tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post1647485195734141240..comments2024-03-29T08:44:12.249-04:00Comments on Half an Hour: Refuting Every PointStephen Downeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06140591903467372209noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-85170920032042446832012-08-10T04:23:23.268-04:002012-08-10T04:23:23.268-04:00This piece was so refreshing I skipped my coffee t...This piece was so refreshing I skipped my coffee this morning, many thanks.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13113722716216942272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-46689529355135785392011-09-26T10:56:29.362-04:002011-09-26T10:56:29.362-04:00I had fun reading this.I had fun reading this.Mariahttp://www.fotografnunti.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-85537038127413975212011-09-25T21:06:54.511-04:002011-09-25T21:06:54.511-04:00Thanks for a fun post, Stephen. Some more ruminati...Thanks for a fun post, Stephen. Some more ruminations here - http://goo.gl/zHVlP<br /><br />With appreciation,<br />Miguel Guhlin<br />Around the Corner-MGuhlin.org<br />http://mguhlin.orgMiguel Guhlin (@mGuhlin)https://www.blogger.com/profile/13515062893694709221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-59001757879058642792011-09-25T00:07:32.226-04:002011-09-25T00:07:32.226-04:00I'm commenting over here because every time I ...I'm commenting over here because every time I try to leave a comment on that blog it flakes out.<br /><br />I want every discipline, career, job, etc to use divergent thinking and creative problem solving as employees in those fiels approach their work. I don't think this should be the realm of our poets. I want plumbers, sanitation workers, police offers, accountants, teachers, and yes, doctors, to use methods such as design thinking to approach even the most mundane problems with new perspective and insights.<br /><br />I'm critical of the edtech community for a variety of reasons, but I think Doug is off base with his critique in his post. I appreciate the critical perspective that my colleagues bring to traditional, accepted technologies in our schools such as expensive textbooks that get little use, 45 minute bell schedules that do little for deep learning, a heavy emphasis in our schools in direct instruction, and meaningless homework assignments that dull student passion and creativity.Matt Montagnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10043255947997478607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-16298618201797973922011-09-25T00:05:21.781-04:002011-09-25T00:05:21.781-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Matt Montagnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10043255947997478607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-43644772313995267402011-09-24T21:23:44.795-04:002011-09-24T21:23:44.795-04:00Doug makes some fatal mistakes in his post, which ...Doug makes some fatal mistakes in his post, which I just now read apart from skimming your point by point quoting. Doug starts with "out of the box" thinking and dentists. You equate that to someone who doesn't ever change, which is a position that nobody is advocating. There is much current research on using lidocaine to locally numb the pain. This lidocaine has replaced the novocaine from when I was a kid. A dentist doesn't have to think outside of the box to now be using lidocaine and other research-based practices, for example. But I digress. <br /><br />Doug mentions not wanting pilots to learn using constructivism. I disagree with him just as you did. A piloting school could use some constructivism and some direct instruction and other methods just swell. He talks about accountants and engineers and how they are taught and this is where I agree wholeheartedly with you, Stephen. You're absolutely correct that these individuals can learn from constructivist instruction. Constructivism is not a bad way to learn and can work in many situations. <br /><br />However, Doug shifts to actual practice when he talks about hospitals and doctors and this is what caught my eye earlier when I made my first comment above. I shouldn't have even tried to paraphrase Doug's thinking now that I see he was just out of sorts from the start. He is now arguing something different than a classroom environment. I think you should have called him on this shift instead of engaging him using his incorrect parameters. <br /><br />I would have responded to him by explaining that constructivism is a philosophy of learning; not a philosophy of actual practice. In other words, using constructivism in medical practice (or real life practice) was never the intention; rather, it is a learning philosophy that teachers can use to help students grow. That is, we often advocate using constructivism in our teaching where we can act as the facilitator and the students work in an environment where they can make mistakes and learn from the mistakes and gain new knowledge, skills and understanding. The facilitator can provide the structure for the learning and gently nudge students back on track when needed, etc. A doctor practicing in a hospital with no teacher or facilitator around is no longer in a learning environment even though he or she may learn from various experiences. Was it okay to use some constructivism in training that doctor? Absolutely. But the debate about whether the doctor is now using constructivism in practice or not is erroneous. She's not, nor should she. She should be using the best research-based practices that are available and that doesn't mean that the professional doctor cannot deviate when it's necessary to accommodate the individual needs of the patient. Grow from your experiences but don't use your patients to create constructivist like learning experiences -- at least not without having an actual study and having patients who have provided consent after IRB approval, etc. Do the best practices based on current research as much as possible and use your expertise to know when you cannot easily generalize this study's findings or that one and make the appropriate modifications based on your expertise. That's not constructivism even though that's something different than just memorizing the facts and running with them. So I don't agree with Doug at all, but I think he also demonstrated a lack of understanding of constructivism . . . so he defeats himself before he even finishes his argument. ;~)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05306354064714918354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-81245875903979741222011-09-24T18:59:54.045-04:002011-09-24T18:59:54.045-04:00"Doug Johnson, on the other hand, is probably..."Doug Johnson, on the other hand, is probably thinking more along the lines of ideas being closer to a gut feeling. This is why you're both correct in your own way..."<br /><br />If Doug Johnson was thinking along these lines, he was not correct in any way, either in his interpretation of our position, or his response to it.