Hen or Egg?
What ought to come first? Principle or follow? Arithmetic or downside fixing? Spelling or writing?
I’m at present studying Bridging Cultures: Indigenous Methods of Understanding Nature and a selected passage caught out:
“Led by William Whewell, an Anglican Priest and pure thinker of mineralogy at Trinity School Cambridge, pure philosophers tried to revise their public picture by portraying technologists, resembling James Watt of steam engine fame, as folks whose success trusted the software of the summary data of pure philosophy. Nevertheless, as within the case of the steam engine, the alternative truly occurred. Technologist James Watt accomplished his invention lengthy earlier than scientists proposed the legal guidelines of thermodynamics that describe in summary generalizations how the engine works.”
In faculties we paint a really linear image of what “good studying” seems to be like. We’ve designed curricula that create studying trajectories and description logical means with which we develop minds and share data.
More often than not it really works, however what about tinkering? What about constructing one thing then inquiring deeply into why it really works?
These are the concepts that occupy my thoughts as I have a look at the wealthy Experiential Studying taking place in our board. I’m wondering when it makes essentially the most sense to show then play. I’m wondering when it makes extra sense to play then educate. I’m wondering if there’s a sample. I’m wondering if all of it “will depend on the youngsters.” I additionally surprise if that’s a handy reply that we give after we actually don’t know.