On Mon, 4 Dec 1995 GMBrady@aol.com wrote:
> Replying to LO4019 --
>
> >We have reacted so strongly to the linear "mug and jug" model of
> >teaching that we've forgotten its roots. My Scottish dictionary
> >says, "introducing to a body of knowledge".
>
> In the course of working with thousands of students, I've come to the
> conclusion that, for me, the best model of teaching requires that I assume
> that all my students already know everything I want them to understand,
> and that what I'm trying to do is point it out to them. This involves
> sort of poking around in their mental attics and basements, finding the
> piece of mental furniture that they seemed to have need of, dragging it
> down or up, dusting it off, and helping them find some useful place for it
> in one of their living rooms.
>
> Marion Brady
Oh, Marion Brady, that's wonderful. Thank you.
It's also, by the way, a powerful example of why I am abandoning words
like "theory" and "explain". You have given us your view of teaching. It
is not a theory, and makes no obvious effort to explain anything. It does
not _need_ to be a theory, and as far as I can tell it does not _need_ to
explain anything. It leaves both you and your students complete freedom:
you are not trying to "cause" your students to be or do anything, they are
not results of anything else.
Language and insight as refreshing as this simply underlines, for me, that
the best source for the models and metaphors by which we express our
understanding of human interaction is -- human interaction itself. Not
planets and Newton's laws.
--
Regards
Jim Michmerhuizen jamzen@world.std.com
web residence at http://world.std.com/~jamzen/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------_-
_ - _ If our software were _really_ hardware independent _ -
- _ _ - we wouldn't need computers at all. - _ _ -