What about those pesky DETAILS? In class and lecture? Or even in the presidental debates?
What details do we need for deciding, evaluating, action, thinking?
What about "levels of detail, " and "grain of analysis"?
What about synthesis -- bring it together? or putting things in perspective?
Whose "details" are these? What counts as "evidence"?
What information and analysis is TRUSTWORTHY?
Especially if it is either NEW or DIFFERENT, alters one's assumptions, or challenges them?
Think of a Google Map:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl
Note the various points of view: Street, Traffic, Satellite, Terrain
How do these differ?
How can you shift what is included and at what grain of detail?
How can you alter perspective and which things matter?
What sorts of "scoping" and "scaling" are involved?
Freewrite:
What does a Google map suggest about the questions of detail and analysis in your estimation?
Some possibly differing assumptions?
=pov Teacher: how can we engage the DETAILS unless the students do the reading and preparation for class? assumes: Details emerge in the course of interactions in which students describe what they understood from the readings and how they might use what they learned.
=pov Some Students maybe? how can we understand the reading unless the teacher lectures in detail about it, so that we can read it AFTER the lecture, or see what we still need to know AFTER a REAL lecture that paraphrases the reading? assumes: Details are pinpointed as important after being summarized by the teacher in lecture; the reading doesn't matter until the teacher lectures on it in detail.
