Slashdot Mirror
'The Traditional Lecture Is Dead' (wired.com)
Rhett Allain, an Associate Professor of Physics at Southeastern Louisiana University, writing for Wired: What is the traditional lecture? It is a model of learning in which a teacher possesses the knowledge on a given topic and disseminates it to students. This model dates to the beginning of education, when it was the only way of sharing information. In fact, you occasionally still see the person presenting the lecture called a reader, because way back before the internet and even the printing press, a teacher would literally read from a book so students could copy it all down. Now, don't get me wrong. The traditional lecture model worked wonderfully for eons. But it is an outdated idea (free pass for adblockers). Close your eyes and imagine yourself in a college physics course with a professor giving a traditional lecture. Now open your eyes. Did you envision The Best Physics Lecture EVAR? I doubt it. You probably pictured someone droning on and on in front of a chalkboard or PowerPoint presentation. No way that is more engaging or interesting than an episode of The Mechanical Universe , and if you're a teacher who uses traditional lectures, just stop and play the show instead. Everyone will be better off. You may think by now that I think most physics professors are dolts. I promise that's not the case. But traditional lectures simply aren't effective. Research shows students don't learn by hearing or seeing, they learn by doing, a model often called active learning. Physics faculty should start thinking about how they can go beyond just a traditional lecture. There are some easy things they can do (or students can ask them to do) to make learning more engaging. First, make students read the book outside of class, rather than in class. If your lecture merely covers the material in the textbook, why make students buy the textbook? Now, you may put a different spin on the material, but still. You're merely repeating what students can read on their own. Let them do that on their own time, and use the classroom for experiments and demonstrations and so forth.
Who is to say that because this method of education has been used for eons it is not longer valid? Why? In fact, I'd argue completely the opposite: it has survived numerous challenges. Maybe it is as good as it gets and the problem is that education reaches a broader audience that does not interact well with learning. Proof: Trump got elected even though it is going to crap on all the people who voted for him and that was widely known... But... when you have a population that is 50% stupid (being generous here) then you get what you get.
But traditional lectures simply aren't effective. Research shows students don't learn by hearing or seeing,
Speak for yourself, a good lecture reduces the time to learn for many. For me, I figure at least 2x. The interactions rapidly clarify areas of confusion.
A great lecture inspires.
Wrong.
Beyond Wrong.
"The Mechanical Universe", what the fuck I don't even.
Fuck off with your hipster pseudo-intellectualism. Here is a lecture on hydrostatic pressure by Walter Lewin. It is more interesting, more entertaining, and more educational than ANY of your pop-science crap. I don't care what privatised iCloud lecture service you are trying to hock, or your bullshit smear stories against Lewin either. The traditional lecture format is better than anything you can come up with with your cheap credit funding and fly by night websites and social media scam promotions.
Get the fuck out of of my fields. Get the fuck out of my hobbies. Get the fuck off the internet you anti-intellectual Hipster frauds!
Because it's just not entertaining enough to keep people with the attention span of gnats engaged.
There, fixed that for you.
Because the textbook is supposed to have much more detail than what the teacher can provide.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Most teachers are best at interactive teaching rather than lecturing. A lecture requires careful preparation, clarity, good graphics, and careful pronunciation. There is no reason that a very good lecturer can't be recorded and played by the student, allowing them to replay parts that they didn't understand. That frees up the student's and teacher's time to work on exercises together, let's the student explain where they are stuck, and the teacher can help where needed.
None of this is earth shattering, its just the difference between a lecture and a recitation. they are just calling it flip lessons now (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...). Lectures are not really dead, it just makes more sense to have the best lecturer do it and then interact with the students in the classroom.
The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
The article (almost in full in the summary above) is making the argument against lectures that a lecture would just be repeating what the student has read on his own in the textbook.
Well, repetition is not necessarily bad. Facts stick if we can apply them, if we can associate them in new ways. A good lecturer does not simply repeat exactly what you read. If you are a good lecturer then you emphasize those things in the subject matter that are the most important and you do that from a slightly different angle than in the textbook. And you do use pictures, drawings, animations or other appropriate media that are not in the textbook - just as you would when making an educational video.
And if you hold a lecture then you should always devote a few minutes to questions. Getting a question cleared up can be all the difference for someone.
If you think lecturing is droning on then you are just a lazy professor.
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
This type of response is why education in the US is off the rails. You extrapolate your response to learning via YouTube to the entire student population. Students learn differently. Some respond to visual learning methods. Some to auditory methods. Some respond best to experiment. The point being, instructor input is vital. During a lecture, the instructor can see the "deer in the headlights" look, and adjust the instruction style and content appropriately. Videos can't do that. Self-study only works with brilliant, entirely self-motivated individuals, and those are rare indeed.
