Geoff Williams is on study leave overseas. Your message will be forwarded
automatically to his Compuserve address. However, during September he will
not be able to access email.
--------------------------------------
Date: 12/6/96 5:30 AM
To: Geoffrey Williams
From: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu
On Tue, 11 Jun 1996, Timothy Koschmann wrote:
> I hadn't really
> thought of liberal-education in opposition to case-centered instruction
> before, though thinking of it in this way raises some interesting
> questions:
>
> 1) Are these two approaches in absolute conflict with each other?
> Couldn't you, for example, teach an introductory survey course in a
> case-based fashion? What would be gained and what would be lost? Jay's
> earlier remarks might be construed to suggest that there are certain types
> of courses that lend themselves to a liberal treatment. If this is true,
> what are the criteria for deciding which approach to use for a particular
> course?
>
A related contrast, it seems to me, is between "knowledge for show" and
"knowledge in/for action". Ironically, Tim reports that students who
experience the traditional form of medical education "have very little to
show for their first six years", where "show" probably means inability to
use their knowledge in action, although they doubtless were able to
"show" they knew it in each year-final examination.
When one thinks of the hours that so many students spend during the school
years "covering" the subjects of a liberal arts education, also with so
little to show - either remembered or usable - a year or two later, one must
doubt the value of this mode of learning and teaching for the majority of
students. There seem to be two interdependent issues: 1. Because the
"big picture" is designed by someone else, from his or her highly informed
perspective, it is difficult for the uninitiated to make connection with
it. The content is learned, therefore, to satisfy the teacher and the
examiner. 2. Because it has no personal relevance for action, the
learner is not fully engaged in the activity, and so learning is
shallow, lacking in internal coherence for the learner, and quickly
forgotten. In fact, a high proportion never see the big picture at all,
let alone appropriate "the broad conceptual platform" as a basis for action.
In my own teaching, which involves teachers taking master's or doctoral
degrees, I try to incorporate practice-based inquiry (a form of CBL, I
think) as a principal component of the courses that I teach. In most
cases this is accompanied by a series of readings that attempts to
support their inquiries and, at the same time, to offer a broader survey
of the area. Many of these teachers have never experienced learning
through self-chosen inquiry before and, I think I can say, without
exception it is this part of the course that they find most energizing
and most valuable. True, what is "covered" is much less than in the
courses I used to teach. However, the difference is that, having
undertaken an inquiry into some aspect of their practice that they
themselves have "problematized", and having begun to read books and
articles because they want to discover how others have looked at the
same or similar problems, they are likely to go on learning in this way
because, not only do they feel they are deepening their understanding,
but they are also agentively changing their practice in an attempt to
improve it, as they define improvement. What I find even more encouraging
is that they also begin to apply some of what they are discovering about
learning in the way they arrange for their students' learning.
In arguing for learning that is rooted in situations and activities that
are of significance for the learner, I am not rejecting the more
detached, discipline-structured overview. I think the latter has some
value, but the value is much greater when the learner has a position
_within the activity_ from which to take in the overall picture. And if
it turns out, as it often does in cafeteria-organized education, that
there is not time for both, I would put my money on the "case-based", as
opposed to the liberal arts, introduction in terms of its long-term value
to the learner.
Gordon Wells, gwells who-is-at oise.on.ca
OISE, Toronto.
------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
Received: by inpost.arts.su.edu.au with SMTP;12 Jun 1996 05:26:06 +1000
Received: (from procmail who-is-at localhost) by weber.ucsd.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) id
LAA26869; Tue, 11 Jun 1996 11:27:33 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 11:27:33 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 14:24:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Gordon Wells <gwells who-is-at oise.on.ca>
To: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: RE: Liberal arts or case-based learning
In-Reply-To: <v02110100ade348cce397 who-is-at [198.88.79.12]>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960611133357.28714A-100000 who-is-at tortoise>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"tDIsJ.A.tjG.Uqbvx" who-is-at weber>
Resent-From: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu
Reply-To: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu
X-Mailing-List: <xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu> archive/latest/1372
X-Loop: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: xmca-request who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu