!

Why Might He Have Done This? Lucy Denton The University of Calgary

Dr Davis use of fractals in his plenaries has challenged me. I had never heard of

fractals prior to this course. Initially I could not see a connection between fractals and becoming a teacher. After learning about coherence theories in general and constructivism/construetivism in particular I believe I have some insight into why he has included fractals in relation to knowing, learning and of course teaching. ! A coherence theory of learning is concerned with the internal coherence of a

system or learner. In contrast to earlier correspondence theories where learning was measured by the level of similarity or correspondence between subjective internal models with objective external realities, coherence theories see learning and knowing as embodied in the learner. System viability depends on all parts being coherent with one another. Whether these parts mirror some other objective external reality is of no consequence. ! Contructivism/construetivism, a coherence theory understands learning as being

embodied in the learner. Learning is seen as a constant and recursive process. When we are given information our brains/bodies/selves are constantly trying make it

make sense within the existing structure. We do not make sense of the information in a vacuum or from a blank slate. Our brains/bodies/selves make sense of the information in relation to what is already embodied, our learned experiences. Information gathering, sorting and knowing is cumulative and known as the process of recursive elaboration. New information is ltered through the existing system and gives rise to a new embodied understanding. As Ausubel (1978) argued, the most important single factor inuencing learning is what the learner already knows. Fractal forms illustrate this concept of learning. ! Recursive elaboration used to illustrate how knowledge is gathered and

synthesized in constructivism/construetivism also gives rise to fractal forms. That is, a fractal form is a result of a continuous repetition. This repetition does not cancel the importance or existence of the previous repetition, quite the contrary, each elaboration transforms the whole to become a new whole. I built fractal pyramids out of lego with my son. We kept adding new little fractal pyramids to the existing pyramid to make a new pyramid. Every time we added a new pyramid we produced a new structure through this process of recursive elaboration. Constructivism/contruetivism conceptualizes knowing in similar terms. When our mind/body systems are presented with information that information does not ll a decit in our knowing, it changes the way

and what we know. It alters our knowing systems and challenges them to revise and interpret them to keep them coherent with the rest of our systems. They either assimilate the information if it ts in with existing systems or causes the dismantling and restructuring of systems if new learning is needed to keep internal coherence. ! I believe that constructivism/construetivism as a theory and fractals as an

illustration of the theory are deeply embedded in Dr Davis pedagogical approach to learning, knowing and teaching. Instead of learning being seen as a linear process that everyone should travel together with the teacher leading the way to an identied destination, constructivism/construetivism sees knowing and learning as an innite process, much like the creation and elaboration of a fractal. No two journeys will be alike. As teachers this perspective can deeply inform our practice. We cannot see students as a homogeneous mass. They are each individuals with their own histories and experiences. These histories and experiences should be validated and valued. The possibilities we open up together will take each student on their own journey as they create and elaborate their ever changing internal knowing systems. References Ausubel (1978)??

Performance Criteria

The work evidences clarity of The paper is focused, reflects the Concise, clear, clean wording and understanding and insight in terms intentions of the assignment, and composition render the work of core course issues and concepts. demonstrates an integration and accessible, unambiguous, and application of relevant course sufficiently engaging. References content. (if used) are correctly cited. Attribute CONTENT (10%) FOCUS (10%) WORDING (10%) Quality of understanding Score Meets assignments intentions 9 Quality of composition 8 demonstrated 9 Criteria exceptionally met: Work is extraordinary. Challenging and significant ideas and/or interpretations 10 are developed with insight, depth and originality. The work displays sophisticated cogent understandings/ analyses. It stands as superior and exemplary. Criteria met. These are good efforts demonstrating competent, clear, cogent understandings/analyses. The 8 interpretations reflect the intentions of the assignment and are focused. The material is clearly and cleanly written. References (if used) are correctly cited. Criteria somewhat met. The work is short of fully satisfying the particular criterion. However deficiencies 6 are minimal and do not significantly compromise the overall quality of the work. 4 2 Limited. These are problematic efforts, demonstrating fragmented or weak understandings/analyses. The interpretations may not reflect the intentions of the assignment and/or may not be clearly focused and/or written. References might not always be well used or cited. Acknowledgement of submission. These are very poor efforts that do not demonstrate understanding or analysis. The interpretations are very weak, and may not reflect the intentions of the assignment, may be unfocused, and/or may be poorly written. References might be poorly used and/or incorrectly cited.

Dear Lucy Thank you for your insightful paper on fractals. You have demonstrated a clear understanding of constructivism. Good work! I like how you drew upon your experiences with your son to elaborate on fractals and learning. Your grade - 26/30 Krista