Research shows students don't learn by hearing or seeing, they learn by doing, a model often called active learning.
We called it homework.
If your lecture merely covers the material in the textbook, why make students buy the textbook?
That's why I never did.
You're merely repeating what students can read on their own. Let them do that on their own time, and use the classroom for experiments and demonstrations and so forth.
They're called "labs". Learning from reading a textbook alone is hard. It requires discipline, focus, and hard work. If it were easy, we'd have no need for University courses. That's why we have professors who go over it in class, so you can ask questions and have the obscure parts explained to you, and the students who lack the drive to study the book on their own time (most of them) can still learn the material.
In my experience, students mostly prefer the reverse: learn the material in class, apply the material in homework after class.
Learning a new subject is hard work. Classes are there to make the work less hard. Seeing movies and experiments isn't making it less hard, it's just entertainment.
Speaking as a physics professor who has tried many of these new techniques - I've done video lectures which are up on YouTube, in-class tutorials, clickers etc. - I get really annoyed by this type of hyperbolic promotions of them. Technology has indeed given us some better ways of doing things and in that the OP is right that we should explore and use them. However, somethings are best taught in the more traditional lecture format and frankly, when I was a student myself we were all supposed to read around the subject - not just limited to reading the textbook but other books too - as well as attend the lecture so this is hardly a "new idea".
In particular one of the things I have noticed with many of these new techniques is that they communicate far less information and those using them often have to take material out of a syllabus. They then compare this to the original lecture and it is no surprise that they find that students learn the material better. However if the original lecture format was repeated with the same reduced syllabus and far more time on each topic I expect that this too would get better results if for no other reason than students have less to revise for the exam.
So please let's not start the irresponsible hype that old lectures are dead just because we have an arsenal of new techniques. Some of these techniques may have disadvantages over the "old" lecture style particularly when it comes to the amount of material covered which, for a subject like physics, is extremely important because it has a more linear nature until you get to the final undergrad year. Plus some of the new techniques are grossly unfair since they award marks for a group and not individuals which means it can be heavily influenced by how lucky you are with your group members.
Pretty hard to get many professors to change their ways otherwise.
In debates about Christianity, there are two groups: those looking for answers, and those looking to just ask questions.
30+ year old Physics material is your recommendation to counter current bad classroom lecture! Really? I was actually intrigued by the referral until I saw the copywrite date.
Guess how much has changed in Physics, especially Astrophysics, in 30 years? That CalTech material might as well be flat-earth howto's
Students learn differently. Some respond to visual learning methods. Some to auditory methods. Some respond best to experiment. The point being, instructor input is vital. During a lecture, the instructor can see the "deer in the headlights" look, and adjust the instruction style and content appropriately. Videos can't do that. Self-study only works with brilliant, entirely self-motivated individuals, and those are rare indeed.
You explain the exact reason modern and near-future technology is necessary to solve our education problems. It is incredibly inefficient for a human teacher to adjust his teaching style for each of 20+ students in his class. And adjusting for a few struggling students at the expense of the other 15? Is that really your ideal solution?
There is no reason we couldn't have 1000+ video lessons for any given topic; each slightly different. Periodic 3-5 question quizzes would be able to tell how well students are picking up the material, and machine learning could help identify which lessons work better for each student based on billions of other student interactions and learning results. They could be a combination of lectures, demonstrations, group work with students at the same ability level anywhere in the country, and VR experimentation. All including quick help features where both AI bots and real human teachers can jump in for more specialized situations. Even if image processing has a hard time identifying the "deer in the headlights" look (unlikely) students would be far more willing to ask for help in a 1 on 1 setting between them and the computer / online teaching support staff. Combined with a small amount of traditional teaching to fill in the gaps this is bound to be far better than current teaching techniques.
It's going to take a while to get here though, but not because we don't already have the technology. Implementation will certainly not be easy and there will be many interest groups fighting against these improvements.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Tradtional lectures are better when:
1) The topic is something that is learning an algorithm (solving for x^2 = 9), or memorizing important facts ("how many votes does it take for a presidential veto to be overridden?").
Or... 2) The students aren't mature enough to interact with the presenter as an interested or thoughtful peer on a topic. Children learn discipline from listening to and studying information given by authority figures. Adults, however, can read stuff on their own and then interact with the authority figures to grow their own knowledge, ask questions, etc.
