Clark Quinn (cnquinn@knowledgeu.com)
Tue, 6 Apr 1999 08:59:23 -0700
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 08:59:23 -0700 From: "Clark Quinn" <cnquinn@knowledgeu.com> Subject: Re: IFETS-DISCUSS Digest - 2 Apr 1999 to 3 Apr 1999
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.gmd.de/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>My target audience are
>university students who we are supposed to be developing into "independent,
>life-long learners". I feel that a "social constructivist" model is more
>likely to achieve this outcome than a "transmission model" however, I do
>concede that we may have to start out with a transmission model in the
>first year and gradually change towards a more constructivist model in the
>later years.
While there are problems with the constructivist model, particularly
that self-development doesn't fit easily into the strict university
timeline, I would still disagree with starting them out with the
transmission model and trying to shift them (pun intended) to another
model. I have found (particularly with diverse learning populations)
that after years before university with essentially transmission
models, and then transmission models in the first few years of
university, they are not only very difficult to scaffold into a
constructivist model, but also resistant to taking on a new way of
learning. My belief is that the transition to university is a prime
opportunity to take advantage of the turmoil to suggest that not only
is university life different, but so is the learning. It takes time
to 'learn to learn' in a different way, and (I've learned the hard
way) one semester or quarter won't do it.
>As a "born-again" constructivist who started out as a devout "behaviourist"
>while a military trainer, I also agree with you that constructivism is not
>a "model for all seasons" and there are even aspects of a university
>curriculum which may be better taught within alternative models whether
>they be behaviourist or information processing.
I agree a balance has to be made (though I'd also suggest that
university *ought* not to be a huge amount of work preparation but
instead an introduction to the life-long learning advocated by the
original author) between traditional university courses (and
professors, unless you can engineer an entire culture change the way
the University of Sydney did in their medical school) and
constructivist, but there are some possible approaches. For
instance, you can have a year-long problem/studio assignment that
serves to integrate the learning from the traditional courses. This
is being trialed at UNSW for the new Software Engineering course.
>We must not forget that universities have a duty to ensure that graduates
>from certain professions are "competent" and the consequence of
>"incompetence" in some of these professions such as medicine and
>engineering can be catastrophic. For this reason we must place some limits
>on the degree to which students choose what content they study and how they
>conduct self and peer assessment.
You need rigor, certainly, but it does not have to be through old
methods. For instance, medical schools are making significant
strides towards problem-based learning. And even in these supposedly
critical learning environments, the notion of 'evidence-based
medicine' is still new! -- Clark
-- Clark Quinn Knowledge Universe Interactive Studio (510) 768-2408 cnquinn@knowledgeu.com--------------------------------------------------------- Forum website: http://ifets.gmd.de/ Forum's contact person: kinshuk@ieee.org Info on Join/Leave List: http://ifets.gmd.de/maillist.html ---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue 06 Apr 1999 - 18:31:05 MET DST