Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
This response is a bit confusing. It starts out saying we are
in agreement and then says that we are not because time doesn't permit
us to do it the right way.
I have real problem with language like "discovery learning" because it
implies that to learn students have to play around until they figure it
out for themselves. I think that lanquage does a disservice to a
pedagogy that tries to consciously create situations in which students
can learn for themselves, because that it the best way for them to
learn. It isn't random play...it is guided inquiry.
No scientist that I know of goes into a lab and just does random
measurements with no prior ideas about what might be done. Graduate
students generally work within a context provided by the group they work
in.
It will take more time, we will have to cover less content, but I don't
think the model suggested in Hugh's note is a fair assessment of what
needs to be done. It rather reads like an excuse for not doing it.
Once again, I think that we need some sense of the history and philosophy
of science to better frame out discussions of pedagogy.
By the way, I agree that scientists use procedures that are generally
accepted, but I don't think they are arrived at deductively...unless
they are consciously trying to confirm or deny the deduction from a
theory...I think accepted laboratory proceedures are arrived at
inductively...ie what works best based on experience.