Exactly wrong. Live lectures can be quite good or very bad. Recorded live lectures (or recorded anything else) are always bad. People often love the videos, but research shows that even if you enjoy the video it's more likely to reinforce your erroneous preconceptions rather than teach you something new.
Lectures are a compromise between efficiency of delivery and optimum knowledge transfer. They're not the best at either, but they seem to achieve an optimum tradeoff.
> use the classroom for experiments and demonstrations and so forth
When I was in school, no teacher or professor merely read from the book. The syllabus would contain what was going to be gone over in class, you were expected to read it before you showed up. Of course, not everyone did that, but the instructor would at least try by telling you and having it written down, as well as posting what problem sets were due and so on.
The lecture period would cover the high points of the text, but it was interactive in that the students could ask for clarification and have the professor work though things on the board. In certain classes there would be a demonstration of principles (if they applied), but not every class had the opportunity for this, such as writing classes. We also had lab sections when applicable for chemistry, physics, biology and so on, where we would learn by doing. I guess the lecture period was for reinforcement of the textbook plus an open forum for asking clarifying questions. Of course, if you were really still in the dark you could always go to office hours.
This was 30ish years ago ... so by the definition of this article I didn't see a "traditional lecture" in the entire time I was being educated. My kids are still in grade school, but they have a very different school day than I ever did, and very much removed from what this guy is railing against.
Given the example of The Mechanical Universe, having a professor show up and play a video every week would make me angry. Why shell out thousands of dollars to have some PhD hit play on a video? Why not engage them at a human level that's been going on since the Greeks were having dialogs ages ago?
During a lecture, the instructor can see the "deer in the headlights" look, and adjust the instruction style and content appropriately.
You can edit a video and upload the revision pending feedback. Nobody is saying that education should become a one-way process, but that on-demand, pausable video is a much more efficient way to handle the bulk of knowledge transfer than, say, one guy in front of a 200-student lecture hall. That threshold is probably much lower--maybe somewhere north of 20.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
At least one person has done his PhD doing exactly that. Outcome? The videos were more likely to reinforce preexisting erroneous beliefs than they were to teach new concepts.
That's right, watching educational videos, on average, has a negative effect.
Any college course, any professional school, listening to professors drone on about what you could learn from printed matter, and taking time away from printed matter, while having confused, often dumb students asking questions that you aren't having problems with is certainly sub-optimal.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Most of my slides have no text on them, at all. It annoys the hell out of a couple percent of the audience. Everyone else loves it.
You forgot colonization.
Lectures, videos, and textbooks are forms of passive learning. A student will listen or read the information without receiving feedback or being forced to engage with the material. It has its place in education but as the article states it is less effective. There is even evidence that passive learning provides an "illusion of learning." That is a student believes they understand material when in fact they do not.
Active learning is learning by doing. There have been numerous studies demonstrating that active learning is superior. It can be as simple as asking students questions about the content they are learning. Active learning is one of the reasons why expert tutors are the best form of education (See 2 Sigma Problem). By being forced to answer questions a student will be better able to retain and recall it.
Lectures and other passive learning methodologies have their place, but they should be short and supplemental.
And of course we all know that means he isn't dead at all.
I have to roll my eyes at this sort of nonsense. The traditional lecture will never go away, although one might hope that lecturers who are crap at it will be more motivated to find alternatives, leaving the good ones to do their thing. [just] "putting a different spin" on the material is often *exactly* what a student needs. I vividly recall an interaction I had with a bunch of extremely intelligent Chinese profs, and I mention the nationality only because the language barrier was relevant. I was trying to explain a certain process, and it took me over a day, drawing and re-drawing and re-wording and re-re-wording until I finally hit on the "spin" that made the connection with one guy, and he explained it to the rest (in Chinese) and we were able to move in. Much the same sort of thing often happens in a lecture setting.
"Traditional" boring droning lectures which re-read the book or the powerpoint slides may be dead, but then they were never alive.
I've dumped network news for Internet news simply because I can get my news five-ten times faster. Likewise, all those science shows on television are unwatchable because of all the filler material. The medium that gives the most information in the least time should always be the winner, but that might depend on the student.
If the lecturers you've experienced are like watching TV of ANY kind, then they were doing it wrong. Proper lecturing is an interactive experience, wherein not only do the students ask the lecturer questions, the lecturer also asks the students questions, promotes discussions, and encourages paths of thought and ideas not covered in the lecturer's notes, nor in the textbook. A good lecturer also paraphrases the book, draws analogies, and in general provides as many ways as possible for students to have access to the course material in a way that they will 'get' and understand.
