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] |
First a note on the 'playing for keeps' thread. The pilots have a
particularly strong incentive to 'learn for keeps'--their lives will
depend on it!
Now to this thread. The discussion has drifted to longitudinal
studies. Let me suggest that we go back in the thread a bit and look
to what I think is really important in a good formal education--the
ability to keep learning.
Some others have pointed out in both
threads when many of us (those who didn't understand General
Relativity at age 5) _really_ understoodd many of the physical
concepts we discuss here. When we started teaching. Even in
graduate school, we seldom had to really confront ideas about forces
and momentum or even special relativity (well I had to do the
latter), but there we did have to READ and understand the particular
area in which we worked and many of us had to learn computing and
machining and experimental design and statistical analysis, etc.
While we knew what the basic concepts of introductory physics were,
many of us really hadn't thought about them to the point of really
understanding....we passed the quizzes and test just fine without
deep understanding. But we did have to understand when we tried to
teach the material...or at least use all our learning skills to try
and understand (this list helps us to continue doing so). I suspect
it is this way in almost every field that uses conceptual
understanding at its root (maybe not so much in fine arts?) Bet most
engineers don't really 'get it' until they get immersed in real
projects.
The point here is that the skills for LIFELONG LEARNING are really
what are the key things to take from a formal education. What we
really need to know and understand may not emerge until long after we
leave school. But in school we do learn both some essential facts
(maybe less important in this age of fingertip information) but more
importantly the ability to work with those facts.
'Critical Thinking' may be the overused buzz-word today,
but it really is what almost
every College-level course (and if possible back into some High
School courses) should be doing. The longitudinal studies should
concentrate not on if one can still score well on the FCI ten years
out, but rather if one is capable of understanding the principles
(once refreshed in the memory) to solve real-world problems. To do
this one is not likely to have guidance in one's inquiry or a study
group to work with. One will need to be able to read and understand
technical material, and yes one will need to be able to 'think
critically'. The question then, in my mind, is whether these
abilities are enhanced by 'new' pedagogical techniques (few of which
really are new) or do we really need (and least to some extent) some
of the old--you're responsible for your own learning--types of
pedagogy?