Comments on: Curriculum & the post-(cognitivist) synthesis http://curricublog.org/2007/01/28/postcog-curriculum/ Tony Whitson's blog on curriculum-related matters Thu, 27 Nov 2008 03:40:49 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU hourly 1 By: “Testing boosts memory, study doesn’t” « Tony’s curricublog http://curricublog.org/2007/01/28/postcog-curriculum/#comment-21115 “Testing boosts memory, study doesn’t” « Tony’s curricublog Sat, 08 Mar 2008 21:24:36 +0000 http://curricublog.org/2007/01/28/postcog-curriculum/#comment-21115 [...] I think the 2½-page published report of the study itself makes for an excellent item to “test” students’ (I’m thinking now of grad students in education) ability to recognize the implications of the difference between cognitivist vs. social-ontological approaches to learning. [...] [...] I think the 2½-page published report of the study itself makes for an excellent item to “test” students’ (I’m thinking now of grad students in education) ability to recognize the implications of the difference between cognitivist vs. social-ontological approaches to learning. [...]

]]> By: Tony Whitson http://curricublog.org/2007/01/28/postcog-curriculum/#comment-1699 Tony Whitson Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:24:34 +0000 http://curricublog.org/2007/01/28/postcog-curriculum/#comment-1699 Would it be unfair to make the observation that the HPL authors (to use their own Piagetian vocabulary) seem to have assimilated points from the social-ontological accounts of learning (in the works of Cole, Lave, Wenger, and Rogoff) into HPL’s “Pre-Existing” mental-constructivist schema, without the accommodation that would enable them to take notice of the different fundamental principles involved? How much would that (ironically) be like the cognitive scientists being in the pond with the little fish: Hearing tadpole tales about transformative situated participation (in which cognition is transformed inseparably from the transformation of identities of participants, practices in which they are participating, and the social groups in which those practices are conducted), the cognitive theorists picture Jean Lave and the other social-ontological researchers and theorists as cognitivists who have contributed “insights into the importance of the social and cultural contexts of learning” – i.e., their importance as contexts for “learning” that is still understood as something that’s essentially a cognitive, rather than a social-ontological, phenomenon. Are they depicting Lave et al. as fish walking upright, on tail fins? Would it be unfair to make the observation that the HPL authors (to use their own Piagetian vocabulary) seem to have assimilated points from the social-ontological accounts of learning (in the works of Cole, Lave, Wenger, and Rogoff) into HPL’s “Pre-Existing” mental-constructivist schema, without the accommodation that would enable them to take notice of the different fundamental principles involved?

How much would that (ironically) be like the cognitive scientists being in the pond with the little fish: Hearing tadpole tales about transformative situated participation (in which cognition is transformed inseparably from the transformation of identities of participants, practices in which they are participating, and the social groups in which those practices are conducted), the cognitive theorists picture Jean Lave and the other social-ontological researchers and theorists as cognitivists who have contributed “insights into the importance of the social and cultural contexts of learning” – i.e., their importance as contexts for “learning” that is still understood as something that’s essentially a cognitive, rather than a social-ontological, phenomenon.

Are they depicting Lave et al. as fish walking upright, on tail fins?

]]>