The class of the interview was a conceptual physics course which was
approached through more depth and less breadth. Action was constrained, as
all action is, in this context through specific concepts organized arounf
the scientific method. The difference maybe would be looked at as in how
the problem is defined.
The site you gave me defined PBL this way,
"In the PBL learning process learners encounter a problem and attempt to
solve it with information they already possess allowing them to appreciate
what they already know. They also identify what they need to learn to
better understand the problem and how to resolve it."
The perceptual physics is organized in this way,
"Theme of conservation of energy as a unifying principle to avoid a
fragmented presentation of the course material.
Just the right amount of mathematics (some, but not too much). Inexpensive,
thought-provoking experimental demonstrations instead of time-consuming,
elaborate lab work. Instruction is delivered by a Socratic dialogue
technique where the teacher acts as a skilled facilitator directing student
discussion; the result is that students spend more class time actively
doing physics."
I think Jarod Diamond books are real interesting in this regard. Awhile
ago I read "why is sex fun" as part of a botany class in which he uses sex
and an explanation of it through a evolutionary framework. His recent book
takes a similar approach to answer a question a friend of his from Papua
New Guinea asked, why (white people) always have all the cargo? He
reframes the question of cultural epoch theory as such, since those in
traditional societies are more intelligent why do they not have the cargo.
The point being he utilizes evolutionary theory, systems theory
(positive-negative feedback) as a lens to look at everyday problems, issues
etc. He takes single questions and utilizes the theoretical lens of
science to answer these types of questions.
In returning to PBL its congruent with conceptual physics with the what the
students know part, but its what happens after that is what I see as
different. I sense a level of decentering of the teacher or lets find
knowledge anywhere but the teacher. I have no problem with the more funds
of knowledge approach, but we can't forget that the teacher him/herself is
one of those funds and often trained specifically in many of those issues.
I think an important way a teacher can do this is by offering frameworks,
theoretical models, scientific concepts to view those everyday problems.
In this sense, my problem with PBL is not with what it emphasizes but with
what it doesn't.
> Maybe one reasonable question would be, how often do teachers in the
> respective methods ask questions to which they already know the answer?
In many, in my experience they don't ask any at all. Most of our work was
in small groups which had more to do with filling time than any pedogogical
logic. Although, I have witnessed the other and it has been proved to be
very successful. I am sort of coming from the other end of the spectrum
with almost 100% student work and no teacher initiated work which clouds my
perspective. The most rewarding classes I have taken has been a balance
between teacher initiated and student initiated with connections and
relationships between the two.
In reference to questions I would rather have a teacher ask a yes/no
question than disguising it as a genuine conversation. However; genuine
conversation without being subordinated to authentic assessment also is
very important. There is a difference between being genuinely interested
in the students input and knowledge and just asking questions to
authentically assess which is the rave now. I have seen some really
powerful discussions of mutual interest and child, and I have seen some
that is solely designed to assess what a child does and does not know. I
see the latter as an act of manipulation in tricking the student into
thinking the inquiry is genuine.
Nate
> ---Tim
>
>
>