EVERY art and every inquiry, and similarly every
action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good
has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim. But a certain
difference is found among ends; some are activities, others are products apart
from the activities that produce them. Where there are ends apart from the
actions, it is the nature of the products to be better than the activities. Now,
as there are many actions, arts, and sciences, their ends also are many; the end
of the medical art is health, that of shipbuilding a vessel, that of strategy
victory, that of economics wealth. But where such arts fall under a single
capacity -- as bridle-making and the other arts concerned with the equipment of
horses fall under the art of riding, and this and every military action under
strategy, in the same way other arts fall under yet others -- in all of these
the ends of the master arts are to be preferred to all the subordinate ends; for
it is for the sake of the former that the latter are pursued. It makes no
difference whether the activities themselves are the ends of the actions, or
something else apart from the activities, as in the case of the sciences just
mentioned.
Nigel Coutts on 31 Jan 21If we believe that all learning is a consequence of thinking, then we should consider what types of thinking our learners are likely to benefit from at each phase of their inquiry. This is where the Understanding Map, developed by Ritchhart, Church & Morrison offers useful guidance. By contemplating the demands of each phase of our chosen inquiry model, we can plan for how we might scaffold thinking moves which will enhance our learners' learning.
