Re: Devil's Advocate

[Dave Hamilton <djhamil@teleport.com>]

Rick Tarara comments to Dewey Dykstra,

> Again, remember that it was you who argued strongly that NO LEARNING takes
> place via the lecture format! 

At the risk of seeming to come to Dewey's defense (we all know Dewey can 
defend his point of view without my help), I don't recall reading any 
such statement from Dewey.  In fact, as one of the dreaded PER 
constructivists, I would have been alarmed to read such a statement 
coming from a fellow member of the congregation ;^).  Clearly, student 
learning almost always takes place when a teacher lectures.  Some 
students actually even learn the content that the teacher intends for 
them to learn (while others may learn that physics is incomprehensible to 
them and still others may construct ideas that are not in line with 
scientific thinking).

My view on lecturing is that it should only come when the students are 
struggling to answer some questions or reconcile some cognitive 
dissonance.  My other teaching techniques are mostly intended to raise 
those questions and create the dissonance.  Then, when the students 
*need* to know, I will tell them about the accepted scientific view.  
Common folklore of teaching includes an idea that sometimes there comes a 
"teachable moment," that time when the student is poised and ready to 
learn something.  An accomplished lecturer can sometimes so enthrall 
their audience that they can even create such a teachable moment for many 
and then do the teaching in the very same lecture.  On the other hand, 
these kinds of lectures are rare and difficult to reproduce regularly.  
Therefore, I often use class time to break the students into groups where 
their tasks are intended to produce the teachable moment.  (There are few 
things more effective at creating cognitive dissonance than the 
difficulty of negotiating meaning with one's peers to explain some 
physical phenomenon.)  Then I lecture.

Later, Rick continued:

> However, (and I repeat myself here), when you try to make your case for
> radical change by dismissing the accomplishments of those who have been
> educated via the methods you want to change by insisting that those methods
> and that instruction has no positive effect on the accomplishments, 

Again, I read nothing in Dewey's posts where he dismissed the 
accomplishments of those of us who learned physics while taking lecture 
courses.  I think Dewey would agree that the courses we took worked well 
for us.  But I have learned from my many years in the classroom that it 
is a mistake to think that what worked for me will work for a majority of 
my students.  I am part of a self-selected minority.

> when you claim that everyone who doesn't become a physicist (or possibly
> an engineer or other scientist) has been BADLY served by their physics
> instruction (without adequate proof),

The argument was, I believe, that there *is* evidence that many are 
exposed to physics instruction and go on to believe that physics is meant 
not for them but for a select few.  I don't recall if Dewey cited 
evidence for this, but I'd bet we all know many intelligent adults who 
consider physics a topic that is beyond them.  (I doubt you'll consider 
this adequate proof.)  The question is:  Where did they learn this? 

> when you claim certain traditional
> techniques are WORTHLESS for instruction--then you RISK being labeled a
> 'religious zealot', of having your (useful) insights branded as 'fad', and
> the status quo maintained.

I don't think Dewey claims that certain techniques are worthless.  My 
reading of Dewey's comments is that we should examine our instruction in 
light of who we are serving.  If an almost exclusive reliance on 
lecturing serves some well but leaves others out, it seems prudent to 
question that practice.  This is not the same as advocating the total 
abandonment of traditional instruction. 
 
<snip>
> The argument really goes the other way--the success of Science and
> Technology argues for the ultimate success of the teaching methods that
> produces the scientists and engineers.  Then (rejecting the 'they learned
> in spite' argument) there is some reason to believe that the non-scientists
> and non-engineers also have profited from such instruction.

I do not follow the logic that because some have benefited from a 
particular approach that others must have also done so.  I guess that's 
my constructivist viewpoint popping up.  I may say the same thing to all 
of my students, but what they understand from it depends on their prior 
knowledge and understanding.  I can say one statement that will "click" 
for one student and totally confuse another.  I do not assume that, 
because the one benefited from my statement, that the other profited also.


Regards,

Dave





David J. Hamilton, Ed.D.                    "And gladly wolde he lerne,
Franklin HS, Portland, OR                    and gladly teche."
djhamil@teleport.com                          Geoffrey Chaucer