In the Bridge, we have not properly acknowledged the new innovative work in learning theory. This will be corrected The correction will lead to peer reviewed publications that evaluates all developmental mathematics programs currently being implemented in the nations community colleges. A taxonomy will be developed identifying types of practice, methodologies, technologies, and philosophy (demand or supply pedagogy). There are two focus topics; A) Simple Justification form Piaget (SJP)
and B) Developments in Learning Theory (DLT) A) The theory of cognitive development, founded through the work of Jean Piaget, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_cognitive_development may have been over simplified and then used as an induction mechanism for various forms of elitism, egotism, self centered-ness. By "used" we mean in a collective intelligence sense. Induction is discussed in the Preface and through out The Education Bridge. http://www.secondSchool.net/bridge.pdf The more precise and experimentally verifiable thesis being developed by some is that cognitive development is far more individualized than how Piaget's theory has been "mis-used" . The justification of textbook use is a motivating factor in this misuse. The induction is aided by "coherence with" supply side economics. We may refer to the use of Piaget's work in this simple sense as Simple Justification from Piaget (SJP) B) There are many important Developments in Learning Theory (DLT) which move away from the Simple Justification from Piaget (SJP). For example, http://www.edtech.vt.edu/edtech/id/models/powerpoint/anchored.pdf develops the concept of anchored learning, and self explanation as a means to internalize learned embodiments. In fact Developmental State Theory takes on part of the misuse from SJP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_stage_theories Once SJP is given up we see the foundation for individualizing the underlying basis for education. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Two_Alike:_Human_Nature_and_Human_Individuality celebrates the uniqueness that each individual comes with. |
Conclusions. . . Counter arguments. Questions How can the gov't justify spending that much money on a program that has little to no emperical data at the secondary level to validate its effectiveness as an instructional tool for achievement, higher order thinking skills and motivation? ...................................................................................................................... |