> > At 10:00 AM 8/9/00, Wayne Bishop wrote: > >In fact, the Lysenko analogy was equally > >appropriate for Skinnerianism in education then as it is for constructivism in > >education today. Both are different ways to avoid good, direct instruction by > >knowledgeable teachers in an environment of academic competence with respect > >for fellow students, teachers (not guides-on-the-side), and the disciplines > >under consideration. That's what good schools meant then; that's what good > >schools mean now. > > Please provide non-behaviorist, non-constructivist solid research to > justify what you mean by "good, direct instruction by knowledgeable > teachers". In fact, first define the terms "good", "direct" and > "knowledgeable". Please avoid using the behaviorist and constructivist > vocabularies and methods, since, according to your own statement, they are > tainted.
We all know what Wayne means, Victor: "My way, or the highway." He believes that research in mathematics education can't produce anything worthwhile because he discounts the research before it's been done. He has no basis upon which to say that a given piece of research is good or bad. In order to evaluate education research, he'd first have to understand it. He's given us ample evidence that he has no intention of doing so.
--Lou Talman Department of Mathematical and Computer Sciences Campus Box 38 Metropolitan State College of Denver PO Box 173362 Denver CO 80217-3362