At 09:48 AM 11/9/98 -0500, mary jo powell wrote:
>
>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.
Actually, we now know a lot more about how to teach children, not
that it is necessarily put into practice much. We know more about
how children best learn, how the brain works, that there are
different learning styles and that all children should not be taught
the same way. We are even learning more about the use/abuse of
homework. We also now know that beating, caning, and shaming
children is not conducive to good learning, and indeed is likely to
make children unable to concentrate, and to act up. I could go on,
but this will do.
Julienne
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|