|
|
Re: Pseudoteaching
Posted:
Feb 24, 2011 7:30 AM
|
|
> I should be a little clearer, I guess.
>
> Again, I don't have an issue with Meyer's method. (I
> do appreciate your clarification of what he's doing
> though.)
>
> There are two parts to the definition (so far) of
> "pseudoteaching": (1) looks like a great lesson (2)
> people didn't learn from it.
>
> Just about every post categorized as covering
> pseudoteaching thus far at Frank Noschese's Web site
> (including Dan's) follows this pattern: (a) Here's an
> example of what looked to me like a great lesson
> (almost always a lecture-style presentation), (b)
> Here's how it failed.
>
> Good start--evidence. But then, . . .
>
> (c) Here's what I think I can do/could've done to
> make it not pseudoteaching (almost always an
> activity, do-it-yourself, discovery thing), and (d)
> The results were . . . . [silence].
>
> First of all, why is the almost uniform answer in (c)
> NOT pseudoteaching? Does it NOT look like a great
> lesson from the outset but yet makes students learn?
> The world will never know by reading those posts.
> Second, where is the answer to (d)? And why does the
> evidence matter when showing why instructivist
> methods fail but not really important to talk about
> as one argues for alternatives?
>
> I'm waiting for someone to pop up and declare,
> "Here's my example of pseudoteaching: the
> do-it-yourself learning activity that I had planned
> last Tuesday seemed like it was airtight but kids
> were completely confused and maybe it would have been
> easier and more efficient and more effective for
> learning to just chalk-and-talk the damn thing."
>
> But, Richard, we should probably share a wink and a
> shoulder punch here. We know that's probably not
> going to happen.
>
> I think the whole thing's a pseudodiscussion--looks
> like good analysis but in the end is just confirming
> a conclusion everyone has already come to.
>
> And not a damn thing is learned about how to educate
> students.
Joshua, you and I have different takes on what constitutes 'pseudoteaching' as shown by Meyer. (I am not familiar with Nochese.)
I see the focus on textbook inadequacies to provide 'hooks' to motivate students. Meyer's examples are (almost?) always problems from textbooks that are implausible and/or lacking motivational value.
In the past, Meyer has asked the readers of his blog for suggestions on how to improve the problem settings.
Please pass along examples that show it to be different from that.
Richard
|
|
