Bob Leamnson (RLEAMNSON@umassd.edu)
Sun, 16 May 1999 11:30:09 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 11:30:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Bob Leamnson <RLEAMNSON@umassd.edu> Subject: current discussion
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.gmd.de/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Elmore (1996) lamented that pedagogical theories and
methods, even very good ones, often languish or settle into small
isolated pockets here and there. Why is a good teaching idea not like
a good gene that soon (in evolutionary terms) becomes established in
a community?
I have a theory of my own on the problem (1999), and Phil's
position paper on instructional design (and several responses and
comments on it) might someday become data points to support my
hypothesis. Neither the original paper nor the follow-ups read exactly
smoothly for me. I had to print them and then pore over them,
rereading some sentences several times and abandoning some
altogether. I came to believe that the group that pursues this area of
research has a private language. Words that the rest of us thought we
knew and understood seem suddenly to mean something else. Very
unsettling.
My developing hypothesis is that run-of-the-mill professors of
history, biology and economics would, in many cases at least, like to
improve their teaching, but they can make no sense of the literature
that purports to tell them how. In the field of education, for example,
the word paradigm is tossed about as if it meant no more than a point
of view. For the rest of us, a paradigm shift is a serious and
documentable thing that *really does* change everybody's thinking
and working. A lot of us become circumspect when told repeatedly
that the sky is falling.
Back to Phil's paper. Here are several items that I kept stubbing
my toe on.
KNOWLEDGE: What does the rest of the world mean by this word
and should it be conflated with or used interchangeably with
"information?" I always though bits of knowledge resided entirely in
someone's head, and all the world's knowledge resided in the
collective heads of all the world's people. Knowledge was what
someone *knew*, not what they might someday know. Politicians are
then being honest when they say, "I have no knowledge of that" even
when the information in question is readily available.
INFORMATION: Information means to me facts, theories, opinions,
myths, data--the raw material or cognitive content of knowledge. It is
quite possible, then, for there to be information for which there is no
corresponding knowledge (Mayan inscriptions for example) because
there is currently no brain that understands the cognitive content of
the information. By my understanding, information can reside almost
anywhere, in books, on stone tablets, in websites or in our genes.
None of it becomes knowledge until someone grasps the content.
INSTRUCTION: Instruction, classically, was likewise never
conflated with either knowledge or information, because it was by
definition a process (except in the plural, "instructions," where it does
mean printed information). To instruct meant to teach. To instruct
meant to make information public in some way--speech, writing,
signing, websites, etc. When information "registered" in someone
else, knowledge was produced (reproduced?) and the process we
know as education had occurred.
Because these definitions, or understandings, are so ingrained, I
have great difficulty understanding writing that uses them differently.
"Transmission of knowledge" for example is a meaningless
expression to me. One can transmit information, but whether or not it
produces knowledge is entirely (almost) a function of what the
recipient makes of it.
Nor does the expression "information design" hold any meaning
for me. Because I think of information as the content of symbols, it's
possible to transmit it, or to reformat it for a different medium, or
even to create it through original observation and research. But
"design" it? What can that mean?
"Instructional design" on the other had has a very clear meaning for
me, i.e. a variation on pedagogy (whether this was the intended
meaning I don't know). Whether or not knowledge is produced in
another's mind may well depend on the method by which information
is made public, and not just the content or accuracy of that
information. All teaching, good or bad, is the presentation of
information. But good teaching means well-designed instruction--
appropriate for the recipient so that knowledge is, or soon can be,
produced in another's mind; learning has happened.
The intent of this posting is not to convert anyone to anything. The
ideas expressed here are intended only as an explanation (one perhaps
of many) for the great reluctance that teachers in the other disciplines
have for sitting down and considering educational theory, even when
that may indeed be very good theory.
Elmore, R. (1996) "Getting to Scale with Good Educational
Practice." Harvard Educational Review (spring)
Leamnson, R. (1999) "Thinking About Teaching and Learning" Stylus
Publishing. Sterling VA
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 Sun 16 May 1999 - 17:35:28 MET DST