CBSE BOARD X, asked by lisaseng2199, 9 months ago

mention two educational applicability of confitional method of learning​

Answers

Answered by Anonymous
21

Answer:

awareness, interest, motivation, relevance, engagement

Answered by ashauthiras
0

Answer:

Traditional teaching

Most teaching unintentionally fosters mindlessness.  Facts are typically presented as closed packages, without attention to perspective.  Most of what we learn in school, at home, from television, and from nonfiction books, we may mindlessly accept because it's given to us in an unconditional form.  The information is presented from a single perspective as though it is true, independent of context.  It just is.

Scientists know that research results in findings that are probably true, given the context in which the work was tested.  When these findings are reported by teachers or in textbooks, they are translated from probabilities into absolute statements that hide the uncertainty.  Statements of probability are not only more accurate, they are also more interesting and engaging.

When we ignore perspective, we tend to confuse the stability of our mind-sets with the stability of the phenomenon.  Things are constantly changing, whether we like it or not.  And at any one moment they are different from different perspectives.  Yet we hold them still in our minds, as if they were constant.  We want to hold them as constant ideas, and we want to believe that the phenomena are constant.  This is a part of human nature — an especially unhelpful part.

Learning the basics in a rote, unthinking manner almost ensures mediocrity.  It also deprives learners of maximizing their own potential for more effective performance.  And for enjoyment of the activity.

Consider tennis.  At tennis camp I was taught exactly how to hold my racket and toss the ball when serving.  We were all taught the same way.  When I later watched the U.S. Open, I noticed that none of the top players served the way I was taught, and, more important, each of them served differently.  And each one varied their own technique to adjust to their different competitors.  But the rules we are given to practice are based on generally accepted truths about how to perform the task, and not on our individual abilities.  If we mindlessly practice these skills exactly as we are taught, it keeps the activity from becoming our own.  Each difference between me and my competitors could become a problem if I take each instruction as absolute truth.  If we learn the basics but do not overlearn them, we can vary them as we change, or as the situation changes.

That's a key finding of Langer's work — the importance of not overlearning a task.  You can clearly see the parallel in social dance, but now adapting to partners instead of to competitors.

Perhaps the very notion of basics needs to be questioned.  So-called basic skills are normatively derived.  They are usually at least partially applicable for most people some of the time.  They are sometimes not useful at all for some people.  If they are overlearned, they are not likely to be varied, even when variation would be advantageous.

In the classroom, teaching one set of basics for everyone is easier for the teacher because the teacher needs to know less.  A single routine leaves little room for disagreement and hence may foster obedience to authority. awareness, interest, motivation, relevance, engagement

Similar questions