🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 18 Apr 1999, Ronald Sheen wrote:

> Ania apparently believes that if she says often enough that I have missed
> the point she and others might end up believing it.

No:-( The assumption was to provide an umbrella (an "advanced organiser",
if you like) for explaining what I was going to explain. I am sorry you
missed that:-(

> she'll have to do somewhat better than her last post.  Let's recap.  Charles
> assumed that your materials were so managed that given some sub-set thereof
> ,say on advertising, there were different ways of presenting that sub-set
> according to individual differences.

Did Charles say this? I do not remember but if he did he misread the
paper. I thought that the point of the paper was to problematise the very
issue of presentation and hence of "representation"  rather than to
suggest that we should embark on thinking of how can we represent the text
to learner in many different ways.

Btw, in case this gets also missed, I cannot see how support structures
like resources, could be presented according to some differences. It is
the differences that regulate the ways of accessing (looking at) the
texts:-( The point of the resources offered by us is to argue that unless
we bring in flexibility into the learning environment, we embark on the
methodology of a goose-step.

> Thus there may  be ten different ways of presenting the same material.

ugh? Why ten? a good number though:-)

> This was certainly not made explicit in
> what I read in the paper for it makes no mention of this issue and certainly
> does not talk of offering different presentations of the same base material.

ogo ogo, we are getting bit entangled here. I think we need a specialist
on a "non-emotional" reading of texts, i.e. at the level of their
"semantic representation" (???), a rational being, who knows what things
are when s/he sees them. There are times when I am almost ready to succumb
to the proponents of the truth-value of statements...

> I said this to Charles who answered that he would review the paper.  Now,
> Ania maintains that my reply misses the point and in a vain attempt to prove
> it, provides two excerpts from her husbands writing.  Yet nowhere therein is
> there any mention of what Charles assumed to be present in the article.

I wonder why?

>  So
> let's put the question simply and directly.  Does the paper under discussion
> suggest that the Lians' approach will present different versions of the same
> material to suit different types of learners.  If so, could Ania cite the
> relevant passage or tell us where we can find it.  If not, could she explain
> how I have missed the point in terms of what is said in the paper.

I could not:-(

But we sure hope that:
(a) the management of the resources which the system described as well as
(b) the conditions of learning in which the need for working with
resources emerges,
together offer conditions which make the task of accessing the "logic" of
the systems which regulate production and hence comprehension more
flexible and hence more accessible (or comprehensible, in the brad sense
of this word):

"In practical terms, this requirement leads to a necessity to create
conditions where the learner is given access to a multitude of devices to
facilitate the linking and organising of information." (from "Shaolin")

Ania