For my class, ‘Interactive Technology & Systems’, the class has been asked to define what the title of the paper is. This seems like a very strange way for a university paper to operate. Asking the class to define what is being learned within the class seems ridiculous.
I don’t know what I don’t know.
The lecturer criticised previous students who had simply looked up the term in Google and used the first result as the definition of Interactive Technology. I understand the criticism but this seems to imply that using the colloquial understanding of the term is not valid.
This makes the assignment rather arbitrary.
I recently asked the Youtuber Anna Elizabeth (who is currently studying teaching) on her views on education.
She spoke about two different pedagogies, behaviorist (direct instruction) and constructivist.
The University course I am taking appears to me to be mostly constructivist and this is one of the reasons I love the degree I am taking. However, I am starting to understand some of the weaknesses of this type of education. As without a strong drive or curiosity of a given topic, constructivism will not be beneficial towards the student’s education.
This is because, without any direct instruction, it comes down to a matter of chance of whether or not the student is on the same wavelength as the teacher.
Even worse, when the teacher works on the assumption of a ‘behaviorist-style’ theory of knowledge, where all knowledge is only valid when referenced from an authoritative source, this seriously clashes with constructivist ideas of knowledge.
I hold a firm belief in Constructivity, the idea of being able to tacitly build ideas from common knowledge and experience.