“…Knowledge, of its nature, cannot have any iconic correspondence with an ontological reality...

25
“Without the understanding that Piaget deliberately stepped out of the western philosophical tradition, it is impossible to come to a comprehensive view of his theory of knowing and the model he built to explain how children acquire knowledge.”

description

“Without the understanding that Piaget deliberately stepped out of the western philosophical tradition, it is impossible to come to a comprehensive view of his theory of knowing and the model he built to explain how children acquire knowledge.”. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of “…Knowledge, of its nature, cannot have any iconic correspondence with an ontological reality...

Page 1: “…Knowledge, of its nature, cannot have any iconic correspondence with  an ontological reality .”

“Without the understanding that Piaget deliberately stepped out of

the western philosophical tradition, it is impossible to come

to a comprehensive view of his theory of knowing and the model he built to explain how children

acquire knowledge.”

Page 2: “…Knowledge, of its nature, cannot have any iconic correspondence with  an ontological reality .”

“…Knowledge, of its nature, cannot have any iconic correspondence

with an ontological reality.”

Page 3: “…Knowledge, of its nature, cannot have any iconic correspondence with  an ontological reality .”

1) What is Constructivism?

2) What makes radical constructivism different from constructivism?

Page 4: “…Knowledge, of its nature, cannot have any iconic correspondence with  an ontological reality .”

What is the nature of mathematics in Radical Constructivism?

Page 5: “…Knowledge, of its nature, cannot have any iconic correspondence with  an ontological reality .”

Bonita is a 9th-grade algebra student. She is asked to solve some problems in an interview setting about a dripping faucet.

Int: Okay. Now let’s suppose that it drips 6 ounces in 8 minutes, and it’s going at the same speed, or same rate. How many ounces do you think it dripped in 4 minutes?

Page 6: “…Knowledge, of its nature, cannot have any iconic correspondence with  an ontological reality .”

Bonita: Um, can I use your pen?Int: Uh huh. Oh, I hogged both of them.

Bonita: Could I use a calc – Int: You sure can! Now I think this is like

the ones you’ve used in class.

Page 7: “…Knowledge, of its nature, cannot have any iconic correspondence with  an ontological reality .”

Bonita: Uh huh.Int: I’ll let you turn it on, you probably know

how to use it better than I do.

Bonita: Thank you. It, um, to be able – oh. It would be 3 ounces in 4 minutes.

Page 8: “…Knowledge, of its nature, cannot have any iconic correspondence with  an ontological reality .”

What does Bonita Understand?

Page 9: “…Knowledge, of its nature, cannot have any iconic correspondence with  an ontological reality .”

Int: Let me give you one other problem, and

you can use that pen. And let’s just see

if there’s another way to do it. Like, can

you think about it without – the, there’s

nothing wrong with this, you did a great

job with that. But I just want to see if

there’s another way to do it too. So,

this time I’m gonna ask how many

ounces in 40 minutes?

Page 10: “…Knowledge, of its nature, cannot have any iconic correspondence with  an ontological reality .”

Bonita: So you want me to try different rather

than this? Or…Int: Yeah.Bonita: (Unintelligible) there the same?Int: Can you do it in your head, or is there a

way to just think about it without using

a math formula?Bonita: Uh…Int: It’s okay if there isn’t. I just want you to

think about it a minute.

Page 11: “…Knowledge, of its nature, cannot have any iconic correspondence with  an ontological reality .”

Bonita: I can’t do it in my head, it’s, it’s…Int: What if this was a 16 instead of a 40?

Could you do it in your head then? Ifit was, um, 6 ounces in 8 minutes, howmany ounces in 16 minutes?

Bonita: Um, I have problem with thinking of these, like, in my head. I don’t come upwith answers really quick, I have to, likeeither, get a calculator to…that’s not…

Page 12: “…Knowledge, of its nature, cannot have any iconic correspondence with  an ontological reality .”

Int: Can you use a calculator, but not the formula?

