I strongly believe that the effort to make learning "exciting" will=20
have some very unfortunate, even if unintended, consequences. First,=20
the burden on finding an appropriate technique would still fall on=20
overburdened and under-resourced teachers. =20
Second, "exciting" learning, or learning that is artifically=20
"exciting," may lead to the unrealistic expectation that if it isn't=20
attractive enough then its not worth learning.
Third, today's "exciting" subject would most likely be tomorrow's=20
deadwood material. That is, there seems to be an addictive pattern=20
which would require more and more "excitement."
Part of the problem, as I see it, is that we haven't found ways to=20
explore and reinforce the learning that happens in our everyday,=20
quotidian lives. The context for this beliefs stems from my readings=20
of Ivan Illich's #Deschooling Society# and Carl Rogers' #Freedom to=20
Learn for the '80's.# I know that this material may be somewhat dated=20
to some folks, but critiques of the illegitimate monopoly of=20
educational institutions of the former and the stifling nature of=20
overly programmed curriculum of the latter still seem valid today.
--Augustine A. Paz lacst20@pop.pitt.edu http://www.pitt.edu/~lacst20/index.html
"Philosophy is orthopedics for fractured beliefs." Jos=E9 Ortega y Gasset
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>