> I don't have any issue with Meyer's methods. I have > an issue with the rusty, broken chain of reasoning he > and others use. > > Dan's post is a perfect example. First, after > introducing the working definition of > "pseudoteaching," he presents an example from his > student teaching. This was the result: > > "I thought my students understood the behavior of r = > acos(btheta) on a deep level but they were only > responding to superficial patterns in notation." > > Very well. It looked like good teaching, but students > didn't learn. How would he correct this? > > "The students have to develop the algorithm > themselves. Given a second chance at that mess, I'd > get students in groups of three or four and let each > student pick a member of the family of the functions > ? 'Okay, you do r = 1cos(2theta). I'll do r = > 2cos(2theta). You do r = 3cos(2theta).' Rather than > watch me mashing buttons at the front of the room, > students would graph their functions by hand and then > summarize their findings to each other and then the > class. Maybe with a poster ? your call." > > Fine. But all he's done here is present a > different-looking instruction and suggest that it's > now suddenly not pseudoteaching. > > The other posts are at the same pitch. In a nutshell: > My explanations suck, so students are better off > figuring it out for themselves. > > Actually improving the explanations is--as far as > I've read--not considered as an option. Changing the > conclusion is out of the question, and folks are > simply figuring out different ways to get there.
Joshua, I read his posts as finding points of departure that will be more likely to interest students. His focus doesn't appear to be on specific explanations. That's okay with me; I'm a teacher. I can handle the explanations.