Crispin Weston (crispinw@dircon.co.uk)
Thu, 5 Aug 1999 14:46:59 +0100
From: "Crispin Weston" <crispinw@dircon.co.uk> Subject: Learning in the 21st Century Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 14:46:59 +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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ania Lian (4 August) wrote:
<<Indeed, it has been argued that our experiments prove or disprove what we
already know>>
If they disprove what we already know, then we clearly did not know it, as
the object of knowledge is by definition true. But if you replace ‘know’
with ‘suspect’, then I would agree. The scientific method is (1) to create a
hypothesis and (2) test it. To say that we don’t see something if we don’t
look for it may be true: to say that we see what we want to see and not what
we don’t is not true. The world does not necessarily behave either in the
way we want it to or in the way we expect.
Nevertheless, my example was not to do with experiments and the scientific
method (empirical observation and inference) but with the mathematical
method, which is abstract, does not rely on experimentation and is
essentially deductive. I suppose that there is no reason why scientific
hypotheses could not be all entirely random guesses and scientific progress
down to trial and error. In this case, the scientist (as researcher) need
not have any particular predictive power. But the mathematician clearly
does. The mathematician says, ‘according to my logic, I can say how the
world will behave, even though I have never seen it behaving in such a way
myself’.
I don’t think your mail answered my central question. If you believe that
‘there is no such a thing as rationality or logic independent of its
producers’, then why does Einstein’s supposedly private logic have the power
to predict the behaviour of the world in the most dramatic and
counter-intuitive way?
<<what would this mean in the contexts of education and assessment?>>
I think that the effect of relativism on education is to undermine our
confidence in the fact that we have something to teach. Truth is itself
abstract: concrete things exist, but they are not ‘true’. If there is no
such thing as abstract truth then there is no truth at all. In that case we
are all wasting our time, both as teachers and as participants in this
discussion group. I see this ideology leading to a kind of obscurantism,
where all systems of measurement are so suspect as to be virtually useless;
where no-one is allowed to state what the objectives of education are; where
people seem not to be prepared to use the word ‘standards’ without encasing
it in inverted commas (whoops: done it myself); where any theory goes,
because one man’s ‘truth’ is as good as another’s.
I see constructivism and theories of child-centred education as useful
contributions to a debate on pedagogical technique, but I do not think they
have much to contribute to a debate on what learning *is*. I construct my
beliefs, but whether those beliefs constitute knowledge depends on whether
they correspond to an abstract truth which is external to me. Knowledge is a
bridge between my beliefs and truth; and I construct only one end of the
bridge. If there is absolute and external truth, then the bottom line is
that education is an essentially transmissive process, even if in the
child-centred classroom (possibly for very good reasons) it does not appear
to be such.
To speak in a more positive sense, what I am in favour of is clarity about
our educational objectives and in the measurement of student progress
towards those objectives (which is not to say that total clarity is
achievable, but that it is worth working towards). When I did my teacher
qualification, we spent an enormous amount of time in rather woolly debate
about the aims of education. I think it is for the clients of the education
system (students, parents, employers, government) to specify aims: the job
of teachers is to determine the best means to achieve those objectives.
Different means will suit different ends and a good teacher will surely have
a wide repertoire. I would like to see more technocrats in education, fewer
ideologues.
Crispin Weston
PS. I should add that my last sentence is aimed at numerous authors on my
PGCE reading lists, not at anyone on this list!
PPS. Thanks 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 Thu 05 Aug 1999 - 23:40:37 MEST