Bob Leamnson (RLEAMNSON@umassd.edu)
Fri, 23 Jul 1999 15:35:05 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 15:35:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Bob Leamnson <RLEAMNSON@umassd.edu> Subject: Is teaching learnable only through experience?
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://grouper.ieee.org/ltsc/ifets/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few reflections on the background paper (Owens).
There is in the presentation the strong, even explicit, suggestion that
teachers themselves do not need instruction in "specific learning
technologies" (not even writing?) nor in "specific instructional
strategies." I wonder then if there is *anything* that potential
teachers need instruction on. Owen would seem to say no, and
suggests that learning by doing ("good old pragmatism") is all that's
needed.
Learning through experience is generally effective, but few would
argue that it is efficient, fast, or cost effective. In the case of surgery
or aeronautics it could be disastrous. Alan Cromer says "there is
nothing natural about a classroom," and he does not intend this to be
in any way critical. He was in fact asking everyone to simply realize
that all schooling is a contrived situation designed to relieve people
of the terrible burden of learning everything through experience.
What does it say about the social value of teaching if we let teachers
learn their craft in a way we would never tolerate for surgeons,
engineers, or accountants?
Of Owens' three suggestions I would take issue with the first:
"design learning experiences which reflect authentic world
experiences." This sounds good, but isn't possible. Our students'
authentic world experiences are largely in the future and we cannot
know them. Worse, I think, is the assumption (shared unfortunately
by many students) that learning itself is *not* an authentic world
experience, if it happens to occur in school. It's a depressing
thought.
Owens' suggestion that reflection and dialogue are needed could
hardly be questioned. But it's not "the ability" to do these that is
lacking, just the impetus and motivation.
On Ken Meyer's posting:
Ken makes a lament that permeates current discussion on "the
new paradigm" i.e., learner-centeredness. It is my position that
conflating teaching and learning into a kind of mysterious,
unsolvable, two-body problem is one reason that progress in
understanding either is slow. No harm is done when, for purposes of
discussion and analysis, we separate teaching from learning and
consider these for what they are, separate activities carried out by
separate people. Good learning can indeed correlate with good
teaching, but when that happens wouldn't it seem a good idea to
study that teaching in detail--perhaps emulate it, at least as a first
approximation?
Ken seems to switch gears and become an advocate of
concentrating on teacher preparation, when he compares teachers
with elevator repairmen and air traffic controllers. If he would not
take an elevator repaired by an untrained person, would he send his
children to be taught by an untrained teacher? If not, in what should
this training consist?
The suggestion that training, for any service, should concentrate
on the recipient and not the practitioner seems quite wrong to me.
Were I in a plane and had the choice of air traffic controllers--one
trained to be concerned with my health, needs, and goals in life, or
one trained to land airplanes--I know which I'd pick.
Bob
---------------------------------------------------------
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 Sat 24 Jul 1999 - 01:31:43 MEST