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] |
-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [mailto:phys-l-
bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of Jack Uretsky
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 1:00 AM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] differentiated instruction
Let's put all this in context. What you have to accept, as I
understand
it, that gains on certain tests measure, in some sense, teaching
effectiveness. Such a conclusion transcends common sense. American
education, which varies greatly from locale to locale, has produced a
number of eminent scientists who were taught by traditional methods.
The conclusion further obscures the fact that the ultimate
reponsibility for learning resides in the student. And, yes, there are
differences in learning ability - students do in fact range from bright
to
dull. These facts, not taken into account in the use of tests to
measure
teaching effectiveness - and don't forget the personality of the
teacher
as a possible factor that needs to be taken into account - makes so-
called
PER approaches an abuse of the term "research" because it involves the
use
of numerical measures with totally unknown systematic uncertainties.
"Trust me. I have a lot of experience at this."
General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
just before leading them into the Little Big Horn
Valley
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009, M. Horton wrote:
It's hard to prove that something is not research-based except topoint out
a lack of research.recently
In this case, however, there have been several reports published
that the idea of learning styles is not supported by cognitivepsychology or
any other branch of science for that matter. This website has avideo from
a cognitive scientist who addresses this question directly. Hisarguments
make a lot of sense. Considering that his arguments make sense andthere is
a lack of evidence supporting the opposite idea, that should bepretty
convincing.http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2009/03/learning_styles_true_
or_false.html?qs=learning+styles
There
This is not to say that ideas should not be taught a variety of ways.
is research saying that multiple exposures to information presentedin a
variety of formats enhances learning, but it has nothing to do withlearning
styles.saying
I receive the ASCD SmartBrief email everyday and it had an article
virtually the same thing as the video within the last week.Unfortunately,
I didn't think I'd ever need it again and deleted it.researched
M. Horton
----- Original Message -----
From: <trappe@physics.utexas.edu>
To: "Forum for Physics Educators" <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 11:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] differentiated instruction
I, too am curious about the statement: "non-research-based
idea of learning styles". Do you have more specific evidence that
these definitions are non-research based?
Having sat through too many workshops on learning styles, I wonder if
these definitions are largely dreamed up terms, or actually
definitions of specific behaviors. Generally the workshops definethe
different styles "with authority", but that leaves much toquestion...
So, what is the basis of Horton's statement? Karl_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l