http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.bu.edu/ehost/pdf?vid=4&hid=15&sid=979b23ca-2ec3-4d6d-b326-2bfac84e2161%40sessionmgr8
In "Drawing to Learn Science: Legacies of Agassiz," in the Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, Neal Lerner argues that Louis Agassiz continues to influence the way science is taught today and that it is counter-productive in teaching science. He argues that Agassiz's method of observation and drawing organisms leads to students memorizing facts instead of thinking critically about the topic. As Menand pointed out in "The Metaphysical Club," this method of scientific study can lead to creating evidence that support false and preconcieved theories.
Learner writes that, "[D]rawing to learn science reveals a long-standing tension between the theory of mental discipline or students mastering a body of scientific facts and constructivism in which students create knowledge through social interaction and opportunities to do the work of real scientists."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I found Neal Lerner's criticism of the detrimental role Agassiz plays in the way education is taught today to be extremely ironic. Lerner faults Agassiz for the way in which modern students learn. I don't think it Agassiz should be blamed for students memorizing facts rather than thinking critically. Rather the fault should lie with th competitive learning environment that exists between peers and the way teachers grade students. Agassiz is responsible for contributing to the theory of artificial design which would continue to hurt Darwinian theory. That which Lerner blames Agassiz is in my opinion, unwarranted.
ReplyDelete