This was a constant object of theories of probation, but it also incorporated a recurrent theoretical tension: Should a proof proceed according to a method of discovery or a method of doctrine? That is to say, are things (res) best explained in terms of how they were found out or in terms that emphasize their organization for pedagogical purposes? This dilemma was bequeathed to early modern natural philosophers from antiquity and was at the heart of some of the most often-reprinted writings on method, such as Jacopo Acontius’s (1492–ca. 1566) De methodo, hoc est de recta investigandarum tradendarumque artium ac scientiarum ratione (On Method; that is, on the Right Way of Investigating and Imparting the Arts and Sciences, 1558).17 It was a dilemma that a number of seventeenth-century writers on methods of discovery resolved by, in effect, denying that they were concerned with problems of teaching at all.
p. 139 The Cambridge History of Early Modern Science. vol 3. 2006
2 comments:
Being in the academic profession, I encounter this dilemma constantly. In the vast majority of cases, time constraints promote the "pedagogical / logical" exposition of a subject. Examples range from 15-minute presentations at conferences, to 50-minute lessons in the classroom, to the 4-year model of college education covering subjects of math, arts, humanities, physical sciences, etc.
But my personal experience as a teacher, as a student, and as a researcher tells me that the "discovery" model of expositing on a subject is much better in terms of retention, understanding, and ability to apply the knowledge to new situations.
- Max
Twitter: mshtein
Compared to apprenticeship ( or what you call discovery-based approach), mass education is a relatively new model. It works best when you try to give students basic skills and get them interested enough in the subject to start exploration on their own. The trick is to make ideas and learning tools simple to be understood, while retaining their problem-solving power.
Post a Comment