One of my favourite videos on education, which, I am sure, I posted somewhere else before:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U
One of my favourite videos on education, which, I am sure, I posted somewhere else before:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U
~
"It is not that I am mad; it is only that my head is different from yours.”
~
OK...that was AWESOME!Originally Posted by Scheherazade
My biggest beef right now is a teacher that is more concerned about teaching her curriculum than teaching my daughter. She's not learning simple methods of math. The homework that she brings home doesn't make sense to me (which doesn't make it bad), but it isn't working...therefore, don't fail the student...fail the curriculum...(of course, by don't fail the student, I mean that we still need the student to be able to pass the tests). The goal is for the students to learn. If our methods aren't working, we need to be able to shift gears.
Les Miserables,
Volume 1, Fifth Book, Chapter 3
Remember this, my friends: there are no such things as bad plants or bad men. There are only bad cultivators.
I am not discrediting learning trough discussion amongst peers, I am objecting to this being done in the lectures at university. Firstly the class mates in lectures are for the most part strangers. The key thing to learning trough discussion, is that sense of intimacy and equality is required, hence why it works perfectly with friends but it fails with strangers. With strangers one is uncomfortable speaking their true mind and thus most of the discussions are cliche and bland. Hence why such type of learning when forced is doomed to fail, it can only succeed when people choose to do it with people who they are comfortable with.Lecturing and seminar discussions are only one way of learning. It is useful to engage in discussion - not because of what your apparently ignorent student colleagues say and think, but of your responses to them. The formulation of answers/ responses/ contributions are the real reason why discussion is good. In talking, one can reflect upon the topic in hand and format it for your use in essays and exams. Then again one of them might disengage themselves from their ignorence and say something worthwhile and coherent.
I agree that a good way to learn something is to teach it. But in my personal experience discussions in large groups of strangers merely produce dull hymns to the same dull gods. Honest learning much like honest religion is a private affair. When it is forced upon one to engage in it with a group of strangers it produces a single conformist mind which is guided by fear of breaking conformity, a condition which hardly arouses the flowers of thought.really good way to learn something is to teach it. It seems counterintuitive - surely you know about a subject before you present it to others - but the nuances of the topic, the difficulties, particularities of language, the awkward questions and inconsistencies with what you know really give an insight into a subject. It is this kind of knowledge that makes a good lecturer, but more is needed from the student's side to really learn.
As a university student, at one of the finest and oldest establishments in Europe, what I say is the majority belief of my peers. You do not have to agree with it, I am merely stating what I see. You cannot blame the messenger.Besides no one goes to university for an actual education.
This is nonsense.
I did not say it was a guarantee of a good job, but much like a letter of recommendation; without one those doors are infinitely more firm in their closeness.Unfortunately students are no longer walking into jobs. I doubt they ever did. Of course your situation may be different and a job may be no problem for you, but other students will not only have to complete their degrees, but they will have to become pretty good at interviews and selection procedures to get into "prestigious careers", and then many of them will undertake further career training - such as in law and any number of jobs.
[/QUOTE]If your truly want an education, you go to a library.
More nonsense. You expect a university education - particularly in the sciences and techology- to keep up with and informed about current developments - especially research where the careers might lie.
When I said that I was thinking about the humanities; Philosophy, Literature, History. For maths and hard sciences such as biology or chemistry, I agree a university education is necessary. One needs lab equipment and data which only a university can provide.
I have several lecturers which are men of great intelligence and when they lecture it is a one way flow of information, and I am grateful for it. I am young and my knowledge on given subjects is microscopic compared to their experience and depth of a lifetime of study. When they give lectures I am fascinated by their discourse and I and my fellows are fixed upon every word of theirs. How can you call lecturing useless, maybe you have never had a lecturer of great intelligence and don't know the sensation of being in raptures over hours upon hours of soliloquies from truly great men. These are the types of academians I respect. Not those who have to resort to having the class discuss amongst themselves, for when they lecture the class is naturally bored with a man whose erudition and passion on a given subject is mediocre at best.
