4 ms·

It's a fantastic ingenious hack for, IMO, a model that needs to die. There is no reason to reteach the same class every semester . The best minds need to get t

It's a fantastic ingenious hack for, IMO, a model that needs to die. There is no reason to reteach the same class every semester . The best minds need to get together and put in N (say 10) semesters worth of effort into creating the highest production value lectures that all can use until the material fundamentally changes. Most of these kinds of lectures have little to no interaction which can come at other times and the need to "do it live" leads to subpar teaching production.

bachmeier 5y ago
> the need to "do it live" leads to subpar teaching production That heavily depends on the subject and the students. The goal of teaching is to teach, not to achieve a high production value of a performance in the Hollywood sense.
avs733 5y ago
What really needs to die is lectures themselves. They are a TERRIBLE method of creating learning. However they are very good at creating the perception of learning. That contradiction is not surprising, it speaks to how we actually learn, by engaging with our reflection and metacognition about attempts at things that end in errors.
- tapatio 5y ago
  Yes, ideally each student would have their own teacher/tutor and learn by trial and error. In fact, that's what the very wealthy do.
  - avs733 5y ago
    Eh...peer learning is nearly as effective, especially when the choice is between a peer and a teacher who holds beliefs about education based in a transmission model of education
mcguire 5y ago
Back in about 1988, I took a required history class from a local community college. (To help make up for the fact that it took me four semesters to get through the two semester calculus course.) The course consisted of... 1. A high-production-value TV program transmitted on the local PBS channel. 2. In-person mid-term and final tests. 3. "Teaching assistants" (it was a local community college; I'm not sure what their exact status was) with office hours for questions. It...worked. I learned the material, such as it was. As such, it was somewhat better than the worst in-person classes I experienced. On the other hand, there was no engagement with the material. You read the textbook, watched the TV, and went in to take the tests. End of story. There were no asides---having a teacher take part of a class to look at some current event from the viewpoint of the class, having the teacher answer a completely off-the-wall question that leads to a good discussion. There were no discussions, in fact. I'm sure some of the students who knew the material got together to review for the test or something, but honestly, I don't see why. The whole experience was aimed at the lowest common denominator with no way for the teacher to dial it up for some or all students. It worked, but it was a worse learning experience than many 500 students classes that I had from enthusiastic, engaged teachers. I suspect that's why the model hasn't caught on, at least at the level of decent schools---people have been saying (and attempting) that video would take over from lectures literally since Edison invented the movie. (I'm sure it's more appropriate for the degree-mills of the world, though.)
- garmaine 5y ago
  > On the other hand, there was no engagement with the material. You read the textbook, watched the TV, and went in to take the tests. End of story. For an introverted autodidact like me, that’s all I want. But I recognize I truly am in the minority here.
  - maeil 5y ago
    Don't think intro/extroversion plays much of a role here, I'm probably an extroverted autodidact and that's still my ideal model for learning. What I enjoy doing in my free time is completely separate from that. Sure, in an ideal world I'd have in-person lectures that are as high production value as the recorded lecture(/TV) in question, but 99.9% of the time I won't be getting those.
animal531 5y ago
I highly agree with you. I remember back in my university days (now long ago). We'd be in chemistry class trying to copy from the professor's writing on the board, and he went so fast that he'd be erasing while you were still writing. Spending that time on trying to actually understand (from the student's point) and on explaining more/better instead of writing (from the teacher's point) would have been immensely more useful.

bachmeier 5y ago

> the need to "do it live" leads to subpar teaching production That heavily depends on the subject and the students. The goal of teaching is to teach, not to achieve a high production value of a performance in the Hollywood sense.

avs733 5y ago

What really needs to die is lectures themselves. They are a TERRIBLE method of creating learning. However they are very good at creating the perception of learning. That contradiction is not surprising, it speaks to how we actually learn, by engaging with our reflection and metacognition about attempts at things that end in errors.

tapatio 5y ago
Yes, ideally each student would have their own teacher/tutor and learn by trial and error. In fact, that's what the very wealthy do.
- avs733 5y ago
  Eh...peer learning is nearly as effective, especially when the choice is between a peer and a teacher who holds beliefs about education based in a transmission model of education

mcguire 5y ago

Back in about 1988, I took a required history class from a local community college. (To help make up for the fact that it took me four semesters to get through the two semester calculus course.) The course consisted of... 1. A high-production-value TV program transmitted on the local PBS channel. 2. In-person mid-term and final tests. 3. "Teaching assistants" (it was a local community college; I'm not sure what their exact status was) with office hours for questions. It...worked. I learned the material, such as it was. As such, it was somewhat better than the worst in-person classes I experienced. On the other hand, there was no engagement with the material. You read the textbook, watched the TV, and went in to take the tests. End of story. There were no asides---having a teacher take part of a class to look at some current event from the viewpoint of the class, having the teacher answer a completely off-the-wall question that leads to a good discussion. There were no discussions, in fact. I'm sure some of the students who knew the material got together to review for the test or something, but honestly, I don't see why. The whole experience was aimed at the lowest common denominator with no way for the teacher to dial it up for some or all students. It worked, but it was a worse learning experience than many 500 students classes that I had from enthusiastic, engaged teachers. I suspect that's why the model hasn't caught on, at least at the level of decent schools---people have been saying (and attempting) that video would take over from lectures literally since Edison invented the movie. (I'm sure it's more appropriate for the degree-mills of the world, though.)

garmaine 5y ago
> On the other hand, there was no engagement with the material. You read the textbook, watched the TV, and went in to take the tests. End of story. For an introverted autodidact like me, that’s all I want. But I recognize I truly am in the minority here.
- maeil 5y ago
  Don't think intro/extroversion plays much of a role here, I'm probably an extroverted autodidact and that's still my ideal model for learning. What I enjoy doing in my free time is completely separate from that. Sure, in an ideal world I'd have in-person lectures that are as high production value as the recorded lecture(/TV) in question, but 99.9% of the time I won't be getting those.

animal531 5y ago

I highly agree with you. I remember back in my university days (now long ago). We'd be in chemistry class trying to copy from the professor's writing on the board, and he went so fast that he'd be erasing while you were still writing. Spending that time on trying to actually understand (from the student's point) and on explaining more/better instead of writing (from the teacher's point) would have been immensely more useful.