Re: constructivism vs. DI (was trends in research)
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: constructivism vs. DI (was trends in research)
- From: Horace B Lucido <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 08:46:03 -0700
- Iplanet-smtp-warning: Lines longer than SMTP allows found and truncated.
When you quote Hirsh as writing,
"In fact, experience has show that "discovery learning" is the least effective
pedagogical method in the teacher's repertoire."
What is the 'experience' of which Hirsh speaks? How is the effectivness of
discovery learning being determinied in relation to other pedagogical methods?
----- Original Message -----
From: George K Cunningham <email@example.com>
Date: Sunday, August 21, 2005 9:30 pm
Subject: Re: [arn-l] constructivism vs. DI (was trends in research)
> In E. D. Hirsch's The Schools we Need (p. 246), the confusion
> about the use of the word "constructivism" in linguistics with its
> use as a pedagogical technique is described.
> "The misleading extension of the word to pedagogical method arises
> from the ambiguity between the idea the memories and word meaning
> are constructed and the idea that the only way to learn things
> properly is to construct or discover them for one's self rather
> than being told them. But since being told things is also a
> constructive, nonpassive process, the quasi-scientific claim that
> constructivism favors discovery learning is completely unfounded.
> In fact, experience has show that "discovery learning" is the
> least effective pedagogical method in the teacher's
> repertoire...But note that both discovery learning and guided
> learning are constructed. This means that, in the end, the
Post a Message to arn-l: