Date:         Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:39:59 -0500
Reply-To:     CS92-L List <CS92-L@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU>
Sender:       CS92-L List <CS92-L@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU>
From:         Ryan Lynch <ryanmlynch@YAHOO.COM>
Subject:      Feb. 15 Discussion on Schank and Cleary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

The following highlights our discussion on selections from Schank and
Cleary's "Engines for Education."

We first discussed our thoughts about "learning by doing."  Schank and
Cleary open chapter 5 with an undergraduate's account of how Northwestern
[insert any relatively prestigious university] failed to provide authentic
educational experiences.  This excerpt helped us to analyze whether
educational institutions, both universities and K-12 schools, perpetuate a
curriculum devoid of practical application.  Do students think about why
they are learning what they are learning?  Does curriculum connect to the
"real world?"

We then considered Schank and Cleary's criticism of U.S. education.
Centering on the authors' "Top Ten Mistakes in Education" [pg. 23], we
considered which of Schank and Cleary's criticisms are strongest.  We spent
a few minutes on Criticism Three and discussed the merits and detractions of
standard curricula.  Several students noted that standard curricula allow
uniform testing to determine whether or not students have "learned" content.

Schank and Cleary suggest that students investigate only that which
interests and stimulates them.  We wondered how many us would have learned
to love biology, mathematics, or even Tolstoy had the introduction not been
guided or forced.  ("Look, there's 'Anna Karenin.'")

Talk of what it means "to learn" lead us to discuss how schools evaluate
learning and intelligence.  How did Gardner's Multiple Intelligence theory
shift the paradigm about what it means to be "intelligent?"

I cited Schank and Cleary's claim: "Since we cannot afford to have a
full-time teacher dedicated to each student, the solution rests with
technology that allows students to learn naturally aided by one-on-one
instruction" (67.)  Is computer software the best educational solution to
the problem posed by the authors, or is software merely the best
technological solution?

I asked the class to look at the Five Teaching Architectures.  Individuals
seemed to agree that Schank and Cleary's work on The Learning Waterfall is
not novel.  When looking at specific software, however, the class found
several approaches helpful.  Incidental Learning through the "Road Trip"
software demonstrates methods for communicating boring facts in a more
exciting and engaging format.  Individuals also praised Schank and Cleary's
ideas on intervening at the right time in the learning process.  "George"
shows that offering help to learners at the appropriate time in a simulation
better bridges the gap between theory and application.

We concluded the discussion with thoughts about how Schank and Cleary's work
with "Learning by Doing" can help us to create more effective educational
software.