Re: the calculus wars

nate (schmolze who-is-at students.wisc.edu)
Tue, 8 Jun 1999 17:29:33 -0500

Tim,

I will first respond to your second comment, because it may clarify the
first.

> This has come up several times and I am still not sure I understand your
> objection. Is it the reduction to a dicotomous choice (i.e.,
> student-centered or teacher-directed) or is it the fact that the model is
> promoted as an alternative to (reaction to?) lecture-based instruction?

All of the above and none of the above. For me, the question is not
student centered, collaboration, or teacher centered, but rather when each
is applicapble. I see all three in different ways as having the potential
to be revolutionary. I don't see this as an ecclectic approach, but a
relational one, in that, looking at how these different "activities",
classroom organizational styles relate to and transform each other. The
question for me is what particular kinds of teacher centered, student
centered, and collaborative teaching styles/arrangements are revolutionary
and transformative.

In the Sped class I mentioned earlier, all three were used and there was a
relational aspect to it. The student centered aspect could not be
abstracted from the collaborative or the teacher centered aspect. They
were not mutually exclusive, but formed an important whole. I think even
the most student centered teacher would apply a similar strategy in
practice. The strict division in its pure form if more ivory tower than
anything else. While, of course, teachers often struggle with the
relationship between the three the unity in my experience is always there.
Where is the role for teacher direction in a classroom and how can that
role be transformative. The idea of leading activity seems to be a way of
describing such a role and whole language literature was using that concept
more and more before politics set in. The tendency is to put collaboration
up as the synthesis or compromise between teacher/student centered, but one
point I was attempting to make was that it is important to have all three
because they each have "revolutionary roles". With that said, I think PBL
may be an important type of activity for the student centered/directed
component, which brings us to boundry object.

> The idea of 'PBL as boundary object' sounds pretty nifty. Would you
like
> to expand that on that a bit?

By boundry object I was thinking of PBL as serving a mediation role between
inside "education" and outside of it. I would assume that in the medical
field they would be utilizing knowledge from both the "academic dicipline"
(the classes in which you learn about the language, "good old boys" etc. of
the dicipline) and their particular "practice". In this sense PBL as a
student centered activity is a bridge of sorts between the world of
"theory" and "practice". This of course is with the assumption, which I
believe is accurate, that there were prereqisites of more dicipline
centered knowledge which is a part of any professional school. Before I
went to the SOE there was an abundance of psychology and other related
classes whose goal was knowling dicipline specific knowledge. I also
assume that in addressing particular "problems" that this type of knowledge
was utilized as well as the knowledge of the practice itself. This is
where I was going with boundry object.

> I like your points about the revolutionary nature of the activity. I do
> believe that, done well, PBL can be transformative, not only WRT the
> learning process, but also WRT the roles of the partipicants (students
and
> teachers alike).

I have no doubt it can be tranformative, but I would argue it offers a
particular type of transformation and there are different types of
transformation. As per my arguments above collaborative (teacher/students)
and teacher centered approaches also offer unique forms of transformation.
The question that always needs to be asked is transformation an essential
good.

Nate

> ---Tim
>
>
>
>