Crispin Weston (crispinw@dircon.co.uk)
Fri, 30 Jul 1999 12:34:07 +0100
From: "Crispin Weston" <crispinw@dircon.co.uk> Subject: learning in the 21st Century Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 12:34:07 +0100
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<<learning experiences which reflect authentic world experience.>>>
I accept that effective learning experiences are normally context-rich. This
is largely because the concrete is much more familiar and accessible than
the abstract, particularly to inexperienced learners.
That does not mean that the *objectives* of learning should be tied to
particular contexts. The acid test of whether you understand the world is
whether you can predict its behaviour. Such power of prediction has always
been given by knowledge of abstract concepts, not by knowledge of experience
per se. To understand an experience, you must have knowledge which goes
beyond the experience (i.e. how one's experience relates to other
experiences: such knowledge of relationships is inevitably abstract).
When the objectives of learning are tied to context, we are in a world of
mechanical drilling: as 'in context (a) the solution is (b)'. Abstract
understanding, in contrast, is more valuable precisely because it is
transferable. The relationship between abstract universal and concrete
particular is one to many.
Martin continues to downplay the importance of 'artificial structures of
knowledge...which should not make spurious claims to superiority,
rationality and logic'. If abstract knowledge, such as Maths, is artificial,
how come it is such a powerful predictor of the behaviour of the material
world? If Maths is artificial, you would presumable have to say that
Einstein 'invented' rather than 'discovered' the theory of relativity. If
the theory is only 'invention' then the conformance to the theory of
empirical observations, conducted decades later, could only be explained as
co-incidental. If 'artificial structures of knowledge' cannot claim
rationality, then is there any such thing as rationality and logic at all?
Of course I accept that all language (including Maths) is artificial in the
symbols it chooses to represent the reality which is the object of its
study. The veracity of a mathematical formula does not depend on the
particular notiation which it uses.
As I understand it the drive to introduce more of what you call authenticity
into assessment has largely been fueled by the desire to equalise and
improve assessment results (is it not true that girls in particular perform
better on context-rich maths questions?). While I am no mathemetician, I
should have thought that the ability to operate effectively at the higher
levels of that discipline would depend on the ability to abandon context
(authenticity?) altogether and work in purely abstract terms.
Crispin Weston
---------------------------------------------------------
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 01 Aug 1999 - 20:22:17 MEST