Well, finally my turn again to present!
I was using up quite much time to present even though I skipped quite a few slides. (Not important slides though.)
It is ok for me to present Ausubel and Bruner, but me and Latifah was having a hard time to look for the information about Skemp and Dienes. Because we never seen and heard of it before, moreover then source in the internet are not to be fully trusted, and the reference books in UM library are too ancient to contain these new ideas.
Well, personally, I think the presentation was disastrous, we are not familiar with Skemp & Dienes. I just don't fully understand at all.
Both Skemp and Dienes seem to reuse the old concept and put it into their shoes.
As Chinese says, "you have changed the bottle, but the wine within it is still the same."
So, what's the point and rational behind these two theory?
Well, you wanna know what am I thinking?
My opinion that it is very hard to present the new knowledge we never learn before to our friends. Because we never understand the concept, we will tend to define the knowledge ourselves. Whether it is good or bad no one knows, only God and the creator of the theory know best. :)
What I really mean is, it is impossible to cook a delicious meal, if you only give us order but not ingredients, isn't it so?
I was told I am going to present again in a few weeks to come, about teaching disabled and able students. Once again, I've never learned about this thing. How am I going to present when I myself never understand at all?
I am just expressing my confuse here, because this is neither discovery learning, nor it is constructivism. Everything is so hard and so confusing.
I sincerely hope that this blog will not hurt anyone's feeling, because this is what blog are for, to share ideas.
Finally, I would like to say sorry and thank you very much.
P/s: Is there any interesting ways to learn psychology rather than just show and tell?
