Paul A. Kirschner and Mirjam Neelen aren't too shy to accuse people of being eduquacks, and they base this assessment on their own fidelity to what they call "evidence-informed learning design". They're not wrong, but they're not exactly right either. To a degree they recognize the difficulty in our field: it "doesn't usually deliver the quality of evidence that clinical practice does. This is simply because we're dealing with so many variables that are extremely hard to (all) control. Literally, what worked with a class today at 9 AM won't necessarily have the same effects on a different class at 3 PM." True. But even worse, while there are generally accepted accounts of what might be called 'healthy', our views on what constitutes 'educated' are very different. And because of this, it becomes very difficult to compare evidence from one theory against another; they are, literally, incommensurate.
Today: 0 Total: 49 [Direct link] [Share]
