The article is an excellent contribution even though I disagree with many points (I am a science maniac).
The idea that someone should rewrite quality articles tastes of Big Brother!!! With this policy Wikipedia will quickly lose the best authors. No genius will look peacefully as the populus rips his or her output to pieces. If Wikipedia is to live up to Britannica it must provide all (incl. non-neural) views in a systematic manner (even with external links). The sensible approach would be for someone to take a birdseye view and write a short article. For example:
Education reform: the process in which ... <here short definition>
- <Title> - <Author> - <explanation> (e.g. maniac/genius of sciences presents his view)
- <Title> - <Author> - <explanation> (e.g. maniac/genius of artistic education presents his view)
- <Title> - <Author> - <explanation> (e.g. maniac/genius of classical education presents his view)
- <Title> - <Author> - <explanation> (e.g. maniac/genius of religious education presents his view)
- <Title> - <Author> - <explanation> (e.g. maniac/genius of homeschooling presents his view)
if all above maniacs turn to rewriting their own stuff the result is easy to predict:
- they will be at each other's throats
- articles will lose coherence due to being rewritten back and forth a zillion times
- ultimately, quality authors will drift away (perhaps to paid jobs)
p.s. If I was to rewrite this article I would put a huge emphasis on making use of learning theories in practise. Psychophysiologists had answers to memory problems a hundred years ago, but ... George W. Bush has never heard any of these. Worse, educational systems around the world are largely oblivous of learning theories. The reform is no easier than an effort of keeping Wikipedia coherent and retaining best brains
well-put, though I myself classify Cognitive Psychology as a dangerous cult ;).
Cognitive Psychology researchers are a body of people different as chalk from cheese. You cannot put them all to one basket. The scientific fact is that this branch of science produces practical results that all unbiased people should welcome (such as quality learning). I would like those results included in education reform
I'm sure they are - please don't take it personally, but what I mean by the <smiley> after dangerous cult is NOT that they don't tell us interesting and useful things, but that they think that they have THE answer. That's certainly how they talk about their field in front of everyone else!
I welcome insertions of the approximate form: "On the other hand, <so&so> believes <insert your text here> because of <some good reason>". References to <so&so>'s work would be nice. This should add a lot of balance, and I promise not to flame these sorts of insertions!
I thought I did put in some science. Piaget was a founding cognitive developmental psychologist... I thought he needed to be mentioned. So too, Myers & Briggs. These psychologists measured important effects that most educational theorists seem not to take into account- so I have no theories to report.
Also, most educators have a worse record than Dewey at rolling out improvements. As far as my research has found, only the Kentucky Dept. of Education has done much real science on education (i.e. with controls and meaningful statistics). I'd be glad to hear about others.
The reason why there's so much about classical education is because education has centuries of practical experience. One ignores that at one's peril. The only journal article I could find that actually documented scientific success with teaching generalized reasoning, a holy grail of educational theorists, used the Socratic method, and measured it with Piagetian tests.
- In Japan and Europe, primary education is excellent
Are you serious ? In this part of Europe it really sucks. --Taw