The+Cheating+Tens


 * I do believe in mild skepticism and debate - it's all a part of what science is about - but I also don't think that trying to force one theory or another should get in the way of progress. That progress is had through experiment. Experiment leads us when we are looking for theories but it can also tells us about where we've gone wrong. The debate between cognitivism and situativism should go on, but we need more data before we can make any more progress. Perhaps experiments in places where both philosophies fail may reveal some interesting insights. - Doug**

How do you choose a theory that specifically looks at just one of these theories? We are impregnated (woot new vocab word) in a system where no matter what types of data we gather, it could be interpreted in either way. How do you test a truth or a principle of knowledge? How can they determine that there is transfer? Because it depends on what you define as transfer. 1 + 1 =2 and 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples seems pretty basic, is that transfer? How could you get something that is a complete blank canvas in order to do the test? And even then could you test when there may be something in their genes to influence results? You can't pull certain facts apart because they're all interwoven.


 * Greeno uses linguistics as a way to criticize the publication of Anderson et al. The strength of his article is in his awareness that language and word usage can lead to specific and unique interpretation by some people. However, I think the people reading such articles are well educated would surely understand what was said or asked, therefore I deem his argument a weak one. - Alex**

Found it annoying how Greeno tried to redirect the comments, and was that the direction that we should have taken? Anderson was much more direct and that's how I think of cognitive thinking. Greeno redirected each question to make it fit his own theory. Every time he made a redirect it was hard to understand the point...was he agreeing or disagreeing? Greeno was attacking Anderson's perspective of the situative perspective, but I thought that Anderson's point wasn't defining the situative perspective it had to be taken with cognitive to be of any worth.


 * Greeno seems to me to be that guy that wants everyone to think he knows everything about everything. He throws in all these words (PRESUPPOSITIONS PRESUPPOSITIONS PRESUPPOSITIONS!!!!) that really just make the reader feel like they're watching a guy who, having just lost everything, is desperately spewing out whatever he can in an attempt to regain himself. - Pat**

The big fancy language didn't really help Greeno's cause.


 * [Can you differentiate between things that are the phenomenon, explanations of the phenomenon, and implications based on the explanations of those phenomenon? An extension of this - what is the evidence chain that reaches to suggestions for classroom practice?]**

How can you differentiate between learning? (the learning, the theory, and the implications). Reason for the question is that we are mixing up terms (the actual learning, the theory of learning, and the implications of learning). It is interesting that, if we split our readings in half and only did those, we wouldn't have any questions about what is learning and what is teaching. We'd all be up on our high horse "oh yes we learn cognitively (or situatively, depending on which half we pick)" and these debate questions wouldn't ever come up. We would agree with everything that is said. And to extend that further, the readings we do are picked through our instructor's "cultural lens" (Alicia had that one) and are already influencing our thoughts on learning theory. Does this stuff come out while you're teaching? It sort of does because you make connections to the reading in real-life and start exclaiming "oh yea" in a desperate attempt to gain some understanding. We do these thing but never knew the names that others came up for it. One of the main points is that this isn't about the teaching. It is hard to disengage yourself from the teaching when you're been teaching for 25 years. It is nice to draw real-world connections to what you read.

Do we understand the differences? Phenomenon - [|Definition of Phenomenon] Learning Explanations of the phenomenon - Theories of how learning occurs Implication based on the explanations of those phenomenon - How people bring those theories into the classroom

What is the evidence chain? Some of the examples in the readings talked about real-world examples, but these were less of suggestions and more of references.