Prompted by Ed. Eckel's long essay, I produced an essay on
educational paradigms. It is based on what I read yesterday. We
have an active "physics education" group; why don't we hear about
investigations of "transactional" paradigm (see below) from them?
Does it apply to physical sciences? In my opinion that paradigm may
be applicable in the context of "liberal education", and perhaps in the
context of selected professional courses (literature, painting, poetry,
journalism, psychology, business, political sciences) but not in our
areas (physical sciences and mathematics). Educational literature
which is not context oriented does not appeal to me.
The recent Syllabus (November/December 1999, pages 14 to 17) has
an article written by Carl Raschke. The title, "The Age of Transaction
and the Scene of Digital Learning." refers to the 5th paradigm of
teaching
and learning. I am scared of this paradigm, our students are far from
being ready to benefit from it. Here is a brief summary of his five
models.
1) Mandarin paradigm (Imperial China)
The principal purpose of teaching is transmission of ancient
cultural norms, practices and values. Rote instruction, including
extensive memorization and mastery of selected skills, such as
reading and calligraphy, dominates over the use of any kind of
critical intelligence or inquiry.
2) Academia (Ancient Greece)
It focuses on the self-development of the learner by means of a
challenging and charismatic role model in the person of the
teacher. The purpose is to produce lifelong learners. Our liberal
education ideas are based on this model.
3) Clerical Model (Medieval Europe and Middle East)
The goal of instruction is to inculcate in the student the kind of
beliefs, values, and moral practices that will demonstrate that they
are, first, worthy of eternal salvation and, second, capable of living
a virtuous and socially productive life.
4) Industrial Model (Developed in the late 19th and 20th centuries)
It incorporates elements of previous paradigms (reforming them)
in the spirit of teaching workers (at all levels) scientific and
technical
know-how. The goal is to sustain social innovation and economic
expansion of national states and capitalistic economy.
5) Transactional learning paradigm (for the next century)
No need for "sages on stages" or for "stars in seminars".
Computer-mediated education will lead to an explosion of self-
crafted, ad hoc, and customized learning modules, where the
great historical divide between instructor and student will start
disappearing. Why should an instructor be both the authority
within a particular discipline and the organizer of all academic
content? Self-tutoring according to needs will dominate. The
true freedom of the mind will be possible after the dissolution
of structures. Traditional book-based curriculum is passive by
its nature, while the new stages of digital scholarship are wide
open. Digital scholarship is truly the final frontier of knowledge
for this very reason.
Most of the above consists of abbreviated quotations from the
article. I strongly disagree that the 5th paradigm should be promoted.
Active learning (problems, labs, discussions) are already essential
components of an ideal physics course. We should continue improving
its effectiveness in real courses within the existing paradigm. Those
who know should lead novices along well designed and tested paths.
Any comments from those who are active in the physics education
community? Do we need research to demonstrate that teaching
science without an organized structure, imposed and supervised
by experts, is impossible? Do have physics education data comparing
the effectiveness of the Internet versus the face-to-face teaching?
We may need that kind of ammunition very soon.
Ludwik Kowalski