Concluding that lectures as a whole are ineffective or outdated, without taking into account the quality of the presenter, is kind of like concluding that movies aren't worth watching when all you've seen are Golden Turkey award winners.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
"No way that is more engaging or interesting than an episode of The Mechanical Universe..."
Being "engaged" and "interested" can help with learning, but the goal of education is to learn how to think, not just to be entertained.
>"...a teacher would literally read from a book so students could copy it all down...You probably pictured someone droning on and on in front of a chalkboard or PowerPoint presentation. No way that is more engaging or interesting than..."
When I taught college classes (part-time) I certainly didn't stand there and drone on for students to copy down notes. Neither did many of MY teachers. That is why they have textbooks and handouts. I was there to INTERACT with the students. I asked and answered questions, made them think, created teams for focused discussion or debate, played "what if" games, had people come up and offer ideas. THAT should be the modern teaching method- interaction. So you certainly should lump all "modern teaching" with standing at a board and droning on and on.
Now I will say one reason I stopped teaching was when the dean gave me a set of pre-made handouts and tests and told me they wanted everyone to teach by using/reading slideshows. I promptly told him "You don't need an instructor experienced in the subject matter/field to teach that way- most students won't learn and I am not needed" and they pushed the issue and I resigned at the end of the semester.
A good lecture isn't about taking notes down by dictation, or by copying them verbatim from a blackboard.
The notion that if its in the books we can just read it on our own is idiotic... the minute we have a question we have to stop... continuing further just leaves us confused. Reading the book as prep for the lecture is good. Reading the book afterward as review, and for study and reference is great. But if you think a lecture is just the professor reading the book, then you've missed the point of lectures completely.
There's a few dimensions to this that are important.
First, not everyone is a verbal learner. Some pick up concepts much easier from reading than listening. Sometimes a book diagram can enlighten much better than any hand-drawn diagram on a chalkboard; of course, the professor has the upside of of being able to adapt the drawing based on questions. So really, the two go hand-in-hand. I've actually always felt the opposite of you: the lecture gets me excited about things I should pay attention to, but I don't really understand it until I read the book and do some problems. Your line about getting confused is exactly me in lecture; if I have a question about the lecture but the professor moves on (which often the professor has thought he answered my question, and maybe even I did too), then the rest of the lecture can leave me a bit confused until I read the book later. It's a style difference I think, not making judgments because I don't think either way is "better".
Second, I suspect it depends a bit on the topic. It's difficult to understand a mathematical proof in a textbook for the first time simply by reading (often you need an expert to walk you through it), but there are other subjects that are well-suited to simply reading.
Third, we must separate the ideal from reality. A good lecture will inspire and be very dynamic based on questions and feedback from the students. However, I had several professors at my alma mater Big State University that would walk into class and flat out tell the students "I didn't want to teach this class, I'd rather being doing research, but the chair said I had to". As you can imagine, some professors look at lecture as something you just get through... and yes, they tend to regurgitate textbooks. Even when the professors care, if they wrote the textbook, they're a little partial to that style of presentation obviously and so will mirror much of the material in the book.
So much information is online now (or in books) that it does seem easiest to read books or watch videos outside of class, then use your class time with the expert in the field (the professor) to clarify questions. It's good to have someone walk you through the problems until you get it. Lectures - in video or book format - don't usually do that, instead leaving examples to the reader, which is what really misses the point.
Summary of Summary: Students now assumed to have attention spans and concentration skills of goldfish.
More importantly ... (hey, where'd everyone go?)
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
How do you make students do anything? Realistically, you can't fail them all. Especially if student ratings are a part of promotion and tenure evaluations.
>The medium that gives you the most information in the least time should always be the winner, but that might depend on the student.
FTFY
A three-second radio blast to the skull, modulated to contain the entirety of the German syntax and vocabulary and would be among the faster ways to give that information - but it would be utterly useless, because you can't *receive* it that way.
The goal is not to give information, but to transfer knowledge. And that's a far more subtle and individually variable task.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Students learn not a lot in lectures, that is not the intention of a lecture. Most learning is something the student has to do on his/her own time. Lectures serve to give a starting approach and, far more important, an appreciation what is more important and what is less so. They also serve as an opportunity to ask questions and to meet people studying the same subject. Sure, self-reliant learning weeds those out that cannot do it, but those people have no business getting an university degree anyways. We already have too many people getting worthless degrees because it was to easy to get them. The last thing we want is to make it even easier.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Remote courses were going to replace classwork. Doing was going to replace learning. Write less, do more was going to solve everything
Stop deluding yourself. Monkeys are smarter than us. We are social learners who learn by: reading, hearing and doing. Different people do it differently but we all stand on the shoulders of giants.
