Constructivism is sort of painful to see again. Not only is it what my schoolwork was, but now that I’m helping my nephew to through his stuff, even though it’s just 8th grade right now, it’s the SAME stuff. Systemic approaches (ecological basically) are truer to reality (imo) so bare naked construvistic pedagogy is just plain ol’ painful.

Constructivism is sort of painful to see again. Not only is it what my schoolwork was, but now that I’m helping my nephew to through his stuff, even though it’s just 8th grade right now, it’s the SAME stuff.

Systemic approaches (ecological basically) are truer to reality (imo) so bare naked construvistic pedagogy is just plain ol’ painful.

====

“objective facts of world politics” felt like a stab. That phrase is just…

====

There’s objective facts of world politics sure but it bristles. To me objective facts could be dropped out of a plane onto any corner of the planet, and whoever picks it up will say, “Why yes, of course”.

=====

Oh, knowing that it’s ALREADY planted within a particular country’s conceptualization of what an objective perspective entails (for them), I can move forward to answering.

=====

Facts floating in platonic realm always raise my skeptical ire

====

I reread it. My way of thinking is so far removed from this that I can’t answer these questions at all.

It is dependent first upon Acceptance of said objective facts BEFORE then interpreting those facts.

I don’t see that happening much at all except in academia, which attempt to make this how the world works.

——

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


nine − 8 =

Leave a Reply