We had dinner this weekend with a friend who teaches in the visual arts and it got me wondering if really there are different paradigms for teaching/learning that depend on the subject. For example, in the old way of thinking, we think of geography (along with all the other natural sciences and social sciences) as content-based: we have information; we tell it to students in lecture; they learn it; and they show us they did by writing exams and papers.
In the new way of thinking (student-centered/active learning) the premise is that listening to 'experts' is not enough: students have to DO stuff to learn and retain information. In my cynical view, this approach works better for the self-motivated students who really push to get something for themselves out of the activities. As a student, I didn't think these activities worked well for me. In a pair-and-share, for example, I never felt I learned much from my partner, and the whole learning process was impeded by the need for acceptable social relations. I couldn't say, "gee if you'd done the reading you'd perhaps have something to add" or "No, I think your interpretation of this book is totally off base." So the better student becomes the new "lecturer" except without all the knowledge and experience of the real lecturer.
Regardless, it's still content-based. Our friend, though, was arguing for a totally different paradigm. He sees his goals as 1) pushing students beyond their comfort zone and 2) getting them to change the world through their art. It's hard to see how this could be applied to fact-based stuff but it's intriguing to think how it might work. If you explained how the nutrient cycle worked, for example, you might ask students to diagram how it applied to them, yesterday. Application is sort of mid-range on Bloom's taxonomy, I think. Then, maybe you could think of a way to ask them how this knowledge could be used to solve a problem or address an issue. That's still application, though. And is "changing the world" the highest and best use of knowledge? Must knowledge be used to be of value? I have to think about this some more.