr's interpretation of CCC drill
and
>pracitce software data - I question the equation that poor equals
>undisciplined/unmotivated.  But I do not have a theory which explains the
data.
>Bill, does Solomon's research start with poor and middle class students who
are
>paired according to ability, such that class is the "only" variable?

I've read and enjoyed '36 Children' but not the other books by herbkohl you
mention. Well, clearly in '36 children' Kohl's students were poor,
undisciplined and unmotivated before his inspirational teaching managed to
turn them around. That is to say they were undisciplined and unmotivated
about regular school (before Kohl) because their learning environment was
shit, the teacher(s) were not committed to the enormous magnitude of their
task, the resources were garbage etc. etc. An inspirational teacher (Kohl)
managed to turn all this around by listening, by caring, by interesting
ideas, by his committment etc. in the area of English/Society & Environment
(I recall that Greek Myths was his vehicle) by using methods that would not
normally be described as behaviourist (stimulus -->> response) but would be
described as "creative", "inspirational" etc.

I wouldn't like to make an "equation that poor equals
undisciplined/unmotivated" either in an unqualified sense. But I would say
on *average* middle class kids are more likely to do their maths homework
than poor kids in a Disadvantaged school environment, for all sorts of
reasons (eg. peer pressure not to be a square). Nevertheless, kids in
Disadvantaged Schools might be more "streetwise" than kids from Middle class
schools, which just goes to show that they are just as *smart* as Middle
class kids but that on *average* they may lack some skills in language,
maths etc. arising from their home/school/street environment that will put
them behind in the unfair race to gain school certificates.

Here is another example. Have you seen the movie "Stand and Deliver" which
is about Jaime Escalantes struggle as a maths teacher in a poor Los Angeles
area to deliver maths to Hispanic kids. It's an inspirational movie. But the
methods he uses are rather behaviourist.

It's not really fair to compare Kohl's work in getting kids to write about
Greek Myths etc. with what might be necessary for success for Disadvantaged
kids in maths, either. They are different disciplines, it's easier for kids
to express themselves in language than maths (or what they have come to
believe is maths), and Primary teachers on *average* are better at teaching
language than maths IMO.

Solomon is quoting Suppes research regarding Computer Assisted Learning
working better for economically disadvantaged students than for middle class
students. I don't think she did any of her own research along these lines.
Her book is about comparing 4 different approaches to maths learning, CAL
and Logo exploration, being two of the four. I haven't read the Suppes
original research.

Maybe you are just reacting against the idea that behaviourism might in some
sense be a good thing. I have written a longer article about this if you
want to check it out at:
http://www.senet.com.au/~kerrb/
Follow the 'Behaviourism in Schools' link. IMO Skinner's and Suppe's
behaviourism is limited (doesn't explain creativity) but not wrong.
Success -->> Reward; Failure -->> Punishment. I think we all work along
those lines quite a lot of the time.

Quote:
>An individual teacher can change how he teaches (easier said than done),
>but how
>do we change the "educational system"?  Perhaps it is best that the change
be
>from the bottom up - one teacher at a time.  Creativity cannot be

legislated.

As Brian has said (in other words) school is a well constructed shipwreck
designed to select the best swimmers and its main purpose is to reproduce
social class. In such an arrangement creativity will become very much a side
show, eg. it might be developed for an elite few called "gifted and
talented" but not for everyone. The environment is not conducive for a few
creative teachers to change the others, rather it works the other way
around.

-- Bill Kerr

---------------------------------------------------------------





Tue, 10 Jul 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 14 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. Fwd: [LogoForum] Left Brain/Right Brain

2. Left Brain Right Brain

3. Fwd: [LogoForum] Left Brain/Right Brain

4. Left Brain Right Brain

5. LOGO-L> history of Skool (was: learning styles/left brain/right brain)

6. LOGO-L> learning styles/left brain/right brain

7. LOGO-L> learning style/logo study

8. From Brain-Based Research to Powerful Learning

9. brain-based learning

10. The Scientist in the Crib: Minds, Brains, and How Children Learn

11. LOGO-L> Books - Logo Style

12. LOGO-L> Computer Science Logo Style problem

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software