Just some quick change to exchange. My $0.02. The development and stage
approaches with schooling are one example of tool and context, of course
time honored. On one hand, within the setting of schooling, learning is
probably pretty much optimized. With all the reforms, that still have
preserved much of the essential form and function and tools of schooling,
have we yet seen any radical changes in learning?
On the other hand, in a small experiment, Paul Horwitz, some high school
teachers and I changed a lot of things, provided 11-12 grade children with
a radically different computer tool, and they learned some of Einsteins
special relativity (1) . When done, they completed a diagnostic test of
special relativity that was designed for physics grad students (2). They
did better than the grad students, although they obviously did not spend
the average of about 6 years learning physics as did the grad students. Of
course the high school kids would not do so well in any number of other
measures. You can find fault with the test, with our approach, with the
*rigor* of the content, blah blah blah, blah blah blah... It is just a
small counterexample to the idea that the way things are, is the way they
should be, because X has to come before Y.
Of course, the tool is up for sale and is far from a big hit in schools --
it is intended for an entirely different ecology of learning. Rather it
is used in some colleges, and has been maintained by the programmer who
built it purely as a labor of love and devotion. Lessons learned about
how we get from A to Z.
(1) Designing and Using Open-Ended Software to Promote Conceptual Change,
The Journal of Science Education and Technology, (with Paul Horwitz) Vol. 3,
No. 3, 1994.
(2) Villani, A. and Pacca, J. L. A. (1987). Students' spontaneous ideas
about the speed of light, International Journal of Science Education, 9:
55-66.
BB
At 8:50 AM -0400 9/28/99, Peter Smagorinsky wrote:
>I think these points would benefit from some interrogation. I'm not sure
>just where I'd draw the line in following Mike's view of stage theories. I
>agree that theories such as Mastery Learning, which used a staircase as its
>learning metaphor, can lead to some pretty rigid and disenabling
>teaching. On the other hand, most educational systems that I'm familiar
>with assume that learning takes place in some kind of sequence, and that
>some sequences work better than others, and that for at least
>some learning it's hard to do Thing B unless you can do Thing A fairly
>well. If you can't add single-digit numbers, I suspect that it's hard to
>add triple-digit numbers. (if this example is misguided, please pardon me
>for relying on folk wisdom and personal experience)
>
>I'll bet, for instance, that for those of us who work in universities, it's
>widely assumed that people should do coursework before writing
>dissertations. Furthermore, they should pass a comprehensive exam of some
>sort before writing a dissertation. The inability to pass courses or comps
>always disqualifies a student from proceeding to the dissertation
>stage. And I fully support this set of assumptions, assuming that the
>course work and comps are authentic indicators of someone's ability to
>write a dissertation.
>
>So my question is, what's really at stake in this discussion? Are we really
>saying that background knowledge doesn't matter? Or that background
>knowledge as embodied in rigid stage theories is misguided?
>
>Peter
>At 08:11 PM 9/27/99 -0700, you wrote:
>
>>Hi All-- I have been following fleetingly, but am swamped with quarter
>>beginning
>>
>>Genevieve wrote:
>>
>> Essentially, the department had carved out
>>a kind of 'instructional space' for developmental
>>students that broke with the rigid 'Step A goes to
>>Semester 1, Step B goes to Semester 2 and if you can't
>>follow you fail' flow of student bodies in the writing
>>curriculum. Basically, this was a form of retention.
>>Then, about 3 or 4 semesters into the experience, the
>>Chancellor's Office told us to shape up and cut out
>>all the parallel courses. We were being very bad boys
>>& girls for keeping qualified students back, and a
>>student who passes a particular level is by definition
>>qualified to tackle the next.
>>
>>
>>For a long time we at LCHC have railed againt all forms of
>>"Level 1 before Level 2" stage theories of literacy and
>>numeracy acquition. They are built for domination and conservatism.
>>They select in a deadly way.
>>
>>My colleagues and I have written about this pernicious form of
>>pedagogy/selction in a number of places. Getting this message
>>straight would be, in my opinion, very helpful. But maybe its
>>crooked by nature?
>>
>>This discussion is getting close to what I consder the heart of the
>>matter: the essential duality of formal education FROM THE BEGINNING:
>>its entwinement with (literally) middle class and its double message"
>>transform AND select. Teachers live at the contradictory heart of that
>>matter.
>>
>>Can we make it beyond chaining?
>>mike
Bill Barowy, Associate Professor
Lesley College, 31 Everett Street, Cambridge, MA 02138-2790
Phone: 617-349-8168 / Fax: 617-349-8169
http://www.lesley.edu/faculty/wbarowy/Barowy.html
_______________________
"One of life's quiet excitements is to stand somewhat apart from yourself
and watch yourself softly become the author of something beautiful."
[Norman Maclean in "A river runs through it."]