Diskussion:Konstruktionismus

message: Der fundamentale Unterschied zwischen 
Konstruktionismus und Konstruktivismus ist nicht sauber herausgestellt.
Piaget ist/war kein Konstruktivist, sondern (eher) ein Kognitivist und daher deutlich näher am Kognitionismus.
Papert hatte die Hoffnung, das Schulsystem durch seine Ansätze zu revolutionieren -- was ist rausgekommen?
http://ddi.uni-wuppertal.de/forschung/Komplett.bib :
 /-- Zeile 2775ff
 @misc{AgalianosWhittyNoss2006,
 author = {Angelos Agalianos and Geoff Whitty and Richard Noss},
 title= ,
 month = 2,
 year= 2006,
 url = {http://metager.to/5fx4d},
 urldate = {2017-02-06},
 annote = {
 http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.108.7948&rep=rep1&type=pdf
 S. 3:
 The first version of Logo was developed in 1966 by Seymour Papert, Daniel Bobrow and Wallace Feurzeig at the Educational Technologies Laboratory of Bolt, Beranek & Newman (BBN), an R&D company in Cambridge, Massachusetts.  Certainly, for Papert, it was the material embodiment of a radical educational philosophy which had been developing alongside (and sometimes in tension with) the technological  artefact itself. Thus Logo was seen by some of its producers as a potential vehicle for the transformation of education.
 S. 4:
 Logo was seen as a panacea for the ills of an educational system in crisis
 S. 5: 
 Wallace Feurzeig, the leader of Logo’s initial development team at BBN, remembers: … And the notion was that computers were not just for doing science or math technical kinds of things; they could be used for language, for music, for all kinds of things, that computers would be interesting to people in various ways. We were interested not only in mathematics but other areas, too.
 S. 6:
  the hope was that Logo would really get kids to think in a more fundamental way about thinking in all kinds of contexts, to become strategic thinkers, to become more involved in designing and building of knowledge. (Feurzeig, interview)
 S. 7:
 We began to have some so-called ‘teaching clinics’ around 1967 or 1968. There was also a kind of funny attitude on the part of some people that one should not be providing a great deal of curriculum material to support the work because the teachers would tend to use that slavishly instead of getting in the spirit of building what was needed at the time more circumstantially and so on. It was almost religiously thought by some to be just the wrong thing to do. (Feurzeig, interview) … At a certain point I did not think of school as saveable, I didn’t think that school was a proper learning environment. ... Originally in my head it [Logo] was an anti-school thing. … Logo was the cleanest example of an anti-school use of the computer, of a use of the computer very different from anything that happened in the school. (Papert, interview)
 S. 11:
 a large number of researchers with diverse backgrounds and interests were gathered around Seymour Papert, most of them computer scientists and engineers who had an interest in education, rather than educationalists who had an interest in computer science.
 S. 28:
 So Logo became a way of ordering turtles around the screen. Turtle drivers such as DART shaped the attitudes of a generation of primary and secondary teachers, and at the same time, such programs were conjured into existence to express these attitudes and priorities. Drawing pictures with a turtle became a new curricular compartment. Logo became marginalised by its very incorporation -- everything had changed but nothing had changed. (Noss & Hoyles, 1996:163)
},
}
\
--80.140.222.84 09:53, 15. Aug. 2017 (CEST)
thread_title:  Argumentation und Quellenauswertung