5 ms·

Good! Lectures are terrible for students. It's fun and pretty easy to give a lecture though, which is why they persist. This is a great example of a "flipped c

Good! Lectures are terrible for students. It's fun and pretty easy to give a lecture though, which is why they persist. This is a great example of a "flipped classroom", which is gaining traction across American higher-ed. A lot of research went into developing the SCALE-UP paradigm, which is a great place to start if you're curious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCALE-UP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCALE-UP

bsder 9y ago
> It's fun and pretty easy to give a lecture though, which is why they persist. o_O!? Fun and easy? I like to think I'm pretty good at giving a lecture, and it takes me real work to give a good one. Especially when teaching to beginners. And "active learning"--that's even MORE work. Teaching a single sophomore CS class with automated testing running on the assignments was about 50 hours per week of time. In addition, effective active learning requires that the students have a lot more interaction with the teacher and other students. Now it's not a 3 hour lecture, it probably has to be more like 6 hours. And has to be split across multiple days because holding someone's attention for more than about 3 hours is simply not possible (and even that's difficult). Lectures persist because active learning would cost a lot more.
- MengerSponge 9y ago
  It takes a lot of work the first time, and less work for each subsequent delivery. As a performer, I enjoy standing in front of a group of people and commanding their attention. It's fun to make them laugh, after all. That said, lectures are pretty easy. Write a story, speak clearly, and write legibly. Congratulations, you did it. Active learning environments require more work from the instructor, but they actually work better. Lectures persist for a few reasons: Once you have a notebook of prepared lectures, provided primary compensation is not based on educational outcomes, most faculty will preferentially reuse the work they've already done. Most faculty, being faculty, are among the small fraction of the population who could learn effectively from lectures. They are inclined to like lectures, and to see nothing wrong with them. Most university classrooms were built to deliver lectures, not to foster active learning environments. Fixing this would cost more, but a lot of universities are building active learning classrooms because the results speak for themselves.
  - colefichter 9y ago
    Don't forget another important point here: most lecturers at the post-secondary level are not teachers. That is, most of them have little to no formal training in how to educate others. It still kind of blows my mind that, to my knowledge, not one of my university instructors/professors, despite being subject matter experts, is credentialed to teach children - at any grade level - in a public school.
    - danieltillett 9y ago
      Not only that, but it is likely that they will have received no teaching training at all. When I was hired as lecturer I was just told these are the classes you need to teach and then left on my own to figure it out.
    - barry-cotter 9y ago
      Teaching credentials do not effect teacher quality. Whether at primary or secondary level the best predictor is years of teaching experience, with measures of subject matter expertise (a Master's degree in the subject they're teaching, not education) and measures of general intelligence (IQ tests or close enough like GRE or SAT) also having large positive effects. The additional effects of more experience end at around six years experience. Teaching qualifications have an effect on teacher performance that is not reliably distinguishable from zero.
maxxxxx 9y ago
I am glad I didn't have to study that way. I am notoriously bad at "collaborative learning" in team settings. I probably wouldn't have learned anything in school.
- SkyMarshal 9y ago
  Agreed, learning teamwork and team problem solving is useful, but only after individual mastery of the skills in question first. There's no way to shortcut mastery, it takes individual effort, practice, and time. Do that first, then teamwork later with a group of similarly skilled people. Also, different people have different individual learning styles (aural, visual, doing) and learning paces, so when you mix a bunch of folks with those differences, before all of them have mastered the material, some are going to get left behind and others held back. Ideally learning environments and methodologies account for and adjust for that. To be fair, Vermont Med School's methodology in the article does appear to account for this, requiring some degree of individual mastery before group work: >A lot of the science of pharmacokinetics is simply mathematical equations. If you have a lecture, it's simply presenting those equations and maybe giving examples of how they work. >In an active learning setting, you expect the students to learn about the equations before they get there. And when you get into the classroom setting, the students work in groups solving pharmacokinetic problems. Cases are presented where the patient gets a drug in a certain dose at a certain time, and you're looking at the action of that over time and the concentration of the drug in the blood. >So, those are the types of things where you're expecting the student to know the knowledge in order to use the knowledge. And then they don't forget it.
- watwut 9y ago
  Collaborative learning means less individual problem solving. The moment there is someone a bit faster then you in the group, the less occasion to think you have.
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    It's not even about someone being faster but just different. That together with some people being dominant I would probably contribute nothing to the group because my approach is often different.
angersock 9y ago
Not to put too fine a point on it, but why the fuck is tuition so high if students are doing most of the work? EDIT: FWIW, I felt the same way about engineering classes years ago when I ended up learning out of the books and Wikipedia myself.
- MengerSponge 9y ago
  The learner has to do most of the work, no matter how you structure the classroom. It's just a question of having them do productive work. Giving lectures and having students do problem sets at home still has the students doing a ton of work, but the instructor's expertise isn't utilized efficiently. By having students watch videos/do pre-reading and then work problems in class, the instructor can actually help people how they need it. You aren't paying someone to do the work for you. You're paying someone to structure the material in a way that helps you learn it. Think of it like you're paying a chef to prepare a meal that you have to chew. They aren't paid to baby-bird it to you. "Why is tuition so high" is a really contentious question. Not many of those dollars go to instructional staff (I assure you their salaries have not grown alongside tuition). Where has the extra money gone? Buildings, administration, athletics, who knows...
- nxc18 9y ago
  Pools, saunas, arenas, orientation activities, facilities management, energy, space, housing, etc have basically nothing to do with teaching style. College is expensive because of all the extras (teachers don't earn very much). Also basic overhead, but you can still do that and keep it affordable.
  - gaius 9y ago
    College is expensive because of all the extras (teachers don't earn very much). One word: tenure

