Reply to comment

I think you bring up a very good point: there is a difference between good and bad teachers, and thus, good and 'bad' classrooms.  I'm not meaning to argue that the traditional classroom harbors 'bad' teachers, and thus a bad environment--but rather than emergence can offer a more socially-applicable stance on education that seems to be a bit more successful, in that it applies the values of society early in life.  I honestly believe that, if students do want an introduction to a discipline, an emergent classroom offers just as successful a style as the 'traditional' way, if not more successful in that it both presents facts and fosters discussion about those facts.  By traditional, I am assuming that you mean a lecture style classroom.  It is true that one can receive the facts very straight-forward in a lecture style classroom.  It is also true, however, that facts can be presented to an emergent-style classroom -- when a discussion follows, taking these facts into account, the emergent classroom is more successful.  In a traditional classroom, the facts are received; in an emergent classroom, the facts are received, discussed, debated.

I think it is also worth mentioning that 'facts,' in the sense that they are concrete and truthful, is not an approach particularly fostered by emergent education.  Facts are always liable to be questioned, because 'concrete truth' is not often applicable in differing situations -- that is, a truth may apply to one situation, but not to others.  I think an emergent classroom takes this more into account, and treats facts as a means of growing more knowledgable, though still asking questions.

(You bring up great points about traditional vs. emergent education--they've made me think!  Thanks for engaging in this discussion with me!)