I came across a paper on Piaget cognitive levels and learning in physics. There were lots of interesting things to think about from this paper but one thing in particular caught my attention.
The concept behind this paper is that people go through stages of cognitive development. In high school we typically get students that arrive with concrete operational thinking, and they hopefully leave as formal operational thinkers. The following two math problems are good ok examples for comparing concrete to formal.
With the instant popularity of the iPad last year, tablets were finally thrust into the computing spotlight. People have been purchasing the iPad for many different purposes but it remains to be seen as to what tablets are really good at. Originally it was said that the iPad would be about media consumption, but this was idea has been eclipsed by the proliferation of IOS apps. Many educators have touted the iPad as being a useful part of classroom and online learning technologies, while I don’t necessarily share this enthusiasm.
The other day while looking at my MET course discussion forums I came across a post that made my blood boil. The topic being discussed was LOGO, and how Papert partially designed the language as a tool for constructivist learning of math for children. One of my classmates said they didn’t understand much about LOGO because she “wasn’t a math person.”
My jaw dropped, blood ran to my head (or away from head?
Reading through the different frameworks we’ve looked at so far, I find that the seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education speaks to me the strongest. There’s no doubt that the SECTIONS framework from Bates and Poole also resonates, but some of the elements are more focused on institutional and managerial aspects. These are exactly the kinds of issues I dealt with as a mechanical engineer and operations manager, and less so in my present circumstances as a secondary school classroom teacher.
