On Jun 6, 2014, at 10:47 PM, Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> We have a century or more of good research on how children draw, learn, and think. From Friedrich Froebel’s work on kindergarten education in the early 1800s to the work of Maria Montessori, Jean Piaget, and many more in the past century, there are thousands of carefully compiled reports on these issues. This is not the same as neuroscientific inquiry – but it is good, descriptive research. There is no need to start completely new in this field.
>
Dear Ken,
Citing names doesn’t make an argument. In fact it makes me wonder if you have read their work. Although it was innovative for its time, their “research" was primarily demonstrative and exemplary - not the carefully focussed comparative research we know today. Although we have learned a lot from these great people, we need to examine what they were saying and doing in the light of modern science and culture. We are no longer pioneers exploring gestalt principles in education, vocational teaching, or the psychology of learning in early childhood. We need a deeper understanding of how the mind actually works when we do what we do - in the culture of today.
Or, so I believe.
Exactly what are the issues on which there are so many “carefully compiled reports”. Is this just thumping your chest to derail intelligent inquiry? or can you clarify the issues you refer to, and explain how the reports you identify were carefully compiled to address them?
We look forward to your “reasoned” arguments.
Best regards,
Chuck
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|