bsder 9y ago

> It's fun and pretty easy to give a lecture though, which is why they persist. o_O!? Fun and easy? I like to think I'm pretty good at giving a lecture, and it takes me real work to give a good one. Especially when teaching to beginners. And "active learning"--that's even MORE work. Teaching a single sophomore CS class with automated testing running on the assignments was about 50 hours per week of time. In addition, effective active learning requires that the students have a lot more interaction with the teacher and other students. Now it's not a 3 hour lecture, it probably has to be more like 6 hours. And has to be split across multiple days because holding someone's attention for more than about 3 hours is simply not possible (and even that's difficult). Lectures persist because active learning would cost a lot more.

MengerSponge 9y ago
It takes a lot of work the first time, and less work for each subsequent delivery. As a performer, I enjoy standing in front of a group of people and commanding their attention. It's fun to make them laugh, after all. That said, lectures are pretty easy. Write a story, speak clearly, and write legibly. Congratulations, you did it. Active learning environments require more work from the instructor, but they actually work better. Lectures persist for a few reasons: Once you have a notebook of prepared lectures, provided primary compensation is not based on educational outcomes, most faculty will preferentially reuse the work they've already done. Most faculty, being faculty, are among the small fraction of the population who could learn effectively from lectures. They are inclined to like lectures, and to see nothing wrong with them. Most university classrooms were built to deliver lectures, not to foster active learning environments. Fixing this would cost more, but a lot of universities are building active learning classrooms because the results speak for themselves.
- colefichter 9y ago
  Don't forget another important point here: most lecturers at the post-secondary level are not teachers. That is, most of them have little to no formal training in how to educate others. It still kind of blows my mind that, to my knowledge, not one of my university instructors/professors, despite being subject matter experts, is credentialed to teach children - at any grade level - in a public school.
  - danieltillett 9y ago
    Not only that, but it is likely that they will have received no teaching training at all. When I was hired as lecturer I was just told these are the classes you need to teach and then left on my own to figure it out.
  - barry-cotter 9y ago
    Teaching credentials do not effect teacher quality. Whether at primary or secondary level the best predictor is years of teaching experience, with measures of subject matter expertise (a Master's degree in the subject they're teaching, not education) and measures of general intelligence (IQ tests or close enough like GRE or SAT) also having large positive effects. The additional effects of more experience end at around six years experience. Teaching qualifications have an effect on teacher performance that is not reliably distinguishable from zero.

maxxxxx 9y ago

I am glad I didn't have to study that way. I am notoriously bad at "collaborative learning" in team settings. I probably wouldn't have learned anything in school.

SkyMarshal 9y ago
Agreed, learning teamwork and team problem solving is useful, but only after individual mastery of the skills in question first. There's no way to shortcut mastery, it takes individual effort, practice, and time. Do that first, then teamwork later with a group of similarly skilled people. Also, different people have different individual learning styles (aural, visual, doing) and learning paces, so when you mix a bunch of folks with those differences, before all of them have mastered the material, some are going to get left behind and others held back. Ideally learning environments and methodologies account for and adjust for that. To be fair, Vermont Med School's methodology in the article does appear to account for this, requiring some degree of individual mastery before group work: >A lot of the science of pharmacokinetics is simply mathematical equations. If you have a lecture, it's simply presenting those equations and maybe giving examples of how they work. >In an active learning setting, you expect the students to learn about the equations before they get there. And when you get into the classroom setting, the students work in groups solving pharmacokinetic problems. Cases are presented where the patient gets a drug in a certain dose at a certain time, and you're looking at the action of that over time and the concentration of the drug in the blood. >So, those are the types of things where you're expecting the student to know the knowledge in order to use the knowledge. And then they don't forget it.
watwut 9y ago
Collaborative learning means less individual problem solving. The moment there is someone a bit faster then you in the group, the less occasion to think you have.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  It's not even about someone being faster but just different. That together with some people being dominant I would probably contribute nothing to the group because my approach is often different.

angersock 9y ago

Not to put too fine a point on it, but why the fuck is tuition so high if students are doing most of the work? EDIT: FWIW, I felt the same way about engineering classes years ago when I ended up learning out of the books and Wikipedia myself.

MengerSponge 9y ago
The learner has to do most of the work, no matter how you structure the classroom. It's just a question of having them do productive work. Giving lectures and having students do problem sets at home still has the students doing a ton of work, but the instructor's expertise isn't utilized efficiently. By having students watch videos/do pre-reading and then work problems in class, the instructor can actually help people how they need it. You aren't paying someone to do the work for you. You're paying someone to structure the material in a way that helps you learn it. Think of it like you're paying a chef to prepare a meal that you have to chew. They aren't paid to baby-bird it to you. "Why is tuition so high" is a really contentious question. Not many of those dollars go to instructional staff (I assure you their salaries have not grown alongside tuition). Where has the extra money gone? Buildings, administration, athletics, who knows...
nxc18 9y ago
Pools, saunas, arenas, orientation activities, facilities management, energy, space, housing, etc have basically nothing to do with teaching style. College is expensive because of all the extras (teachers don't earn very much). Also basic overhead, but you can still do that and keep it affordable.
- gaius 9y ago
  College is expensive because of all the extras (teachers don't earn very much). One word: tenure