Being a participant in the 5th Dim project I was intrigued by Nate's example
of the difference between 5th Dim Expert and Novice:
> Expert: Do not assume that a child has understood something he or she has
> read on the computer screen or in the Adventure Guide
> Novice: Rely upon the computer or Adventure Guide to instruct
>
> Expert: See the task as a joint activity and will use words like
> "Why don't
> we try this?"
> Novice: See the task as being the primary responsibility of the child
>
> Expert: Tend to anticipate when a child needs help before he asks
> Novice: Will wait to be asked by the child to provide assistance
>
>
> http://www.ced.appstate.edu/projects/5dClhse/tehome.html
In my experience and observations in the project, you can reverse everything
that Expert said there and it is still will be Expert's highly valuable
claims. I think that wisdom of expert (which I see as an experienced
novice) is to understand that statements make sense only in an appropriate
context which often has a dynamic character. When some novices seek for a
stable universal rule, many seasoned participants look for priorities that
guide them in specific circumstances and themselves are dynamic, shared,
negotiable, and interpretative.
What do you think?
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nate [mailto:schmolze@students.wisc.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 1999 8:00 PM
> To: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: Re: the calculus wars
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Timothy Koschmann <tkoschmann who-is-at acm.org>
> To: <xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 1999 3:03 PM
> Subject: Re: the calculus wars
>
>
>
> > Your perception of the PBL tutor/coach's role is accurate to the extent
> > that faculty members when in this role are discouraged from telling what
> > they know, but you should realize that there are multiple faculty roles
> in
> > PBL. Once students have formulated a "learning issue" (i.e.,
> recognized
> > that there is something that they need to know), they are encouraged to
> > utilize faculty as resources along with reference works, journals, the
> > Internet, and anything else they can think of. Tutor/coaches do
> facilitate
> > inquiry and do model appropriate strategies for problem solving, but an
> > important part of the method is that at no point does the tutor/coach
> tell
> > the students "This is something that you need to learn."
> > ---Tim
> >
> I took a math math class awhile back that was very similar to the PBL
> approach. I interpreted the Dean's style as playing mind games. My
> experience in the School of Education is most students get very resentful
> at such a pedagogical style. It IMHO is based on an outdated form of
> constructivism in which the teacher is simply unfolding cognitive
> structures inside the head. If we see our students as "humans"
> it seems to
> me it would go against either extreme. In this sense I would go so far to
> argue such an approach is very inauthentic.
>
> For example; if we are in a conversation on xcma, for example, and someone
> has an inquiry we do not sit back and wonder how to set the question asker
> on some sort of problem solving trajectory. In everyday conversation we
> don't think that way. If I ask someone who has read a mutual book a
> question, I would become upset if their response was withheld because they
> did not want to get in the way of my learning. For me, I see both extreme
> forms of constructivism and teacher directed teaching as forms of control.
> In teacher directed classrooms knowledge is only in the teachers head, and
> in constructivism its still in the teachers head but is approached as a
> mind game of the teacher guessing what is inside the head. Everyday
> conversations normally does not go to either extreme.
>
> In a more Foucaultian framework such approaches of the "students need to
> learn" is seen as the use of power through decenterism. My problem with
> PBL is not so much the practice in itself, but the ideology and
> assumptions
> about learning behind such an approach. It is actually ideologically very
> congruent with Socrates. A belief that education is simply an
> unfolding of
> universal, innate cognitive abilities. Such an approach it seems would
> also convey a teacher as observer rather than a participant in learning.
> For me an good educational context is one where its difficult to
> distinguish what part of the activity is teacher centered or student
> centered.
>
> Such an example is below with the differentiation of novice/expert from 5D
> Clearinghouse.
>
> Expert: Do not assume that a child has understood something he or she has
> read on the computer screen or in the Adventure Guide
> Novice: Rely upon the computer or Adventure Guide to instruct
>
> Expert: See the task as a joint activity and will use words like
> "Why don't
> we try this?"
> Novice: See the task as being the primary responsibility of the child
>
> Expert: Tend to anticipate when a child needs help before he asks
> Novice: Will wait to be asked by the child to provide assistance
>
>
> http://www.ced.appstate.edu/projects/5dClhse/tehome.html
>
> I see the example as a challenge to both teacher directed and neo-student
> centered environments.
>
> Nate
>
>
>