It is STUPID to state everyone learns physics by doing. Having actually TAUGHT physics, I can tell you have had to demonstrate for some, explain for others and write on the board for yet others.
Everyone's mode of learning is equally valid. And for some, the traditional lecture is just fine.
Nope. The ideal solution is to encourage teachers/professors to specialize in teaching to a specific mode of learning, and encourage students to pick the teachers that best suit their preferred learning styles. In an ideal world, machine learning could be used to pair up students and teachers in optimal ways based on similarity to other students that did well in that teacher's class previously. For that matter, in an ideal world, there would be entire schools that focused on learning in a particular style. (Technically, these do exist, to some degree, but not to the extent that they should.)
You could do that, but it won't help much at all. A video lesson is still fundamentally a lecture. Students that learn better by hearing and seeing will do well with any well-crafted lecture, but students that learn better by doing won't.
Ask yourself why you will spend eighty hours messing around with something before even considering calling up tech support, and you should understand why that approach won't work. :-D
But in all seriousness, there are a number of reasons why that approach can't work as effectively as a classroom:
In short, your approach would likely improve rote memorization, but would significantly shortchange other important parts of the education process. I'm not only unconvinced that it would be effective, but I'm also convinced that the resulting social isolation would cause serious harm. It is far better to have different tracks geared for people with different learning styles, with some randomness so the population of learners isn't entirely homogeneous, but with
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
I don't want to watch damn videos! Speaking is an incredibly slow way to transfer information. I can read at least an order of magnitude faster than you can talk.
If you're going to have videos, then you also need to provide written material covering the same topics.
When I close my eyes and picture a Physics lecture, I DO SEE David Goodstein give another funny, entertaining, informative and inspirational lecture.
Yes, I went to Caltech.
Yes, I was taught physics by David Goodstein.
That is what going to the one of the finest universities in the country gets you.
I have spent the last couple of years building flipped curricula for undergraduate chemistry courses. It's had positive results, and I plan to keep developing it, but there are a lot of caveats.
No, you can not just tell your students to read the textbook outside of class, only about 10% of them will actually do it and you will spend your in-class time recapitulating the all concepts to them anyway.
True, you might have more success with upper levels or with something like a literature course. And you can get better results if you quiz them at the start of class, but that's a bit backwards, given your assumption was they would not understand the material until working problems with you, and takes up valuable class time. Requiring them to outline the chapters is a decent strategy except that it's hard to grade, is a lot of work for the students, and still leaves behind those who have the most trouble grasping overall concepts.
The difficulty with teaching inexperienced students is that they don't have any idea what the essential concepts are or why they are important. Textbooks are excellent references, but if they're heavy enough that you can use them as a weapon, then they contain far too much information for your average student to be able to recognize the salient points and how they fit together, at least until they've already been through the course. That is the purpose of lecture, which is basically rounding up all your students by the campfire and telling them a story that they will understand and remember so that they have a way to interpret all the detail in the textbook. For most of our history spoken story is how humans have learned and things like gesticulation and inflection are surprisingly important in creating a sensible emphasis.
In my courses I have ultimately chosen to produce online lectures delivered via a Moodle setup loaded with H5P. I am able to require my students to watch the lectures before class (for a grade) as well as embed interactive questions. Besides keeping my students from nodding off while watching, the questions force them to immediately interpret what they've seen and review the video if they have not understood important aspects. I include worked solutions so that they can do self-assessment on if they have made any errors. When they come to class they work much more complex problems which tie the concepts together. (Anecdotally, I can say this has been fairly effective in that my students seem to require much less "babying" than they used to and usually have more substantial questions to ask during the groupwork).
But it's taken a tremendous amount of time to put together -- I estimate about 5 hours to produce every 15 minutes of video. I am fortunate to be a fulltime lecturer; I don't see how I could have done it with research alongside. Nor could I have done it in my first years of teaching without having first accumulated some traditional teaching experience.
There is also the downside that offering this much help in solving problems can in some ways limit student's ability to develop independent skills. I could assign homework as well, but in this setup they are already assigned to watch videos and at some point you start being abusive of their time. The honest truth is no teaching method exists which can let every student fully retain the contains of a 15 hour course schedule and still live normal happy lives.