Bonita: Hmm.Int: Is there any way to think about it?Bonita: Like without using this? (Points to the

cross-multiplication algorithm)Int: Uh huh.Bonita: Just like putting it in there?Int: Yeah just, just curious.Bonita: I don’t know how to…

Page 13: “…Knowledge, of its nature, cannot have any iconic correspondence with  an ontological reality .”

What does Bonita Understand?

Page 14: “…Knowledge, of its nature, cannot have any iconic correspondence with  an ontological reality .”

Int: Now, let’s suppose you have two peopleLet’s put you and me. And we’re

eachwatching a little faucet. And, let’s

say weeach have a container here. And

let’s saythat you collected 3 ounces, and

I’vecollected 3 ounces. Are they

dripping theas fast as each other, or do you

think thatone could be dripping faster than

the other?

Page 15: “…Knowledge, of its nature, cannot have any iconic correspondence with  an ontological reality .”

Bonita: Um, they’re dripping the same.Int: The same? What if mine took 10 minutes

and yours took 20 minutes. In other words,

you had to watch, sit and watch your clock

for 20 minutes to get the 3 ounces, but

mine filled 3 ounces in only 10 minutes?

Page 16: “…Knowledge, of its nature, cannot have any iconic correspondence with  an ontological reality .”

Bonita: Um, this one (points to the left one) is going way faster and probably this

(pointsto the right one) is like, I don’t

know it’skind of going, like, fast and slow,

maybe?Int: Hmm. How’d you determine that? What

were you thinking?Bonita: Um.Int: What makes this one faster? (Points to the

left one).

Page 17: “…Knowledge, of its nature, cannot have any iconic correspondence with  an ontological reality .”

Bonita: Um, makes it faster ‘cause it, it um, it beat

the, the 10 minutes…Int: Okay.Bonita: And this one (points to right one) as I said

it, it was going fast, or, and then slow, or,

the opposite way.

Page 18: “…Knowledge, of its nature, cannot have any iconic correspondence with  an ontological reality .”

Int: Okay. Let’s put one more person in here.Have you got a friend’s name?

Bonita: Um, Andrea.Int: Andrea. That’s a pretty name. I have no

idea if I spelled it right, but…Bonita: Yeah.

Page 19: “…Knowledge, of its nature, cannot have any iconic correspondence with  an ontological reality .”

Int: Let’s say that she collected…she stood there the same amount of time as

I did butshe collected 4 ounces instead of

3. Is herfaucet dripping at the same, same

fastnessas mine or is hers faster or slower

thanmine?

Bonita: Um, Andrea’s is faster.

Page 20: “…Knowledge, of its nature, cannot have any iconic correspondence with  an ontological reality .”

What does Bonita understand?

Page 21: “…Knowledge, of its nature, cannot have any iconic correspondence with  an ontological reality .”

1) What would an information processor say about Bonita’s math knowledge?2) What would a behaviorist say about Bonita’s math knowledge?3) What would a radical constructivist say about Bonita’s math knowledge?

Page 22: “…Knowledge, of its nature, cannot have any iconic correspondence with  an ontological reality .”

What is a rate?

Page 23: “…Knowledge, of its nature, cannot have any iconic correspondence with  an ontological reality .”

What is a Rate?

External perspective• A rate is the relationship of

two measurements with different units, like miles per hour.

• A rate is a “per 1” ratio, like 60 miles per hour.

Radical Constructivist Perspective• “A rate is a reflectively

abstracted constant ratio.” (Thompson & Thompson, 1992, p. 7)

• “A specific ratio in relation to the quantities compared to make it is a mental structure. A rate, as a reflectively abstracted constant ratio, symbolizes that structure as a whole, but gives prominence to the constancy of the result of the multiplicative comparison.”

Page 24: “…Knowledge, of its nature, cannot have any iconic correspondence with  an ontological reality .”
Page 25: “…Knowledge, of its nature, cannot have any iconic correspondence with  an ontological reality .”