Bob Leamnson (RLEAMNSON@umassd.edu)
Mon, 12 Apr 1999 08:56:00 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 08:56:00 -0500 (EST) From: Bob Leamnson <RLEAMNSON@umassd.edu> Subject: On Polarization
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.gmd.de/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Subscribers to IFETS and POD: please forgive a
rambling essay. Hit <del> if you don't like
tendentious statements of personal opinions]
Most readers would probably agree that people with the
strongest feelings about an issue tend to be the most vocal. It does
not follow however, that 100% of the people *have* strong
feelings about a particular issue. They might in fact comprise only
20% of the population that has any interest at all in that issue. The
other 80% have worked out their own position or philosophy but
feel no burning desire to convince anyone that their beliefs are more
valid than someone else's. From these hypotheses it would follow
that most publicly debated issues only *appear* to polarize the
populace. Whether it's abortion, the bombing of Serbia, or
constructivism, it's most often the most fervently convinced who let
their voices be heard.
For these reasons I don't believe that the professoriate is quite
so polarized (on most pedagogical issues) as essays in the journals,
lectures (sic) at meetings, and net postings might suggest.
Research in these areas is not my thing, so I can only say that my
many contacts with college classroom instructors lead me to
*believe* that a lot (I wish someone could give me a figure) of
college teachers are more pragmatic and eclectic than most of the
literature suggests. Quite a few interrupt their lecture to have
students do group problem solving. Some routinely use half or
more of a class period for student discussion to encourage
paraphrasing, or original observations, and to detect obvious errors
in thinking. All of them who use well-known examples or analogies
to illustrate a new idea are using at least one of the elements of
constructivism. All laboratories utilize hands-on team work, and
active methods, to try to get student minds working.
Teachers who are, and have been, using some, at least, of the
quite effective methods of instruction are still turning a deaf ear to
any suggestion that the historical college milieu has to be jettisoned,
quickly, and some new thing (take your pick) put in its place. Talk
of a "new paradigm" is simply dismissed, and often because these
experienced instructors have a clearer understanding of "paradigm"
than the person flogging a new one.
Much of the recent literature (and now and then a plenary
session at a national meeting) would suggest that college teaching
in the U.S. has failed, or is going to in the near future. But that
begs the question, "compared to what?" The only answer so far is
"something wonderful just over the horizon."
An obvious and sometimes stated cause for the purported failure
would be bad teaching by college instructors. The high dropout
rates, particularly in the sciences, and the repeated reports of
students being bored would seem to bear this out. I believe,
however, that assertions to the effect that students are natural and
curious learners who will do fine if teachers "get out of their way,"
are simply wrong in the majority of cases. Their constant repetition,
however, reinforces the notion that the real problem is with college
instructors.
Some learning is obviously "natural" in the sense that our
survival is dependent on it, such as learning what plants and animals
are safely edible and which are not. But there is nothing in our
natural endowment that demands that we understand statistics or
enzymatic catalysis. It's the societal needs of a highly evolved
culture that demands this kind of learning, which in turn demands
teaching. Such learning is certainly not natural any more than
learning to read is natural, as the state of California learned to its
horror. Students will learn these *unnatural* things only when they
are persuaded to do so. I'm not sure which is more important in
college teaching, pedagogy or persuasion. Perhaps the answer is
that the really important part of pedagogy *is* persuasion.
If so, polarized claims for or against constructivism, active
learning, teacher-centered classrooms, the internet or ( ) (fill
in the blank) simply pit one faction against another. Teachers who
have come to realize that persuasion is the difficult element will
probably be quite eclectic, and fairly quiet.
[Several ideas in this mini-essay are expanded in "Thinking About
Teaching and Learning" available from Stylus Publishing
(styluspub@aol.com)]
Bob Leamnson
UMass Dartmouth
---------------------------------------------------------
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 Mon 12 Apr 1999 - 15:03:43 MET DST