🚀 go-pugleaf

Ania Lian quoted Ronald Sheen and wrote:
>> 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.
>

Although I have not been to work yet to re-read the paper, what I meant is
best represented by Ania's quote, not Ron's. It is not a question of
pre-packaging materials it is a question of reacting to the student in the
context of the learning situation. Buddhism has a concept called "upaya" (if
I have not misspelled it) which is quite similar - you teach the student
what they need to get a step closer to the goal, not the 'truth'.

Charles Adamson
adamson@mxu.meshnet.or.jp