3 ms·

Lectures serve a purpose. People tend treat them like comedy shows where they get a series of punchlines and hope it gives them a satisfying giggle of enlighten

by Retra 9y ago

Lectures serve a purpose. People tend treat them like comedy shows where they get a series of punchlines and hope it gives them a satisfying giggle of enlightenment. You're supposed to walk into a lecture already knowing the punchlines. Then you can spend that time exploring how to optimally organize the information in your brain and cleaning up misunderstandings. It is almost impossible to pay attention to a full lecture. Your mind will wander. That's why you have to have a cursory familiarity before you approach them. And then you can enjoy having your mind wander, because it will wander into good questions, insights, and interesting relationships. Learning will happen. If you're prepared. If someone isn't learning during a lecture, it's because they're not spending enough time on the subject outside of the lectures. It's not because they have an alternative "learning style". That would be like saying sitting on the couch is an "alternative dancing style." It's not a matter of style, it's a matter of understanding where you have to put your effort to achieve those goals. Maybe they weren't taught to do it. Maybe they've just never tried. Maybe things are in the way. In the end, lectures are cheap. And this matters. You need to learn how to extract good knowledge from cheap sources. If you can't do that, then good luck convincing anybody to invest more in you over those that can.

gizmo686 9y ago
I am not defending the concept of "learning styles"; the scientists cited in the article are undoubtedly more qualified that I on that subject. I was responding to the claim that the problem is students who cannot learn from lectures, and the solution is to teach children to learn from lectures. That might be the case; but I was pointing out that another option to consider was changing our method of instruction (either away from lectures entirely, to a hybrid system, or even to a better form of lectures); and it is counter productive to dismiss this path out of hand. I will also point out that the article is an attack on "learning styles", not a defense of lectures. Responding to some of your points: >You're supposed to walk into a lecture already knowing the punchlines. This was not my experience through high-school. Most of my class's in high-school and before would assign readings after the corresponding lecture; often times I would not even know what to study before the lecture. Even in college my experience is different. Ignoring the useless lectures, I found that most of my lectures were more useful before I studied the material. This is probably heavily biased by subject matter: most of my useful lectures are in math, where the lecture serves as a broad overview of the material, which serves as a foundation for when I open the textbook to dig into the details. [0]. In contrast, in my linguistic classes, it is essential that I read the material before class: the lecture would simply not make sense without the reading, and what was being presented in lecture is often not present in the textbook. Having said that, and thinking more about those classes, it seems like my linguistics professors are aware of these issues: while textbook readings come before lectures, research paper readings are almost always come between lectures (eg. we would talk about an experiment and the results, then read the paper at home, then talk about the results again). Again, the question is not lectures vs learning styles. The question in the article is "learning styles?", to which the answer seems to be no. This does not necessarily mean that the answer is lectures. And it almost certainly does not mean lectures in their current form. [0] As an aside, this is probably a deficit in my ability to learn math. The "correct" way to learn math is to first go over the material once, then go back and understand the material in a second go-through. I have trouble doing the first step without the lecture environment forcing me not to jump straight to the second.

by Retra 9y ago

gizmo686 9y ago

I am not defending the concept of "learning styles"; the scientists cited in the article are undoubtedly more qualified that I on that subject. I was responding to the claim that the problem is students who cannot learn from lectures, and the solution is to teach children to learn from lectures. That might be the case; but I was pointing out that another option to consider was changing our method of instruction (either away from lectures entirely, to a hybrid system, or even to a better form of lectures); and it is counter productive to dismiss this path out of hand. I will also point out that the article is an attack on "learning styles", not a defense of lectures. Responding to some of your points: >You're supposed to walk into a lecture already knowing the punchlines. This was not my experience through high-school. Most of my class's in high-school and before would assign readings after the corresponding lecture; often times I would not even know what to study before the lecture. Even in college my experience is different. Ignoring the useless lectures, I found that most of my lectures were more useful before I studied the material. This is probably heavily biased by subject matter: most of my useful lectures are in math, where the lecture serves as a broad overview of the material, which serves as a foundation for when I open the textbook to dig into the details. [0]. In contrast, in my linguistic classes, it is essential that I read the material before class: the lecture would simply not make sense without the reading, and what was being presented in lecture is often not present in the textbook. Having said that, and thinking more about those classes, it seems like my linguistics professors are aware of these issues: while textbook readings come before lectures, research paper readings are almost always come between lectures (eg. we would talk about an experiment and the results, then read the paper at home, then talk about the results again). Again, the question is not lectures vs learning styles. The question in the article is "learning styles?", to which the answer seems to be no. This does not necessarily mean that the answer is lectures. And it almost certainly does not mean lectures in their current form. [0] As an aside, this is probably a deficit in my ability to learn math. The "correct" way to learn math is to first go over the material once, then go back and understand the material in a second go-through. I have trouble doing the first step without the lecture environment forcing me not to jump straight to the second.