Date:         Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:26:30 -0500
Reply-To:     CS92-L List <CS92-L@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU>
Sender:       CS92-L List <CS92-L@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU>
From:         Maria Fusaro <Maria_Fusaro@BROWN.EDU>
Subject:      Tuesday, Feb 13
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Greetings.

This is a recap of our class on February 13 on theories about learning and
specifically the article by Svinicki.

I used the "Class of 2000" example to start off a discussion on the nature
of thought and learning.  I included this metacognitive exercise not only
to serve as an interesting point of entry into the conversation, but also
because it highlighted the role of context in our thought processes (ex.
visual clues from the area around the mural that helped to fill in the gaps
blocked by the tree).

We then looked at the definitions of "learning" posed by the theories
Svinicki presented.  Did the group find any of these particularly helpful
or problematic?

One related point we sort of touched on was the role that each theory gives
to a person in his/her own learning.  In other words, are people active
agents in learning, or does learning just sort of happen to them because of
their biological dispositions?  Does learning happen from the outside in
(with the environment as the mediator) or from the inside (a person
constructs reality in his/her own "private" mind).

Since there were so many "mini-theories" presented in the article, I chose
one, cognitive apprenticeship, to discuss with the group.  The idea here is
that teachers can model thought processes they go through when they solve a
problem by thinking out loud in front of the students.  Does this
experience count as learning?  Is it simply imitation? (Is imitation
learning?)

*The group needed to make an important distinction in the cognitive
apprenticeship example, but it didn't come up in the conversation:  Is
there a difference between modeling the steps of, say, a math problem
(first I multiply, then I do this - a.k.a behaviors) and modeling the
thinking that goes into it (I know that multiplying by a negative makes it
more negative, so I'll add instead - a.k.a. reasoning)?

I also asked the group if the theories could be reconciled with each other
and with the concept of "learning by doing" we discussed last week.  If
not, we need to be sure we don't contradict ourselves when opposing authors
both present convincing arguments.

Finally, I tried to throw in a "what does this mean for educational
software" type question simply to ensure that we keep the class's
objectives in perspective.