[Numeracy 177] Re: Application vs. Theory
Archived Content Disclaimer
Please note: This page contains archived content from the lincs.ed.gov e-mail discussion list system, which was disabled in 2012. The content on this page is available for archival purposes only. Hyperlinks on this page may be broken or may no longer link to the content specified from within the archive posting. In addition, information displayed on this page may no longer be relevant.
Mon Feb 15 21:54:36 EST 2010
- Previous message: [Numeracy 175] COABE/ProLiteracy Conference LINCS Sessions
- Next message: [Numeracy 183] Re: Application vs. Theory
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Indeed: when we teach the "abstract" to those who reside in the "concrete," we are at high risk of losing them. On a cognitive level, we will only succeed in teaching the abstract if it becomes meaningful (one could say "cognitively concrete"). We revert back to the key pedagogic notion of scaffolding (essentially a Vygotskian version of the "zone of proximal development").
Cognitively, something as concrete as a computer is "abstract" (in the sense of removed from what is known) in the eyes of an individual who has never seen one, let alone heard of one. Alternatively, say for mathematicians, the notion of two negatives forming a positive is "concrete" (i.e., "real") in that is fully and transparently meaningful within their respective cognitive realms.
The link that Susan included in her post preceding the one below - http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/the-enemy-of-my-enemy/ - is worth a read. It points to ways that the abstract can be "made concrete," with the caveat that, with respect to the author's examples, they tap into the learners' background knowledge.
I find myself quite concerned with pedagogic stances and approaches that are content with a plateauing of learning experiences by not going beyond the "well, that's the way it is, so just learn and apply the rules." Ultimately, our learners will rise to our expectations, or else engage in learned helplessness if whatever is good enough becomes the learning goal.
Michael A. Gyori
Maui International Language School
From: Susan Jones <SUJones at parkland.edu>
To: numeracy at nifl.gov
Sent: Mon, February 15, 2010 2:30:45 PM
Subject: [Numeracy 174] Re: Application vs. Theory
In my experience, it's when we "speak abstract" to students who live in concrete that we lose them.
Generally when we "teach theory" what we actually teach is further reinforcement that math is an arcane ritual in which we are to perform symbolic rites and written incantations with certain inscrutable patterns until they satisfy The Master. When I am writing those symbols down, they're connecting to all kinds of things in my mind... real applications... when my students read word problems, they are often not connecting the processes to somethign real; it's just adding a layer of complexity to the symbol manipulation. I work hard to help them see the connection, but that generally requires a whole lot more drawing and wishing I were a graphic artist ;)
Academic Development Specialist
Center for Academic Success
Champaign, IL 61821
sujones at parkland.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...