> I would favor seeing what you point to (better yet, > course packs with selections from multiple such trade > books), but I imagine that many kids, parents, and > the usual suspects will object. Why? No practice > exercises and step by step worked examples, for one > thing. However could anyone learn without those? And > should these be provided in the pack? Still too > radical, off the ranch, maverickish for > traditionalists. All must be as it was for them back > in the day. Anything else is simply not cricket.
Yes, my analysis as well, that it's simply not kosher, even though a given teacher would have ample freedom to use textbooks with exercises in the mix. Many a high school lit course has an anchoring textbook with "readings" into primary materials.
The same goes for why not show movies of course, like knock off for a spell and hit the auditorium for a showing of 'Beautiful Mind'? Then there's the twilight zone of didactic YouTubes, where you develop a critical eye for TV techniques (our native fluency, actually part of school -- mind-boggling eh?).
So in my courses it'd be like 'In Code' and 'Cryptomonicon' by Sarah Flannery and Stephenson respectively. We've discussed both on this list. But I can think of a lot more titles, such as by the authors aforementioned. Like 'Godel Escher Bach' for example, nicely included in this Java applet puzzle, with which we'd start our day for a warm up exercise:
That's the plan anyway, once we're done with these pilots.
So here's another wide open question in pedagogy, around why the mix of media? Why "dominatrix style textbooks only" policies in math class (Prussian, Springer-Verlag), hardly any cartoons? Seems anti-USA in conception. Glad we're fighting back. Haim should admit we've opened a can of worms he said didn't exist, but he likely won't, whaddya wanna bet?
> > Michael Paul Goldenberg > 6655 Jackson Rd #136 > Ann Arbor, MI 48103 > 734 644-0975 (c) > 734 786-8425 (h) > "Oh, bother," said Pooh, as he chambered another > round.