5 ms·
Lectures are a straw-man in your argument which largely invalidates it. Please find out about the inverted classroom concept.
by bmn__ 6y ago
Lectures are a straw-man in your argument which largely invalidates it. Please find out about the inverted classroom concept.
- lordnacho 6y agoIt seems you don't understand what a strawman is. In any case, we are talking about grade school kids, from a few years old to maybe 12. You cannot just plop them in front of a computer to view content at their own leisure, and then expect them to come up with intelligent questions to fill in the gaps. That's what you do with university students. I have both of these in my household, and I can assure you that while it works for the master's student, the kids have a tough time without interaction.
- bmn__ 6y agoI guess you think only intentional straw-men arguments exist. This isn't the case. They can also arise from misunderstanding, which I think is what happened here. To spell it out: user moksly described an instance of the inverted classroom. You selectively quoted and misunderstood this to be about (university-style) lectures, and proceeded to argue against lectures.¹ I resent that you didn't take my clue to learn about the inverted classroom concept, that way you could have noticed your mistake. ¹ FWIW: I agree that lectures are not suitable for school pupils.
- lordnacho 6y agoMy deepest apologies, I didn't know that what he was describing was what you call an "inverted classroom" until you replied and I looked it up. The thing is, I don't see how it really matters. You still end up requiring kids to sit still when they can't do it. I guess my focus is on smaller kids. I fully agree with modern comms you can do the inverted classrooms with people older than maybe 12 or so, I'm unsure where the line is.
- notacoward 6y agoA strawman is a claim or argument falsely attributed to an interlocutor, not just an assumption (stated or otherwise) that is not shared. At worst, what we have here is a non sequitur. The fact that you have misused the term twice in this discussion suggests that either you don't really understand it (a commentary on the dangers of ad hoc education?) or that you're merely using it as a rhetorical club instead of a good-faith counterargument. Either way, please don't.