But, as helpful as I think guided learning can be, in my opinion part of our goal in college is to teach students to be capable of independent learning. My favorite courses that I have taken myself were not flipped -- they were skilled lecturers who assigned demanding homework problems (probably too long to be done in class anyway). If I needed help I could ask the professors questions during their office hours. This seemed to work well for my peers as well. But we were juniors and seniors at that point knew the ropes, had developed our o
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
Several professors where I did grad school used Visual Classrooms (https://visualclassrooms.com) to capture in-class discussions and group work.
Its pretty cool, can sketch, take pics, vote.
//TODO: Insert catchy phrase
If you've got 300+ kids in a class, or even 60+ you're not getting a lot of interaction. Nobody's gonna want to speak up and bring the whole thing to a halt. And with more and more cuts to education coming because nobody wants to pay for it expect class sizes like that. My Kid's senior year in high school she didn't have enough chairs and often had to stand in class. There were 45 of them packed in there. Of course, I'm sure at expensive private schools it's not like that...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
they learn best with plenty of teacher/student interaction. That's your labs. But they're really, really expensive and nobody wants to pay the taxes for them (we're all Taxed to the Max, you see). So we're talking about crap like this instead of the elephant in the room that is underfunded education.
And for those who are going to start spouting figures about how much we "waste" on education every year a) Learn what inflation is and b) realize that 100 years ago we abandoned most of our population to a life of poverty.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
There comes a point where learning-by-doing runs into some serious obstacles - maybe just fine for newtonian physics but a hands on quantum mechanics demo might take a lot of setup. When I was a student there were labs for the stuff that could be set up in a reasonable time, lectures need not be tethered to what the school has equipment or time to do.
As someone else points out, the lecturer is key to the whole thing, Feynman sure had it down to an art, if ever there was a good argument to try to get into a top flight university it's the existence of teachers of that calibre
Nullius in verba
That episode of The Mechanical Universe certainly was engaging and interesting. But educational? It was a bit light on content. At the end of the episode, I'd come away entertained. But not so much educated. And should some poor student get lost halfway through on some detail, how would they go about asking a question?
Perhaps episode #1 wasn't the best example of this series, it only being the introduction. But I get the feeling that this series is targeted at people who need the Hollywood production values to think that something is valuable.
Have gnu, will travel.
What is traditional reading? It is a model of learning in which a book possesses the knowledge on a given topic and disseminates it to students. This model dates to the beginning of education, when it was the only way of sharing information. In fact, you occasionally still see the book presenting the reading called a book, because way back before the internet and even the printing press, a book would literally be a book so students could read it.
Now, don't get me wrong. The traditional reading model worked wonderfully for eons. But it is an outdated idea for millenials (free pass for adblockers).
Close your eyes and imagine yourself as a millenial in a college physics course with a book giving a traditional reading. Now open your eyes. Did you envision The Best Physics reading EVAR? I doubt it. You probably pictured a book droning on and on in front of you. No way that is more engaging or interesting than an episode of Empire, and if you're a book who uses traditional readings, just stop and play the show instead. Everyone will be better off.
You may think by now that I think most physics books are dolts. I promise that's not the case. But traditional reading simply isn't effective for millenials. Research shows that millenials are completely incapable of learning by hearing or seeing, they only learn by being entertained, a model often called early childhood education. Physics books should start thinking about how they can go beyond just a traditional reading. There are some easy things they can do (or millenials can ask them to do) to make learning more engaging. First, make millenials read the book outside of class, rather than in class. If your reading merely covers the material in the textbook, why make millenials buy the textbook when they can download it free? Now, you may put a different spin on the material, but still. You're merely repeating what millenials can read on their own. Let them do that on their own time, and use the classroom for texting and gaming and so forth.
There is no reason we couldn't have 1000+ video lessons for any given topic; each slightly different. Periodic 3-5 question quizzes would be able to tell how well students are picking up the material, and machine learning could help identify which lessons work better for each student based on billions of other student interactions and learning results.
Exactly this. Start cutting down the ones that don't work. Eventually you'll probably have half a dozen lectures that target a particular learning style.
Nope. The ideal solution is to encourage teachers/professors to specialize in teaching to a specific mode of learning, and encourage students to pick the teachers that best suit their preferred learning styles.
You must haven went to very large schools, but many if not most kids don't have that luxury. Many students have just one or two science / math / etc. teachers for their entire grade. And there probably aren't enough kids to segregate them into groups of similar skill levels in each subject. One of the benefits of virtual classrooms would be you having tens of millions of fellow students and hundreds of thousands of teachers to pull from.
A video lesson is still fundamentally a lecture. Students that learn better by hearing and seeing will do well with any well-crafted lecture, but students that learn better by doing won't.
Who says it would be just lectures? I carefully used the word "lesson" not lecture. I'm not sure if you have ever played a video game, but there are plenty of ways to make online content interactive.