<br /><br />If his understanding of our position was more accurate than your own, he was still not correct in his response to it.<br /><br />You can refer to "years of experience and knowledge of the research" but it seems very evident to me that you mean one sort of thing by that, and I mean something very different.Stephen Downeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06140591903467372209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-30322282135543288052011-09-24T18:31:59.583-04:002011-09-24T18:31:59.583-04:00But nobody can practice purely based on the facts ...But nobody can practice purely based on the facts so that doctor or teacher or person cannot exist. I mean, when studies are conducted, each patient (or student) has a different body type and weight and medical history (and education background and ability and home life) . . . we are all unique. This is why we often replicate studies many times. So, when you use research-based practices, you must adapt to each unique scenario. This is the only way to implement research-based practices. So, anyone implementing research-based practices is adapting to a degree out of necessity. This is why I noted that there is more agreement between the sides of this debate than not. Part of the difference in agreement is just semantics, I suspect. <br /><br />When you say you want a doctor using constructivism, I read that as doctor who is learning practice based on their experiences and their ideas. You equate "ideas" with information and research, I suspect. Doug Johnson, on the other hand, is probably thinking more along the lines of ideas being closer to a gut feeling. This is why you're both correct in your own way. I don't tend to think of ideas as coming from research and I also think they're more along the lines of a gut feeling. But that doesn't make my interpretation any more right and your version more wrong. As long as we both agree that "years of experience and knowledge of the research" is what we want then we're really all on the same page, I think.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05306354064714918354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-62021758600312196352011-09-24T15:16:56.227-04:002011-09-24T15:16:56.227-04:00Yeah but Sean you're missing the point.
Here...Yeah but Sean you're missing the point. <br /><br />Here you say:<br /><br />"Gut feelings are not a way to practice medicine. Doctors can often make decisions using years of experience and knowledge of the research, but when a doctor is ignorant then guessing is unethical unless there are truly no other options (e.g., life or death in the E.R. for some unusual circumstance)."<br /><br />This is quite right. Nobody is saying the doctor should practice medicine according to gut feeling.<br /><br />But what I *am* saying is that the doctor relies on "years of experience and knowledge of the research." And *not* some 'content' that constitutes the 'knowledge' of the domain.<br /><br />Nobody is arguing for 'gut instinct' teaching or medicine or whatever. <br /><br />The difference is between:<br /><br />- defining a discipline as composed as a set of 'facts' which are learning as the 'content' of an education in that discipline, and<br />- defining a discipline as a 'practice' in which each case is difference and in which practitioners must (based on experience and training) come up with *new* approaches for each case, because each case is different.Stephen Downeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06140591903467372209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-27064985179437150642011-09-24T12:41:52.551-04:002011-09-24T12:41:52.551-04:00"Doctors that simply follow procedure, no mat..."Doctors that simply follow procedure, no matter how "evidence-based", make the worst doctors. While there may be a great deal of similarity between one illness and the next, the reality is that every patient is different, and that the doctor has to make an evaluation based on the facts at hand."<br /><br />These are not the worst doctors because they follow evidence-based practices as closely as possible. The decisions that doctors make can still be based on sound research even when there are nuanced differences in this patient or that one. In fact, this type of doctor is the only kind of doctor who is truly upholding the Hippocratic oath. Now, it's fine for a doctor to say, "Here's the current best practice based on the research. However, I have been reading about a promising new practice that has not yet been fully vetted. I am willing to try this practice if this is something you want to risk but this is your decision as the patient to try an experiment . . . " Gut feelings are not a way to practice medicine. Doctors can often make decisions using years of experience and knowledge of the research, but when a doctor is ignorant then guessing is unethical unless there are truly no other options (e.g., life or death in the E.R. for some unusual circumstance). <br /><br />I also believe the above practice should apply to teachers as well. When teachers rely on gut instincts we end up with Brain Gym crap or Multiple Intelligence crap. We can do better.<br /><br />I suspect there is more agreement than not in this debate. We probably each have this specific scenario or that one where there is an exception to the rule, perhaps. But research-based practices are how we maximize our efforts and how we improve as a field.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05306354064714918354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-48074972217187793792011-09-24T08:24:54.475-04:002011-09-24T08:24:54.475-04:00I see a difference between being able to adopt a f...I see a difference between being able to adopt a form of life or initiating a body of knowledge/best practice at any given time and maintaining, and maintaining that ever changing form/body/practice. I don't think either post considers this.Glenhttp://apointofcontact.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-91125543498732129542011-09-24T07:46:50.187-04:002011-09-24T07:46:50.187-04:00Saying this "this is epic" is so 2009, b...Saying this "this is epic" is so 2009, but I have no other words.<br /><br />Epic. Thank you.Mike Caulfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03264536821102152201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11679714.post-74732614861160625172011-09-23T20:21:22.955-04:002011-09-23T20:21:22.955-04:00Excellent! I have been thinking along the same lin...Excellent! I have been thinking along the same lines in terms of how "trades" professionals learn and continue to learn in their professions. Social in nature, always adapting on site and in the work flow.<br /><br />However, I will say that the 351 Cleveland is still my engine of choice:)audioswhitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04136725406399347776noreply@blogger.com