Research-based learning also adheres to non-creative codes that limit creativity, which limits possibility based on convention, not free thought. Why?
Samy Azer Samy Azer Thank you for the question. I agree with the input from Samy Azer. I also am concerned with two important questions: What do we understand with learning? ... and ... what do we understand with research-based? I like the idea that learning, at its best, is a "bi-effect" of solving relevant challenges, exploring things we want to find out and understanding the connection between what we do and what happens to us as a result of doing so. John Dewey, in his wonderful book "Democracy and Education" (1916), connects learning closely to experience. In chapter 13 he explores "The Nature of Method", and points to what it is to think rationally and effectively. My students need to understand research method and be able to use it. This means they can recognize quality research and explore it for themselves. This also means they sometimes can research methodically what they want to find out or solve. "Research-based learning" is sometimes confused with presenting and reading research-texts and hope the words stick in the students heads. This rarely makes a good learning. Letting students explore, discuss and reflect for themselves creates freedom and innovative thinking.
I think that research-based learning will achieve the most effective learning
I think free thought, curiosity and exploration leads to innovation and discovery. Research-based learning has the sounds of protocol, rules, and standards that stifle innovation, transformation, and discovery unless it meets norms that have already been pre-ordained.
It also creates barriers to opposing viewpoints and approaches.
It has the ability to constrain, not embolden, and it assumes that learning is a statistical approach that conforms to norms as opposed to an individual approach. It might work for robotics, industry and non-human learning, but it would hinder acceptance of mentally challenged, economically challenged, and other forms of differentiation that would make the research based learning highly suspect and designed for discrimination and separation of people ...
Kjartan Skogly Kversøy - I am in favour of these views. Learning happens when there is a change in the behaviour and thoughts of the learner. What will be the value of doctors talking to patients about the risks of smoking, while they are smoking!! Doctors did not lean. The example you mentioned that research-students is great, and I would like to add these views- I always say to my research students, the time I spent with you is not about completing a paper and getting published. While this is important, my primary goal is to change the way they think, to train them how to think like a scientist, to have doubt, not to believe everything said, to develop questions, to generate a hypothesis, to reason, to look for evidence. Then can format their thoughts and their decisions. I think this is the heart of learning; it is reshaping the learner to become part of the profession. Not just through completing a certificate or course but through changes that we can observe in their work, skills, behaviour, character, understanding, thoughts and actions.
Traditional learning has a bias against faith, a bias against consciousness spiritual strength, and a bias for observation as a requirement... life has been my best teacher and it has disproved traditional learning substantially!
There is a God, a spiritual life and an eternal consciousness that we contribute towards.. research-based learning needs to gain more freedom to gain understanding and real life learning.
A person touches a hot stove. What will research find that they learned? Is experiential learning more powerful that interpretive learning by reading? Will research find that the person learned pain? Learned fear? Learned caution? Learned hot and not to touch hot items? That the person learned to to check things before touching?
Will research really identify what was learned?
A person, in a time of deep sorrow, prays for comfort. In the peace of silence and spiritual existence, comfort is felt. Will research use a bias to declare self delusion or will research understand prayer is communication to higher existence?
Isn't research-based learning a stepping stone linear process that makes broad assumptions that linear learning is more effective that 360 degree experiential learning?
Do type A personalities and Type B personalities learn the same?
Do we believe that homogenized learning is good?
Steve Jobs didn't use research based learning. Bill Gates didn't use research based learning. They used What if and Why Not learning, and bucked systems in place.
Research is great. Research-based learning appears to have elements of underserved acceptance and arrogance within its construct, as the researcher is typically bound within the constraints of re-established accepted norms.
Breaking norms and thinking in possibilities creates new learning that is non- linear and which has proven to have profound impact in the universe.
Research-based learning has created a culture of No, It Doesn't fit, and Not Acceptable as responses to innovative thinkers who learn by belief , action and visions from within.
Nobody saw a globe of smartphones before the computer, and thomas Edison said all computers that would ever occupy the world were already built...
Preconceived beliefs are wrong and limiting.
Research-based beliefs ignore faith, intuition, spiritual energy and non-replicable learning.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology
- Mental Processes
- Learning