Thank you Eric, I think I understand you better now.
If we accept Bill's point that all activity is 'contrived' , now the
question becomes, 'what sort of educational contrivance is best?'. I hope
that you do accept that point. I understand all interactions to be a
manipulation - for example at present you and I are engaged in a
conversation which we hope will transform the other's understanding of the
world. Thus I can remove the negative cultural baggage from the words
'manipulate' and 'contrivance' , and seek instead to discover how a specific
manipulation or contrivance contributes to or detracts from the purposes of
the activity I am currently concerned with.
I can identify better with your comments on teacher education. What I still
have difficulty with is your continued description of the current situation
as 'contrived environments' in a way which suggests you believe that what
you described in respect of your work with mentally ill young adults was not
a contrived environment. In my view it was a contrived environment. One
might imagine the difference as being that the tasks were authentic, but
even that is arguable.
In CHAT terms I can understand - and in part agree with - the proposition
that the tracks by which teachers become teachers are contrived
environments with significant negative effects, and that authentic
experiences of wilderness living are contrived environments with
significant positive effects, but not that the former is contrived and
therefore wholly without merit, and that the latter is not contrived and
therefore entirely good.
I also remain confused as to what precisely you mean by 'concrete'. In your
earlier post you wrote
"The reality of being in the woods and having to work as a team is something
a
classroom does not provide no matter how much theorizing one approaches the
lesson plan with. If your method of instruction is based in similar reality
contexts then I will not assume you to be an ivory tower academician. I
have
never been inspired by any High School or College teacher, my inspiration
has
come from people I have participated in real world activities with. "
And in your latest your rebuttal of my use of the word began with:
"Respectfully, I disagree with the written word being concrete. It is
merely
a representation of an individual's abstract thought"
This seems to imply that the use of the written word does not have concrete
outcomes. There also seems to be a suggestion that theoretical or abstract
activities are not legitimate educational experiences. My assumption about
your view, which I acknowledge may be incorrect, is that you believe that
dealing with theory without grounding it in the reality that it refers to,
is not a legitimate educational activity.
I may have misrepresented you three times in the foregoing paragraph, but I
do not subscribe to any of those three representations.
Phillip Capper
WEB Research
PO Box 2855
(Level 9, 142 Featherston Street)
Wellington
New Zealand
Ph: (64) 4 499 8140
Fx: (64) 4 499 8395
-----Original Message-----
From: MnFamilyMan@aol.com [mailto:MnFamilyMan@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, 26 July 2001 05:44
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: Re: active learning/teaching at the 7000 level
In a message dated 7/24/2001 7:57:09 PM Central Daylight Time,
phillip.capper@webresearch.co.nz writes:
if I am asked to name the practical, concrete, skill (beyond basic
literacy
and numeracy) I learned in my youth which has contributed most to my
working life, my answer is that it is the disciplne of writing a formal
essay. This was learnt in the abstract and ascended to the concrete.
Respectfully, I disagree with the written word being concrete. It is
merely
a representation of an individual's abstract thought. I agree with
Phillip
and Bill that your response to my criticism is well spoken and articulate.
What troubles me about the premise that system-did leads to system-do is
that
if we continue along this path we continue with seat-of-the-pants decision
making disguised as scientific inquiry. As it stands right now the only
checks and balances to academic institutions is the academic institutions
themselves. The way for many to get a masters and phd is to retell that
which has been told in a format that is so blessed boring no one bothers
to
read what has been written. I would not have a problem with academic
institutions requiring this of people interested in upholding the rigors
of
academia. Where I struggle with the requirement of further learning in
these
contrived environments is when the method does not conicide with the
reality
of applying the content learned. For example, the current method of
instructing teachers is ridiculous. Take 18 year olds who have just been
institutionaized for 13 years and subject them to more abstract ideas and
theories. Have them represent their abstract thoughts in numerous ways,
all
the while discussing these ideas with each other in their contrived
groups.
Then, as their final course they are required to practice these theories
under the watchful eye of a classroom teacher. Now, having been
institutionalized for another 4 or 5 years these 22-23 year-olds will mold
the minds of the future, as a classroom teacher. I don't see much room
for
error in this equation. The new teacher will either be successful at
institutionalizing the next generation, or they will quit. 33% of newly
trained teachers in the U.S. never enter the profession.
Therefore, the public domain of education either continues on as a
lumbering
dinosaur; or it is scrapped and rebuilt. It appears that charter schools
and
home schooling are two movements that may fortunately one day replace the
'old school'.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 01 2001 - 01:01:20 PDT