Through the videos and readings, I revisited Constructivism per Dewey, Montessori, and Vygotsky via Abbott (n.d.). It is always good to revisit ideas from time to time, in order to clarify vision and refresh beliefs. Through the visitation and the now deleted discussion, I came to better understanding of the concept within the framework of of our current reality. For those of us in the public school system it is impossible for us to faithfully maintain a fully constructivist classroom. In spite of our beliefs and ideals, at best we can only maintain a partially constructivist or hybrid version of the same in our classrooms, because of the expectations for planning, testing, and accountability in our system. In a fully constructivist classroom a teacher would not be able to have learning maps, because the students themselves construct the learning. If the students themselves construct the learning it is going to be different for each of them. I know of only one school in Delaware that is truly constructivist. The rest of us have to be content with our hybrid.
Connectivism (Siemens, n.d.) is a sign of the times and makes perfect sense. I don't think that it, in and of itself, is necessarily a separate learning theory or design. It rather works in conjunction with other learning theories and templates and can fit with any of them. With the amount of knowledge that students are to be familiar with, it certainly has become important to know where to find the information. While some of us have a greater ability to store information than others it is still impossible to store all information in one's brain. Having said that, I still think that we would see some interesting changes if we all had the ability to use more or all of our brain. Maybe that will be part of the human evolutionary process and totally negate Warwick's (n.d.) need to be a cyborg. I know very little about the human brain, so I am just saying. However, the possibility does exist. For right now we can be happy that we have increased our knowledge base through the power of the internet.
I have put some thought into "Cyborg Learning Theory" (Warwick, n.d.). I suppose the theory right now is whether or not the implants would work. It is not a theory on best practices for teachers. If we were all to become cyborgs would there be any real need for teachers? I doubt it. If humans would get the implants of their choosing then they would be equipped for their own needs and design or redesign for the person they wanted to be or job they wanted. I suppose I could go on for hours pondering the implications including the ethical. All of which would require a lot of time and energy to discuss in any detail at all.
Warwick (n.d.) also talks about not having the need for all of the learning of what I will call the “boring” material and being able to focus on learning the really interesting things. I would argue that we don't need cyborg implants to be able to do that. The problem is that students are forced to deal with the "basics" and the "repetitive" work whether they need it or not. I have been listening to my son rambling on about this for the past 11 years. Thankfully, he is now a senior. However, my boy with the high IQ and the low grades will be forced to have to prove his intelligence for entrance into university because he refused to do the "boring" work. I would tell him to just do the work and get it over with. He would say “Why should I waste time on things I already know?”. His grades are not at all reflective of his intelligence and ability. In this case, I say, thankfully there is the SAT. Normally, I would not say that. My point is that Warwick needs to realize that it is the system that needs to change for all students before anything he is proposing can even be considered.
I have the tendency to think about these implants in more practical terms, and certainly it is important to allow individual choice. If this becomes a reality and only some choose it, I do believe that Warwick (n.d.), would be correct in his assumption that humans, as we are now, will become the subspecies of the planet. Once again, too many social and ethical implications to discuss here.
Where I was headed when talking about practical uses for these kinds of implants, goes back to a study trip to Italy in 2008. I had the opportunity to briefly discuss a similar topic with a scientist who was working on a robotic prosthetic hand that would be directly wired to nerve endings for people who had lost their hands. Of course, the robotic hand once wired into the body and after therapy and learning would be controlled by the human brain. Robotic hands, at this point, are old news; but it is pretty cool that I was able to talk to someone who was making it a reality. I asked him about the implications of this robotic technology for the eyes. He told me that the eyes are far too complex for that type of technology, but what I really wanted to know was how a chip might be implanted in the back of an eye that would talk to the brain remotely, in order to restore vision. Unfortunately, the time I had to talk with him was far too short.
Siemens, G. (nd). The Changing Nature of Knowledge [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMcTHndpzYg
Warwirk, K. (nd). Cyborg Life [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB_l7SY_ngI
