Those are pretty neat, like math problem bloopers. The dart board example could have been a good example if it had been worded better. My brain skipped a beat when I was trying to picture a distribution of darts that made a triangular pattern. Technically, you would have to say something to the effect that the darts have an equal chance of hitting anywhere and then say that you counted 100 within the boundary of the triangle and then ask how many (of those 100) would you expect to find in the circle.
> > 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. > > See this link for a number of examples from > textbooks: > http://blog.mrmeyer.com/?cat=89 > > Richard