Nice catch Josh. However, why do we not call it "pseudolearning"? It seems that students have a very high affinity to pseudolearning and it is very difficult to thwart without failing them in the process.
> Here's a working definition of "pseudoteaching" at > (http://fnoschese.wordpress.com/pseudoteaching/): > > "Pseudoteaching is something you realize you?re doing > after you?ve attempted a lesson which from the outset > looks like it should result in student learning, but > upon further reflection, you realize that it [sic] > the very lesson itself was flawed and involved > minimal learning." > > Another link here: (http://blog.mrmeyer.com/?p=9413). > > Now read some of those posts and behold a couple of > not-really-surprising things: (a) open-ended, > discovery learning is never or hardly ever > pseudoteaching, and (b) little to no evidence is > given for (a). > > All these inkhorn arguments for an already-accepted > conclusion. These folks should be theologians.