Another Nobel adherent

Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by Mike Albrecht, Mar 18, 2002.

Loading...
  1. Mike Albrecht

    Mike Albrecht New Member

  2. John Bear

    John Bear Senior Member

    When Marina met with Dreyfus at Berkeley, after completing her DL Master's (philosophy, Dominguez Hills), to discuss joining their Ph.D. programhe apparently was quite willing to accept her Master's, but at the same time strongly encouraged her not to apply to his department. She asked why. He said, "Uh oh, I forgot my briefcase; I've got to go home and get it. Why don't you ride along." It was only in the moving car that he shared his views on his colleagues, and his department.* She did not apply.

    _________
    * The gist of it was that, despite lip service to the contrary, she would find little or no support for her interests in eastern, feminist, or existential philosophy.
     
  3. se94583

    se94583 New Member

    The most shocking thing I've learned from this thread is that there's no support for "eastern, feminist or existential philosophy" at Berkeley. Who would have 'thunk it! :D
     
  4. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    I have to say that I have more respect for Dreyfus than for Noble. But ideas needn't be correct in order to be interesting. That's usually the case with philosophy...

    And I will grant that what I am really responding to is a newspaper story. Hopefully the real Dreyfus isn't as lame as this stuff. (I trust that he isn't.)

    They did?? That's certainly debatable. I sense that Dreyfus is going to be building his argument on some pretty shaky foundations. If the speculative theories of his philosophers are less credible than the proven successes of DL, then perhaps he's discrediting their theories rather than the other way around.

    If Dreyfus' theories imply that DL must fail, but DL nevertheless succeeds, then Dreyfus' theories have been disproven. Elementary logic.

    A point that's slightly less elementary is that Dreyfus is treating the truth of his philosophers as axiomatic. The credibility of his conclusions is only as strong as the credibility of his premises.

    That's a non-sequitur. Saying that people can learn without being in the physical presence of their teacher does NOT assume that the mind is self sufficient and better off without the body.

    In one sense that's trivial. Without eyes we can't see our computer monitors, and without fingers we can't type. Just because we are DL students doesn't mean that we are disembodied.

    More seriously, why must we assume that DL students don't take risks or enjoy rewards? Must the rewards be external, or can we reward ourselves for learning something? Isn't that what curiosity is? And if our rewards must always be external, why must they come from a professor? Is it foolish to assume that the things that we learn might have effects in the rest of our lives? If they didn't, why bother to learn them?

    But we ARE somewhere, Mr. Dreyfus. We ARE doing something.

    If Dreyfus is saying that learning some sorts of subjects requires manipulation of physical objects, I agree. I can't imagine learning microbiological technique without laboratory exercises.

    If he is saying that that while "intellectual competence" can be learned at a distance, "intuitive understanding" can only be acquired in the physical presence of a professor by some scholarly laying-on-of-hands, then I think that he's getting himself mixed up with a priest.

    Finally, there seems to be a suggestion that the reason for classroom attendance is to provide real visceral risks and rewards. Is that really what university teaching is reduced to?

    When I take a calculus class, I don't expect my professor to hit me with a stick, nor do I expect to have sex with him.

    That's not to say that priests and lovers aren't important to a full human life. But is a classroom a microcosm of all of life, or does it exist for a more limited purpose?

    So much for libraries, I guess.

    What Dreyfus overlooks is that we are ALWAYS physically present, wherever we are and whatever we are doing.

    Just because a professor in some university can't see our bodies doesn't mean that we have none.
     
  5. Tracy Gies

    Tracy Gies New Member

    When Noble and Dreyfus argue that real education can only come from things like physical presence and action, or from personal interaction with others, they actually make a better argument for learning from "life experience" than from the classroom.

    Think of it this way, when Noble says that education results from personal relationships with others, doesn't that leave open a wide variety of relationships that are closer and more meaningful than a relationship with even the most influencial professor you have ever had? According to that theory, shouldn't my 15 years of marriage and 13 years of raising children be worth a great deal of credit? I am not advocating that credit be awarded for being married and raising kids, but according to Noble's theory, those relationships ought to be worth a great deal of credit. If he would claim that this only works in an academic setting, why should that be so?

    As far as Dreyfus goes, where do you apply action more than you do on the job or at home?

    Perhaps Noble and Dreyfus are confused because they work in academia, so they feel that since that's where they form relationships with coworkers, apply action, and learn skills, that it must the place all of us should do so.

    Tracy<><
     
  6. I looked at the book on Amazon, and was amused by this reader's review:
    • ... I took one of Dreyfus' classes at Berkeley as an undergraduate and I never got to talk to him, there was no face to face learning. If you feel that the lecture method is the only way to learn, then the internet is not for you. If you want to feel like a "disembodied presence" go take a class at Berkeley as an undergrad.
    Here are a few other sites with more significant discussions of the book:
     
  7. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Exactly. What is the difference between that scenario and Touro's methodology. You get the same lecture whether the university is using technology to transmit the lecture to you and you view it in your home or in person in the lecture hall. If the question is what about interaction with fellow students. My understanding is that Touro's technology allows and expects student participation (ie you get that benefit as well).

    I have benefited from some student discussion in classrooms but some of it is simply an opportunity for students to hear themselves talk and run up their particpation grade & that I do not need.

    North

     
  8. Tracy Gies

    Tracy Gies New Member

    North,

    I agree that there is little difference between the live classroom lecture and the taped one. Detractors of DL methods say that such methods remove the possibility of immediate feedback from the instructor. But being able to stop the tape allows the student to independently varify what the instructor is saying, or to find answers to your questions yourself. Of course you can also phone, e-mail, or fax your questions to your instructor and get feedback that way, too. While this lacks immediacy, it also keeps the professor from talking off the cuff, which some have a great tendency to do, especially when they have an audience.

    The same principles appy to threaded discussions on the internet. Live classroom discussions tend to be off the cuff, whereas threaded discussions allow research and thoughtful responses to posts.

    Tracy<><
     

Share This Page