Ausubel vs. Constructivism and how concept mapping fits within each theory if at all

Concept mapping has a place in both theories as it is a very useful for knowledge construction. It however has more prominence in Ausubel’s theory as it is geared towards representation of understanding and retention. From a constructivist perspective the creation of contexts and connections between concepts would be the main goal of a concept mapping process.

For example in solving a new Math problem Ausubel’s process may look at how the new material relates to what is already known and what the learner needs to learn, whereas Constructivism focuses on presenting the problem in context and learners examining the problem to determine the subareas needed to solve the problem.

Concept Mapping within constructivism can also address the philosophy and practice of interaction between instructional content and multiple perspectives and also creating connections. Comparing and contrasting, representing what influences how we construct our knowledge versus how we understand a concept as would be the case in Ausubel’s theory.

“you are what you do”

What is your opinion regarding your activity online? Is what you do defining who you are?

I think that everything we do defines who we are to some extent- but we must be careful not to take a statement like this too literally.  For example:  Christie brought up Turkle’s moratorium- where people will experiment or do things online that they would not do in f2f interactions.  If I assume that there is no risk for me to do something online (ie. Insult someone, portray myself as someone I am not…) is this really defining who I am?  I don’t think so.  Darren pointed out that we use/play with what “is at our disposal” so if I don’t have technologies at my fingertips I use/play with something else- but if I had the technology would I then be defining myself differently?

I think the online environment (our situation) is similar for all of us (reading blogs, online banking, google searching, gaming, youtubing….) but our ‘object’ will be slightly different.  Nardi gives the example of a nature walk- one person  is a bird watcher seeking birds, a second is an entomologist examining insects as he walks and the third individual is a meteorologist observing the  clouds.  They each do unique and specific actions (using binoculars, turning over leaves, looking skyward0 which are determined by their purpose or interest.   So although the “situation” is the same in each case; the subject’s object is significantly different.  Therefore, even if you and I do online banking- we have our own banks, bank account numbers, passwords and financial needs which makes our situation the same but our object different.

Nardi describes the activity theory as “a powerful and clarifying descriptive tool rather than a strongly predictive theory. The object of activity theory is to understand the unity of consciousness and activity. Activity theory incorporates strong notions of intentionality, history, mediation, collaboration and development in constructing consciousness”.  Ultimately, what we do is often an extension of who we are but sometimes what I do online has very little resemblance to who I am.