My difficulty with this debate lies in the fact that usually an assessment of
a client's knowledge is based on their ability to manipulate abstract images,
symbols, constructs; not on their ability to apply these concepts to the
building of structures or solving real world problems (remember I am the one
who advocated IQ tests). I advocate IQ tests becasue it measures a clients
ability to manipulate abstract concepts. Besides IQ tests assessments need
to take place in the context of applied learning; on a job, in the client's
home, at the park, wherever the client is living their life. Do we all live
our life in the classroom? I don't care if the problem written on the page
is about budgeting for family groceries; if the client isn't expected to use
real money, buy groceries and cook the food then the problem they are
expected to solve is still an abstract problem.
I am in by no means an advocate of throwing out the teaching of abstract
concepts (it is certainly the most effecient method for understanding and
manipulating our environment) but if teachers are never expected to practice
the foundations for the basis of these abstract concepts education is going
to spiral into an even farther abstraction of reality. Human's abstract
thoughts have their basis in real objects. Expecting teachers and clients
alike to manipulate real objects is extremely necessary.
The place to start with this is for Places of Higher learning to accept the
fact that even though words, symbols, constructs are indeed tools they are
abstractions of the real world.
Eric
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 01 2001 - 01:01:51 PST