Re: [Phys-l] learning, judgment, self-assessment, etc.

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

In the context of /closely supervised/ peer instruction, 
on 05/22/2011 01:24 PM, William Robertson wrote:
> I wouldn't be so sure about that. People love talking about themselves  
> and their thoughts, given a setting in which they are comfortable  
> doing so. In my previously-mentioned experience in think-aloud  
> protocols, even the least motivated and least prepared subjects didn't  
> have difficulty talking about what they were doing.

I agree with all of that (except the first sentence).  There
is no inconsistency with what I was saying. 

I was *not* suggesting letting the inmates run the asylum.
Explicitly not.

If something bad happened, I expect the student to recognize it
and say, during the debriefing, "wow, that was really stupid and 
dangerous".  That's Plan A.

If it doesn't work that way, rest assured that I will explain to
him exactly how stupid and dangerous it was.  That's Plan B.

Having a Plan B is important.  Don't leave home without it.

Pretty soon the student figures out that Plan A is more pleasant.

Peer instruction needs to be closely supervised ... especially at
first (but not just at first).  Ditto for "inquiry" in general.
As the saying goes, if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall 
into the ditch.