AVATIKALTHI MARKETYARD KHULSE KHEDUTO MATE RAJYA SARKARNO NIRNAY
The Engelmann and Carnine theory provides a basis for making predictions that can be tested. In the absence of a
theory, experimentation is driven by random hypotheses based upon “plausible ideas” or intellectual frolicking. If such
hypotheses prove to be false, little is gained, save the rejection of one of an infinite set of plausible (but wrong) ideas. If
such hypotheses prove to be true, very little is still gained: there's an idea that shows promise, but where does it fit?
How does it relate to other ideas that show promise? The current state-of-the-art in educational experimentation is
characterized by this kind of tinkering with plausibility.
If a hypothesis generated by a theory proves false, on the other hand, not only is the hypothesis itself questionable,
but because of the logical interconnectedness of the theory's components, the entire theory becomes questionable. But
if a hypothesis generated by a theory is verified, then the veracity of the entire theory is strengthened. Theory-based
research is worth the time and effort; plausible idea-based theory isn't. When Time charged that the longest running
joke on most university campuses is the Education Department, the black humor tended to obfuscate the reason that so
many non-education academics might feel that way: conducting research in the absence of a theory might be funny,
were it not for the unconscionable waste of money and human resources.
A true theory not only predicts, but explains. For example, if we are interested in why cognitive psychologists have,
after several years of research, concluded that the extent to which learning transfers is dependent upon the relative
salience of surface and structural features of examples, this theory will explain that for us. If we are interested in why a
typical textbook presenta
theory, experimentation is driven by random hypotheses based upon “plausible ideas” or intellectual frolicking. If such
hypotheses prove to be false, little is gained, save the rejection of one of an infinite set of plausible (but wrong) ideas. If
such hypotheses prove to be true, very little is still gained: there's an idea that shows promise, but where does it fit?
How does it relate to other ideas that show promise? The current state-of-the-art in educational experimentation is
characterized by this kind of tinkering with plausibility.
If a hypothesis generated by a theory proves false, on the other hand, not only is the hypothesis itself questionable,
but because of the logical interconnectedness of the theory's components, the entire theory becomes questionable. But
if a hypothesis generated by a theory is verified, then the veracity of the entire theory is strengthened. Theory-based
research is worth the time and effort; plausible idea-based theory isn't. When Time charged that the longest running
joke on most university campuses is the Education Department, the black humor tended to obfuscate the reason that so
many non-education academics might feel that way: conducting research in the absence of a theory might be funny,
were it not for the unconscionable waste of money and human resources.
A true theory not only predicts, but explains. For example, if we are interested in why cognitive psychologists have,
after several years of research, concluded that the extent to which learning transfers is dependent upon the relative
salience of surface and structural features of examples, this theory will explain that for us. If we are interested in why a
typical textbook presenta
No comments:
Write comments