That's one thing I have always found funny. From since I was a child I was told by media, by teachers, by my parents; that the most important thing was to be myself. Naturally the naive fvuck that I am I took it to heart and proudly displayed myself for whom I was. It was only then that I realized that when society said, "the most important thing is to be yourself" They mean a generic self which resembled a politically 90's correct sitcom character. Anything other than that and no one wants you to be yourself anymore.
Besides, outside of the polo everything else was quite ordinary.
I agree with the magical hand which has a remarkable talent for enunciation and draftsmanship.
I am sorry, Alexander. I did not expect it to be so confusing for some; it is not the hand that is doing the "enunciation". They were simply trying to draw pictures to support Sir Ken Robinson's lecture on education to make it more dramatic and accessible, one would think, and recorded the hand of the artist doing just that.
Hope this helps clear it for you a little bit.
As a side note, one would have thought that they would have helped the students develop the skills to differentiate such nuances at "one of the finest and oldest establishments in Europe".
~
"It is not that I am mad; it is only that my head is different from yours.”
~
Come on, no one else here hates classroom discussion? It's the most embarrassing thing in the world when someone is too stupid to know they're stupid and seeks attention in front of strangers. The instructor stumbles around trying to find some way to escape the situation, but sometimes the student won't shut up and keeps going and going. Sometimes they do it in every class for the entire semester, and when they raise their hand your brain just shuts off and you recede into yourself until it's over. As for learning how to speak in front of a large group, don't most humanities courses have a presentation component? Most of mine have, especially in literature.
The exception is language courses, in which you obviously need classroom discussion.
Last edited by JuniperWoolf; 09-16-2012 at 09:27 PM.
__________________
"Personal note: When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun. So once when I was six, I did. At first the brightness was overwhelming, but I had seen that before. I kept looking, forcing myself not to blink, and then the brightness began to dissolve. My pupils shrunk to pinholes and everything came into focus and for a moment I understood. The doctors didn't know if my eyes would ever heal."
-Pi
How would you know? I've conducted several conversations with my students--all strangers--with great success. All it takes is a little time to get to know each their, maybe a few classes at most.
I think you're just combatative because your fancy, prestigious university is using teaching methods that have been obsolete for half a century.
The U of A seems to have the same course structure. At a big university it's just not feasible to hold classroom discussions when your lecture hall is filled with 400 students. The lecturers are the stars of the course, they're (supposed to be, or they shouldn't have been hired for the job) brilliant, at the forefront of their field, in many cases they've written or helped to write the textbook you're using, you're there to watch them and absorb their genius. The minor players guide labs and seminars, they do the one-on-one stuff. Labs and seminars are small, and usually instructed by grad students. I like labs, it's all hands-on, tinkering with microscopes and specimens and touring the faculty's resource centers. Seminars sound like exactly what you're talking about, a small group of about 20-35 students talking and an instructor responding. It's not very stimulating or fulfilling, basically it's subject comprehension and homework help.
Last edited by JuniperWoolf; 09-16-2012 at 11:33 PM.
__________________
"Personal note: When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun. So once when I was six, I did. At first the brightness was overwhelming, but I had seen that before. I kept looking, forcing myself not to blink, and then the brightness began to dissolve. My pupils shrunk to pinholes and everything came into focus and for a moment I understood. The doctors didn't know if my eyes would ever heal."
-Pi
I agree.
Les Miserables,
Volume 1, Fifth Book, Chapter 3
Remember this, my friends: there are no such things as bad plants or bad men. There are only bad cultivators.
There's always one or two people in discussion-based classes and seminars who make me cringe when they speak, but I don't see why that renders discussion useless. If anything, discussion requires greater knowledge and intellect than taking notes and digesting the information afterwards. You have to think on your feet sometimes in a discussion, which is a learning experience that can't be emulated in a massive lecture hall.
This said, I've had good and bad seminar classes. The good ones are usually the result of good discussion questions from the professor, whereas in bad ones instructors took a passive role while allowing students to veer discussions onto irrelevant tangents.
Edit: this reminds me of a hilariously terrible question that was asked during a first-year history course.
Professor: "It's estimated that around 30% of Europe was killed by the black plague...(etc. etc.)
Student: "What percentage survived the plague?"
Last edited by Shevek; 09-16-2012 at 10:40 PM.
