I remember the first time I read this comparison in Papert's book and I
reacted the way he obviously wanted his readers to--tsk,tsk isn't that
awful that teaching is still stuck back in the 19th century. But the more I
think about it the more I think So What?
Actually teaching is more like stuck in the 4th century BC. Why should its
basic forms change? Parents and preachers from the 19th century would
probably recognize most of what is going on in their venues too. Attorneys
and judges and legislators too. Maybe some forms of human interaction
shouldn't, or can't, change all that much. Good teachers have always
depended more on interaction with their students than on standing in front
of the room and telling them what was important (Socrates). This is not a
20th century invention. So the slate and chalk gives way to the Big Chief
tablet and a number 2 pencil and that gives way to a word processor and a
graphing calculator but the basic forms of good (and bad) teaching don't
seem to change that much. The hardware you use is incidental not
fundamental.
mary jo powell
<[log in to unmask]>
Austin TX
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|