It doesn't scale. Frequently, the questions that one student asks are the questions that another student are thinking about but are either afraid to ask or can't quite put into words.
Great! In no time you will have these questions in a database so you can present them to students who aren't asking them. All of your follow up comments on this topic are some of the easiest to solve problems once you start teaching more topics virtually.
Humans are very social animals. A big part of education is socialization. We tend to pretend that this isn't important, but arguably it is at least as important as the actual knowledge, at least at the primary and secondary education levels.
Which is why I mentioned doing group activities, and having some in person instruction and student interaction. Obviously school isn't just about learn the three R's.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
I can read at least an order of magnitude faster than you can talk.
Standard lectures are spoken at about 145-160 words per minute, while average readers read at about 200 words per minute. Considering most lectures are very watchable at 1.25x speed, the average lecture can be listened to at about the same speed as you can read similar content. Even if you are twice the speed of average readers, which is quite possible, you would be nowhere near an order of magnitude faster.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
I slept through most of every lecture in college. I'd listen until I got the gist of the day's topic, and then sleep on my desk – in the front row. The hub-bub after class would wake me, and I'd ask someone what the homework was. Then I'd go home and do it.
The professors didn't seem to mind, since I was usually at or near the top of every test. In fact, at the end of second freshman semester, a Professor offered me a job as a lab assistant! Great experience (despite my being a notorious sleeper in his class, sometimes dropping the book off onto the floor).
The in-class sleeping continued into graduate school, where again I'd nod off after a bit in almost every lecture, but then set the curve when it came test-time. Am I some kind of miracle? No––I studied outside of class, and did more than the assigned homework problems, when necessary. Or ask for help when needed––no professor but one ever got pissed when I came to office hours.
This was in the physical sciences and engineering. YMMV.
Pre existing erroneous beliefs? I don't think my students had and beliefs at all about critical sections before the lectures, never mind erroneous ones!
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Here's a rebuttal from a former lecturer: your point is stupid.
I'm well pissed innit and not a lecturer any more, so I really can't be arsed to say more.
Cheers! :)
Ps don't drink and reply, it's a bloody terrible idea
SJW n. One who posts facts.
It is axiomatic that the effectiveness of the lecture depends on the lecturer. Not every professor is a star, but I still remember many of the best lecturers from my university days 40 years later. And often when I am learning something new these notables, whose effect on me lingers still, continue to inform my intellectual development. For example I learned to speak Russian quite well later in life. And as I progressed I often thought when I heard myself gabbling away in Russian, "Damn! If only my old Russian professor Lehrman could hear me now." Learning owes much to motivation. And a great performer at the chalk board showing off can produce wonder in his audience. This triggers a desire to delve more deeply into the subject at hand in an active manner. It is a human thing.
Moreover, the best lecturers always posed questions and encouraged participation -- Socratic teaching. We become moved to display to these role models our own enthusiasm and progress. So, though I kind of agree that the lecture method is limited as a way to actually impart information and to transfer information -- programmed instruction and laboratory work are better at this -- I disagree that the lecture is dead. It is in the lecture that the instructor challenges and inspires. She or he sets an example of erudition to be emulated.
But I will end where I began by confessing that this does depend on the lecturer. And, if they merely phone in their time at the chalkboard, then they can actually do more harm than good. When I drew those people I usually just dropped their classes if I could.
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
I had a math teacher for calculus who would start the class assigning half the students to go to the black board (we had a lot of blackboard real estate) , give them one problem of the homework and put their solution on the black board. He would then give each student the opportunity to explain his or her solution. He would never make negative comments if you didn't have it correct, but instead would work through it with the student. Most students got the problem right, so he would briefly make a comment and go on to the next. It really gave you the motivation for doing your homework plus he learned about each student. This lasted for about half the class time, the second part he would lecture on the new work we were expected to learn. Our class size was about 30 students. I got to know my classmates better and felt more motivated than in any other classes.
First, make students read the book outside of class, rather than in class. If your lecture merely covers the material in the textbook, why make students buy the textbook?
No..... Students don't need your class to read the Textbook. Why don't you just say "Read this book as a pre-requisite before taking this class" then,
and then just give them the A after they do a book report? People take courses, because Textbooks aren't engaging either --- they're even dryer than the lectures often, AND it is difficult to maintain attention to the task of reading material, which you may be overwhelmed by surely by the wall of text.
If you assign students to read something, make sure it is 5 pages per day or less --- Bite-sized pieces.
