I have a totally unrelated question. How is it that cognition-in-the-head
project zero can come up with a pedagogical framework (teaching for
understanding, TFU) that includes *what students do* (as in outside of their
brains) as a measure of understanding? It's a glaring inconsistency that
works. What gives? This has me totally baffled. does anyone know of the
circumstances leading up to this? Has TFU also incorporated
discourse/language, or is this still a weakness?
bb
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 01 2004 - 01:00:10 PST