Comments for Lance White Blog http://lancew.wordpress.com Just another WordPress.com weblog Fri, 17 Feb 2006 16:04:01 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on 15/5 Report 2/17/06 by Doug http://lancew.wordpress.com/2006/02/16/155-report-21706/#comment-14 Doug Fri, 17 Feb 2006 16:04:01 +0000 http://lancew.wordpress.com/2006/02/16/155-report-21706/#comment-14 Checked. Checked.

]]> Comment on Chapter 15 Reflection by Doug http://lancew.wordpress.com/2006/02/14/chapter-15-reflection/#comment-13 Doug Thu, 16 Feb 2006 04:27:21 +0000 http://lancew.wordpress.com/2006/02/14/chapter-15-reflection/#comment-13 Checked Checked

]]> Comment on Chapter 14 Reflection by Doug http://lancew.wordpress.com/2006/02/06/chapter-14-reflection/#comment-12 Doug Thu, 16 Feb 2006 03:59:17 +0000 http://lancew.wordpress.com/2006/02/06/chapter-14-reflection/#comment-12 Checked. Checked.

]]> Comment on Chapter 13 Reflection by Doug http://lancew.wordpress.com/2006/02/04/chapter-13-reflection/#comment-11 Doug Thu, 16 Feb 2006 03:58:52 +0000 http://lancew.wordpress.com/2006/02/04/chapter-13-reflection/#comment-11 Checked. Checked.

]]> Comment on 15/5 Reflection 2/10/06 by Doug http://lancew.wordpress.com/2006/02/09/155-reflection-21006/#comment-10 Doug Thu, 09 Feb 2006 19:16:17 +0000 http://lancew.wordpress.com/2006/02/09/155-reflection-21006/#comment-10 Lance, even though you're the evaluator, I still want you actively involved on the project at this stage. You can be helping with brainstorming ideas and looking over documents. Otherwise, things seem to be going well. Was the logo a point of contention? Lance, even though you’re the evaluator, I still want you actively involved on the project at this stage. You can be helping with brainstorming ideas and looking over documents. Otherwise, things seem to be going well. Was the logo a point of contention?

]]> Comment on Chapter 12 by Doug http://lancew.wordpress.com/2006/01/30/chapter-12/#comment-9 Doug Thu, 09 Feb 2006 15:56:43 +0000 http://lancew.wordpress.com/2006/01/30/chapter-12/#comment-9 Good review. Read it again and again! BTW, you don't have to double-space between paragraphs, and you don't need to indent the paragraphs (the single space is enough). Good review. Read it again and again! BTW, you don’t have to double-space between paragraphs, and you don’t need to indent the paragraphs (the single space is enough).

]]> Comment on 15/5 Report 2/2/06 by Lance http://lancew.wordpress.com/2006/02/02/155-report-2206/#comment-8 Lance Fri, 03 Feb 2006 22:15:51 +0000 http://lancew.wordpress.com/2006/02/02/155-report-2206/#comment-8 No, we worked it out, it is fine! Thanks, I know I did not make myself clear No, we worked it out, it is fine! Thanks, I know I did not make myself clear

]]> Comment on 15/5 Report 2/2/06 by Doug http://lancew.wordpress.com/2006/02/02/155-report-2206/#comment-7 Doug Fri, 03 Feb 2006 15:09:03 +0000 http://lancew.wordpress.com/2006/02/02/155-report-2206/#comment-7 Lance, you said, "What confuses me is the fact that the first learner profile was specific, and the revised profile is so broad and open. Which one should we use?" Are you refering to learner profiles that your team created? Or are you confused about something I said? Lance, you said, “What confuses me is the fact that the first learner profile was specific, and the revised profile is so broad and open. Which one should we use?” Are you refering to learner profiles that your team created? Or are you confused about something I said?

]]> Comment on Chapter 3 Reflection by Doug http://lancew.wordpress.com/2006/01/24/chapter-3-reflection/#comment-6 Doug Tue, 31 Jan 2006 18:32:24 +0000 http://lancew.wordpress.com/2006/01/24/chapter-3-reflection/#comment-6 Lance, well done on the reading reflections for Ch. 1-3. Lance, well done on the reading reflections for Ch. 1-3.

]]> Comment on Chapter 2 Reflection by Doug http://lancew.wordpress.com/2006/01/23/chapter-2-reflection/#comment-5 Doug Tue, 31 Jan 2006 18:31:43 +0000 http://lancew.wordpress.com/2006/01/23/chapter-2-reflection/#comment-5 Constructivism doesn't necessary mean that there is no place for "information" ("being told" stuff). Some stuff (and I use "stuff" in the technical sense :-) *can* be just told. That's just information. But a constructivist would say that information is not knowledge, and that even simple information must be reconciled with prior knowledge by the individual student. As for challengers to constructivism, don't write off the "old" stuff. Instructional systems design is still largely behavioral in it's foundations. Constructivism doesn’t necessary mean that there is no place for “information” (“being told” stuff). Some stuff (and I use “stuff” in the technical sense :-) *can* be just told. That’s just information. But a constructivist would say that information is not knowledge, and that even simple information must be reconciled with prior knowledge by the individual student.

As for challengers to constructivism, don’t write off the “old” stuff. Instructional systems design is still largely behavioral in it’s foundations.

]]>