Discussions serve different purposes at different levels. The lower undergrad courses seem to use it mostly as a means to reinforcing comprehension and student engagement. In grad school and upper level undergrad students are often working on very different projects, and coming from very different perspectives, so discussion can often be a great learning tool.
"If the national mental illness of the United States is megalomania, that of Canada is paranoid schizophrenia."
- Margaret Atwood
I guess the US has different seminar classes (they're not even called seminar classes, but discussion based classes) than other countries, because it isn't just about subject comprhension (some of it is) or homework help (none of it is--that's just Q and A). It's pretty much universally agreed among education scholars/professors that active learning is better than passive learning, and it doesn't get much more passive than being lectured. Not to mention the problem of hearing one person's opinions and point of view--it's very limiting, not at all engaging, barely motivating, and ever tedious.
Discussion classes, just like lecture classes, depend on the instructor. The instructor has to be good at facilitating discussion--being able to respond quickly, manage students (good discussion can get rowdy), think on their feet, etc. Lecturers need to do none of this. It's a lot easier, which is why so many professors prefer it.
Last edited by Mutatis-Mutandis; 09-16-2012 at 10:51 PM.
Alex proves yet again that he's a complete {efit}. I do agree though that a lot of people getting degrees in fields like "sociology" and "english" are just there for the hell of it.
From the same person who repeatedly posts warnings in threads about personal attacks? This {edit} gets under my skin as well, but come on
Last edited by Scheherazade; 09-17-2012 at 03:04 AM. Reason: Inflammatory/personal
Then you've never had a world-class lecturer. I've been lucky enough to have had a few, there are some lectures which stand out in my mind as having been among the best of my university experiences. I wouldn't have been able to have those experiences at all if our class sizes had only been small group discussion-based teaching, because if the greatest minds in their field on earth were made to provide "active learning" to groups of forty measly undergrads at a time, I know I sure as hell wouldn't be able to afford to get into those classes. To format a course like that would be completely illogical.
It's a combination of teaching methods which employs lecture, so you get small classes and large classes within the same course, two-in-one, inspiration from the big dogs and personal help from the up-and-comers. It just makes sense that way, how else would you organize it so that the largest number of students possible has access to the best education possible?
*shrug* That's the education I prefer, which is obviously why I buy it. If I wanted all small-class "active learning" courses, I'd go to a small college, I did for a few months. Thirty-five people per class, lots of discussion, they hold your hand the whole way and focus on instruction a lot more, but the instructors and the equipment and facilities aren't as impressive by half. The cost of a university vs. community college is comparable here, so you really do have a choice at least up until the end of your second year, in most cases. After second year you usually have no choice but to to transfer to a big university if you want a bachelor's. Anywho, what I'm saying is, given a choice and having experienced both, I found the teaching method which employs lecture much more enriching than your way.
Last edited by JuniperWoolf; 09-17-2012 at 03:31 AM.
__________________
"Personal note: When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun. So once when I was six, I did. At first the brightness was overwhelming, but I had seen that before. I kept looking, forcing myself not to blink, and then the brightness began to dissolve. My pupils shrunk to pinholes and everything came into focus and for a moment I understood. The doctors didn't know if my eyes would ever heal."
-Pi
Hunh. One could say they are almost like Forum discussions, eh?'Sokay. I have already sent myself a stern warning.From the same person who repeatedly posts warnings in threads about personal attacks? This twerp gets under my skin as well, but come on
I was merely expressing a disappointment in the quality of education offered at Alex's "fine and old" institution. Had I called him a dolt or a twerp, on the other hand, it would have been a personal attack, no doubt.
~
"It is not that I am mad; it is only that my head is different from yours.”
~
Haha, "twerp." Clopin, you wouldn't happen to be the incarnation of Moose from the hit 1940's comic book series Archie, would you?
__________________
"Personal note: When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun. So once when I was six, I did. At first the brightness was overwhelming, but I had seen that before. I kept looking, forcing myself not to blink, and then the brightness began to dissolve. My pupils shrunk to pinholes and everything came into focus and for a moment I understood. The doctors didn't know if my eyes would ever heal."
-Pi
Posting Permissions
