 |
| This eagle was recuperating at a raptor rescue center in Cheney, Kan. |
That is the question.
A newspaper article I recently came across reported the findings of a prize-winning physicist named Carl Wieman who has done research on different styles of classroom teaching. He has concluded that interactive learning is much more effective than traditional lecturing. While I certainly believe in students participating in the classroom, I have a problem with the conclusion of his report. Right off, he asks the question: Who is more effective for student learning? The veteran professor using time-tested lecturing, or the inexperienced graduate student interacting with kids via devices that look like TV remotes? The latter involves short, small-group discussions, in-class “clicker quizzes,” demonstrations, and question-answer sessions. Weiman contends that real learning depends not so much on the teacher, but on the teacher’s methods.
“It’s really what’s going on in the students’ minds rather than who is instructing them,” Wieman says. Another professor who is a proponent of this method agrees. “It’s not the professor, it’s not even the technology, it’s the approach.”
My main problem with this is the disregard for the credentials of the person standing up front, as if all that a teacher is doing is disseminating information. What if the students have questions that demand a source of in-depth knowledge? What about the way in which an experienced professor models what it means to be an expert in a specific subject area? All the technology and interactive exercises in the world cannot offer what a living, breathing scholar can while addressing a class.
I also take issue with the claim that the problem is with the teacher’s methods and not the students. Again, I do recommend a varied approach to teaching (lecture, discussion, activities, multimedia,etc), but I think we need to stop giving in to the idea that students today have short attention spans and thus cannot concentrate on material that is presented in a traditional way. While this factor needs to be taken into consideration, perhaps it is the students that need to be trained to better focus and actively listen to a traditional lecture, especially at the college and graduate level.
Teachers, let me know what you think about this topic. And, of course, we’ve all been students. What has worked best for you?
For life is what you make it. So make it good!
I also took issue with that article, and I think you're right in pointing out that this doesn't take into account the more nuanced aspects of teaching, like answering students' questions.
ReplyDeleteThe focus of the research is really on rote learning: the assumption the researchers make is that learning equals remembering facts and then spitting them back. Having taught composition, we both know that learning in a composition class has to do with mastering only a few facts but showing progress in a wide variety of skills. Those skills are honed through writing and discussion, both of which, by nature, involve the interactions of students with the material. A "clicker" would be absurd in a comp. class or a literature class, yet this sort of research puts pressure on administrators (who increasingly have little or no classroom experience themselves) to make such things "standards" or "best practices," further threatening the ability of teachers to use the classroom as a place of exploration rather than regurgitation.
Nice post, Ann!