It's totally valid to have Lectures where you teach All the material in the book in a relatable fashion, and that is what should be done.
Don't try to make your students to DO something different, or something massive to teach every topic --- that is unreasonable and will wear them out.
A good lecture should be "spiced up" though with humor and flavors, involve asking students questions, and require active participation.
Now that young folks have stopped being able to read an entire book on any given topic... it stands to reason that they would be unable to listen to one person discussing a any given topic for longer than 15 minutes. We are all becoming ADD.
Actually, I went to a very small public school, and until college, I didn't have that luxury. The problem can't readily be solved for small schools, but it probably doesn't need to be. It's the larger schools—particularly inner-city schools—that have the most serious problems with kids not getting the help they need to succeed, not the schools with a few hundred kids.
That has been tried many, many times, and it usually doesn't work well except in fields where the answer is very precise and the steps are very specific, like math. In every other field, there's a huge difference between real, hands-on work and doing stuff on a computer. Maybe we'll get there when we get tactile body suits and immersive VR, but....
Not really; the right answer is to use those questions to adjust the lecture and to making the mistakes that led to the question in the first place. Throwing a frequently asked questions list at students is the best way to kill all interest.... But it is true that if they constantly retool the lectures, adding information, tweaking the order of presentation, etc. as students ask questions, everyone benefits. Unfortunately, it's also awfully hard to make that scale, because basically you'd have hundreds or even thousands of people answering the questions and trying to distill those questions into a consistent form in such a way that some data analyst can figure out which ones are really asking the same things and figure out which ones need to be addressed by updating the lesson. It's a lot easier on a smaller scale. (That said, this problem could largely be solved by doing a multi-year pilot with a small number of classrooms.)
Unfortunately, in practice, these sorts of programs tend to do the exact opposite of that. They come up with a set of video lectures, and then they're done, and they move on to some other subject. There's no money in maintenance, so unless there's a competitor right on their heels (and unless switching programs is trivial), there's no real incentive to improve the content once it has been created. Profit motive almost invariably is the death of education support materials.
At that point, you have to have an actual teacher in the room anyway, rather than just a babysitter, so what's the point of not letting that person teach?
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Throwing a frequently asked questions list at students is the best way to kill all interest....
This probably highlights one difference in how you and I see what is possible. I also don't think this would be successful if our solutions tend to rely on what has been done in the decades before NLP and other machine learning enhanced fields have given us better options. I never considered students being given a long FAQ for each lesson. Add another 5 years of research and how good do you think NLP driven Q&A bots will be at servicing students with answers to frequent questions? I think they will be very good, and could achieve a very high question deflection rate. And every deflected question is one less that needs to be serviced by a human teacher. You probably think AI won't be very good at that in the near future, so I think we can just leave that to a difference in opinion. I certainly cannot prove I'm right.
There's no money in maintenance, so unless there's a competitor right on their heels (and unless switching programs is trivial), there's no real incentive to improve the content once it has been created. Profit motive almost invariably is the death of education support materials.
This is why I think there needs to be significant involvement from the public sector in developing these programs. I would prefer a publicly operated or at least heavily regulated repository of lessons where the creators themselves own the content and can perform updates. The profit motive could be as basic as a pay per view. Independent private companies could provide software to access this content but should never be given control over it. This would just cause walled gardens which rarely if ever benefit the consumer.
My dreams for the industry are certainly lofty, but I believe every great advancement over the past few hundred years would have been considered lofty even a decade before it became a reality.
At that point, you have to have an actual teacher in the room anyway, rather than just a babysitter, so what's the point of not letting that person teach?
Primarily so most instruction is being done by the best of the best in the industry, not just who the school could hire locally. Similarly everyone could choose to spend money watching local basketball games played by the best players in their neighborhood, but most would rather watch NBA players even if it has to be watched over TV. It's not a perfect analogy, but ultimately most of the major efficiencies gained from recent technology come from expanding the influence of the best of the best in any given field.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
The lecture is dead because nobody cares what you learned in school. Employers care how you preform at work. That's what matters. My opinion is that the best workers are not those who have lots of knowledge, but those who know how to find new knowledge. And that knowledge does not come from a book.
Those who learn how to find and do something totally new and do it quickly will be top performers. Teachers should teach how to find information and the apply it. Because no matter what they teach and no matter which books they use... it will be outdated or irrelevant to their jobs. Knowledge on how to search is the key.
The labs aren't generally now zero weight
The labs were never zero weight nor have I heard of anywhere in any country where they are zero. We were talking about assignments i.e. questions students take home to practice the material not a lab where they are learning completely different skills on experimental techniques.