Reply to comment

We were discussing multiple choice questions and testing a bit during the afternoon session, and it got me thinking -- couldn't rewording, only a little bit, really foster inquiry learning?  Example:

1) Pick the right answer [a, b, c, d] --> there is a single truth, not open-ended.
2) Pick the best answer to describe _____ situation [a, b, c, d] --> there is a truth for a specific situation and inquiry still exists.

Joyce said that, if there are 2 parts to a project (ex. journal and physical project), perhaps one part could constitute the 'A' grade.  As a student, I see loopholes in this (it's only natural, sadly)... because, growing up with diverse friends, many of those friends would know to see this loophole and therefore put more effort into the part they desire and completely disregard the other.  While this isn't necessarily a bad thing, is it inquiry learning in its entirety?  I think it is an arguable, and good, point.

Is all inquiry created equal?  I think the point of inquiry, at least to me, is to stress development as a learning process.  In other words, in any inquiry-based lesson, every student and teacher should learn something new from their peers.  I think that, perhaps, in a 'guided' inquiry-based lesson, this developmental process is not as emphasized, but rather, reaching goals is emphasized.  Isn't this strikingly close to a lecture-setting, only, perhaps, in a forum instead of a lecture?  It's debatable.

While Wil stressed retrieval, I honestly think that subjective meaning is an important thing to take away from the 'trials' -- we all could've interpreted the second trial in different ways: an algebra wears the little mermaid; the little mermaids wears an algebra -- etc.  We have context with syntax ('an' must go with the only word starting with a vowel, thus, 'algebra') but we choose to put them together in different ways.  That way, we ALL have individual, subjective meanings that help us create association and retrieve information.  I think this is especially important to consider in education: meaning is subjective.

I think emotions are an untapped resource for instructors.  On a very extreme side, an argument could be made by using the brainwashing regime that China instigated (and most likely Russia, during the cold war) in order to convince American prisoners of war to believe in communism.  It worked because the Chinese tapped into the primordial brain and used fear, regret, anguish -- every raw emotion possible -- to get their point across.  While this is an extreme case, it does make a setpoint with which to approach education: how much should we use emotions and to what good can they be used?

Learning Styles: 1/2 diverger (like participating with others, use single experience to multiple possibilities -- but, don't fret over conflict), 1/2 converger (enjoys solitude/independence, thinks carefully and makes small changes -- not so much computer-based learning), and moreso assimilator (like direct knowledge, learn through conversation, very logical, very cognitive-approaching, reading material..).