Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
Certainly oral presentation is one method to impart knowledge. But if there is no Q&A or discussion, and just pure lecture, this should just be online these days.
Believe me, a lot of the "active learning" paradigm is badly overrated, especially for public colleges like Cal State and the CCC system. Lectures, done well, are the main way to impart knowledge and keep students on task. It also requires them to read and think, and to be prepared to engage with the professor and other students when the magic "teaching moment" arrives in the form of substantive and spontaneous discussion. I used to do in-class activities and I was surprised that many students lacked the skills to even complete these, and working in groups is an invitation to the free-rider problem. Frankly, I think some of the lazier professors are proponents of these latter methods. A good lecturer captivates the class while also getting students involved.
Who wants to listen to Dr. Juarez babble about the development of the sonnet? Who cares? She should stick to medicine.
Lectures are fine when advertised as lextures. Not so much "conversations"
If Education Schools are against lecturing, it's almost surely the best thing to do.You have to impart knowledge somehow, whether that's by lecturing, reading, demonstrating, or whatever. Then, the students have to practice. That's the main problem: Too many students think that if the teacher were just good enough, they could skip the practice, and if that doesn't work, it's the teacher's fault.
So, I'm facing this challenge. History and Theology have, in my experience, always been taught through lecture. There's a place for dialogue and response, but the key issue for both is that conversation depends on starting with core knowledge. My other problem is my personal preference. In college, I mostly hated classes that were more conversational. It may work in small seminars, 10 or so, but in a big class it's always the same people saying what they think. I didn't like it because I was paying a lot of money to hear the expert tell me what they thought, not some peer who had read less than I did pontificating on some pet issue. Now, including discussion is a core element of evaluation. So, I've neither had modeling for that nor inclination for it. But I do agree that the ability to dialogue on a topic, to have that interaction, is a much better way of learning than passive listening.
Why are people always asking me rhetorical questions? -CP
The computer'TV lesson is interesting if you chose to watch carefully with minimum interruption.But a real live man/woman is to computer/TV as a stage play is to a TV.Smart humans are alert to the face and the voice inflections of a real live man/woman whether they chose to be or not. It's darwinian survival instincts.
The wife thinks so.
Lectures worked great for Psychology 101 (seriously; the guy was great) but not so great for Film Editing 101 (thank God, my teacher for that had us learn hands-on.)Listening to lectures works for the basics in almost any field, but is a shitty way to for someone to really know the subject beyond that. Being able to regurgitate facts is not intelligence and is largely useless outside of lawyering, which doesn't require much else.
RE: "Backward design and related ways of thinking about teaching weld method to context, that is, to purpose, limitations, implementation, and evidence. Lecturing neither works nor does not work in any universal way. In certain situations and for certain ends, certain ways of lecturing may be shown to work. Others may not. The same goes for any method"To Emphasize:Lecturing neither works nor does not work.certain ways of lecturing may be shown to work. Others may not.Can't Stop the Equivocation.
Can't Stop the Equivocation.... which may (or may not) be a good thing.
I used to teach that way. Lecture and then questions and conversation. Now I implement modes and methods. The delivery of teaching has died because of politicians. I am nothing more than an implementing facilitator. May God have mercy on us one and all.
Lecturing beats the hell out of the process of reinventing the wheel known as 'shared discovery', both in time saved and in the demonstration of logical processes. Granted, that later in the educational process, physical experimentation has some value.
I'm with Donald Douglas (above.)Much of it depends on the lecturer. A good lecturer, in addition to speaking skill, has to havedeep knowledge of the subjecta sense of the subject in broader contextpassion for the subjecta desire to communicate information vividlya willingness to prepare, prepare, preparethen prepare morecuriosity about and knowledge of what the audience will bring to the lecturea sense of proportion and skill at emphasishigh level energya desire to get better every time out.Lecturing is extremely hard. It exposes weaknesses in the teacher ruthlessly, because the teacher has limited power to intimidate. But done well, it's astonishingly valuable. At most levels of education, a weak teacher can fake it in a discussion. No so with lectures.
"Lecturing is "traditional and honorable method for passing on knowledge, communicating one’s passion for one’s subject, and modeling how to think.""It's actually a method of getting paid for taking 60 minutes to convey information I could have read in 5. Sort of like BloggingHeads.
I'd say exactly like BloggingHeads (except for the "getting paid" part, heh.)
Some guy named Carrigan was droning on and on and I fell asleep. Can I copy you notes?
I love lectures. Usually the people who say they hate lectures just want to dothe talking themselves, plus everyone knows lectures suck because that means someone is Lecturing you and we can't have that.
S. Jack: It's actually a method of getting paid for taking 60 minutes to convey information I could have read in 5."Skillful lecturing" can be the most powerful form of oral Cliff Notes imaginable, if you condense the material into truths and principles. The intercourse (although one-sided verbally) can be dynamic and stimulating, the stuff that is lost in reading for 60 minutes.Depends on the lecturer, the subject and the audience.
"It's actually a method of getting paid for taking 60 minutes to convey information I could have read in 5"But you're leaving out the time it took for you to steal the lecture notes.
Post a Comment