tom abeles (tabeles@tmn.com)
Sun, 11 Apr 1999 22:02:07 -0500
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 22:02:07 -0500 From: tom abeles <tabeles@tmn.com> Subject: the Heart:constructivist vs Instructivists
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.gmd.de/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Muhammad Betz wrote in a small part:
>
> Often when attempting to use constructivist techniques in both settings, I
> have been asked such questions as, "Hey, who is teaching this class?" and
> "Don't you know what you are doing?" and "What do we need you for?" My
> point is constructivist techniques can call in to question the expertise of
> instructors. .....
------------------------------------------------------
And herein lies a serious problem. Would these same persons call into
question a "Zen Master" in painting or archery or any other discipline
when they don't "instruct"? My thought is NO because the master is the
master and what the pupil thinks or doesn't think is the student's
problem on the way to self mastery and not that of the Master who is
master of the discipline. that is why the student is at the foot of the
Master.
In the US where Muhammad teaches, the faculty are not seen as being
Masters -only some person who has studied longer than the pupil and thus
has a greater data base of which a small portion will be imparted in
this short experience called a class. The student will sit for so much
time and get so much information and be graded on what they have
absorbed per unit of seat time. In this model, the pupils are right.
They are given "x" amount of time to get "y" amount of information and
demonstrate that they have been exposed to that unit. Often, when such
an "immunization" has proven valid and the student received a stamp of
approval, they can let it go, like having crossed a bridge and on to the
next puzzle to reach the final answer in a scavenger hunt.
For others, who want the information because it is critical to what
their job function is, their impatience with the instructor is also
relevant because they know that the instructor has a set that is deemed
important and they want to know what the instructor has uncovered and to
give it to them.
This is the problem with seat time instruction which is antithetical to
constructivist learning which implicitly indicates mastery and not steps
of passage which are often not relevant to the recipt of the reward in
the form of a degree.
The problem is inherent in the system and that is why traditional
academia is facing competition from for-profit universities and
corporate universities and..... this is why traditonal higher education
has lost its hegemony. Some alternatives cater to this need for
certification and have said: hey students, do you need so many units of
certification? we have stripped out the game and have reduced it to a
competency level. If you can demonstrate competency in 2 days at the
same level that others make you go for 12 weeks then you get the
certificate. Others have said, "hey, you want contructivist mastery?
we've got the masters, you come and study at your pace and when all have
agreed you have reached your goal then you will know it and we will
certify it.
As Bill Readings has pointed out in his book, The University in Ruins"
as many others have pointed out, the universities have lost their
hegemony. Whether they will survive is even in question or in what form
they will survive.
This discussion on approaches is a pivitol probe into the heart of the
matter.
thoughts?
tom abeles
---------------------------------------------------------
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 - 18:10:13 MET DST