"Darlene Sybert wrote:>
> "Wouldn't there always be a majority that would rather do something
> else than write three drafts of an essay? . . .What would motivate
> a student to do that instead of playing with his new college
Steve Finley wrote back:>
> And we're back to the question of whether students, children, adults,
> whoever, can always know what is the best, least destructive, etc.,
> thing for them to do. Put another way: Anything a student
> doesn't want to do is something that wouldn't be good for her to do.
> Anybody wanna defend that proposition? (Oh, cut it out, Eric.)
Darlene wrote back:
See, you aren't taking me seriously. Changing the entire "validation"
method of an education system is a serious undertaking and not the place
for larking about or talking pie-in-the-sky (although any kind of pie now
that I mention it, is a good idea! Yea, Pie!)"
What am I missing? How am I not taking you seriously? Unless I
misunderstood your original point--that the laissez-faire approach,
or the idea of the encouraging/supporting/empowering hand, works just
fine with some students, but many, even most, maybe, in some
institutions, are not going to do very much unless there are rewards,
structure, measures of progress, etc.--I was AGREEING with you.
Dang, I used to be able to write better. . . anyway, I was just saying
that the people who stand on the extreme nontraditional side seem to
me to be operating on the assumption that students always do what's
best for them or even that they always know what's best for them, an
idea that is--um--WRONG, I think. Now, if that was clear in the last post,
and you still think I'm not taking you seriously, tell me why, OK? I always
take you seriously, DS. . .