So, I get to the opinion that while constructivists’ ideas are correct, their teaching methods aren’t so effective… that experts should guide novices.
Reminds me of Julie Dirksen’s book _Design for How People LEarn_ and this page (which I found on “Google Books”) so I didn’t even have to take a picture 🙂 ) . I experience this pretty much every day helping w/ math… if I can figure out how somebody’s got things organized (or not) already, I can be more helpful than if I’m just wrapping things in separate packages… though oft I fight the student who’s survived by making tiny packages since that’s a common approach when people aren’t getting things “the way they should” (and it really mucks up a big picture thinker…).
We’re also asked about the value of interaction for entry level survey courses and high-procedure courses. Agreed! IMHO it’s the interaction that improves vastly on the tendency for them to be massive regurgitation exercises. Dr. Gossweiler was the champ at giving us the list of historical terms that would be on the test… and then telling stories about them that included the factual stuff. We had context and it was fun. Procedures should be in a context so that they’re not regurgitation.
Oh, and then the chapter refers to the “hole in the wall” ‘experiment,’ which it seems I’ve not actually blogged about. I’ve never heard anybody ask whether the kiddos who figured out browsing and drawing and all those wonderful things were, say, all of the kiddos in the neighborhood. What about the rest of the kids? It’s a question — the guy might be right — but there also could be a whole dominance structure and many kids excluded.
Then we learn about some analogies — teacher as “concierge” to guide students to new and amazing resources (like I just did w/ the Snipping Tool on a small scale) … and about finding ways to get students to *express.* Hey, that could be done with open pedagogy 🙂 — that link goes to a webinar about it, including pitfalls and situations where it doesn’t make sense…