[From Bruce Gregory (970130.1045 EST)]
Chris Cherpas (970129.1833 PT)
But I come not only to praise, but to whine...
Now if there was just a single case where someone had designed an
instructional program to teach even a small part of an academic subject
using PCT, I could justify the extra time it would take me to learn PCT
in reasonable depth. As it is, I design instructional programs with a
partial understanding of PCT, but not much hope that I'm really doing it
justice yet. I really hate starting from scratch, but if I ever succeed I
guess I'll just have to claim all the glory for myself. On the other hand
I may just have to accept that PCT only promises educational applications.
I am working fairly assiduously (Bill, check that spelling
please) to base a course I teach on the Nature of Science on PCT
principles. What I had to first confront is the fact that I am
dealing with twenty autonomous control systems with very
different reference levels and very different histories. I
concluded therefore that there was little chance that I would
stumble on an approach that would reduce my error signals and
all of their error signals at the same time. (Particularly since
I have no direct access to their error signals. A classroom is
not a good example of HPCT!) I have tried to make my reference
levels clear to them, but I have not always been successful.
Since each student has access to his or her error signals, each
student is the only person in a position to know whether that
signal is being minimized. (If I were teaching tennis, it would
be simpler because the errors would be a lot easier to
recognize.) I am still wrestling with this problem.
I've come up with a few rules of thumb. First, any goal must be
such that each student can tell whether he or she is getting
closer to it. Second, students must act in some way. Third, each
student must be able to perceive the results of those actions.
The hardest part is identifying the goal (reference level) in a
way that is compatible with the reference levels of each
student.
I am rarely bored 
Bill Powers (970129.2030 MST)
How are there ever going to be any educational applications if nobody who is
professional competent in education develops them? Why does everybody want
me to do their work for them?
You know the answer to that question perfectly well...
Bruce Gregory
[From Bill Powers (9701030.1130 MST)]
Bruce Gregory (970130.1045 EST) --
I am working fairly assiduously (Bill, check that spelling
please)...
For goodness' sake, Bruce, that's not even close. It's spelled
"a-c-i-d-u-l-o-u-s-l-y."
to base a course I teach on the Nature of Science on PCT
principles. What I had to first confront is the fact that I am
dealing with twenty autonomous control systems with very
different reference levels and very different histories. I
concluded therefore that there was little chance that I would
stumble on an approach that would reduce my error signals and
all of their error signals at the same time. (Particularly since
I have no direct access to their error signals. A classroom is
not a good example of HPCT!) I have tried to make my reference
levels clear to them, but I have not always been successful.
Try making a deal with them. You have things you would like to teach; they
have things they would like to learn (else why are they there?). Obviously,
you know far more than you can teach in one course. So you can offer a list
from which they can select what they want to know. Since they won't all want
to know exactly the same things, you can offer compromises, or ask if it's
OK if you teach about some things for some of the people while the rest look
on, as long as you get around to what everyone's interested in. Of course in
dealing with what they want to know (at the level at which they are able to
frame their desires), you will certainly be able to teach anything you want
to teach (at a higher level of consideration). So everybody will be happy.
A variant on that idea would be to ask them to write down what they want to
know about the nature of science, collect the papers, and use them as the
structure of the course. Again, if these are really students who don't know
much about the nature of science, this should leave you quite free to teach
what you want. I think that teaching this sort of thing is really teaching
people how to go up a level, isn't it? If your students are already
comprehending things at the same level as you, it won't be a class, but an
exchange of views (i.e., a seminar or an argument).
The hardest part is identifying the goal (reference level) in a
way that is compatible with the reference levels of each
student.
So, ask.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Bruce Gregory (970130.1415 EST)]
Bill Powers (9701030.1130 MST)]
>The hardest part is identifying the goal (reference level) in a
>way that is compatible with the reference levels of each
>student.
So, ask.
Very reasonable suggestions. Brilliant even... Thanks. I'll let
you know what happens.
Bruce Gregory
