Filed under: College, College Students, Professors, Technology, University
As the granddaughter of science professors who was used to asking a question at a grandparent’s house and receiving a long but educational lecture as an answer to my little-girl ponderings, I have always had a fondness for the prof-lecturing, students-listening method of teaching. If the professor is engaged and is obviously enamored of his or her subject, then sign me up for sitting still in a lecture hall with my teensy and barely effective “desk” so I can let the knowledge flow from the chalkboard to my brain.
I love love love listening to someone explain something to me when the something in question is their favorite topic to expound upon. Seriously, even if it’s an area that I thought I couldn’t give a rat’s ass about, an instructor who loves their subject and can’t wait to tell me all about it in ways the textbook could never hope to, can blow my mind.
All of which is to say that were I still matriculating, I would be one of the students grumbling about less lecturing and more interaction and discussion between professors and students. I understand why Professor Bowen wants the instructors in his department to teach naked and avoid the dullness of PowerPoint. I am fully on board with his desire that instructors rely less on the bells and whistles and are more involved, creative, and present when they are teaching.
I’m all for awesome teachers. But I fail to see how ditching computers and digital slide shows means more discussions have to occur. Can’t the teachers just explain things with more breadth and depth since the students have already listened to the podcast of the prof’s basic lecture before class? Deeper teaching is fine, not more talking amongst ourselves.
I just want to learn and I don’t want to have to talk about it. Is that so wrong? To be fair, most of my coursework was math and science, which isn’t as up for debate as other subjects might be. Is the square root of sixteen always four? Discuss! Is a water molecule actually composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom? Discuss! Is gravity really happening? Go! If I had wanted to debate the subject matter, I would have been drawn to philosophy or poli-sci or sociology; something less provable and more fraught with grey areas.
Posted by Alexa Harrington
Chad Orzel, Uncertain Principles, had a nice blot a couple of months ago where he reminded of the distinction between courses where you read and understand the assignment before class and then the class meeting is used to cultivate that understanding, and courses where you have to have the assignment explained sufficiently so that you can then read and understand it. The former tend to be non-nerd courses like literature and art and such like; the former tend to be nerd courses such as science, engineering, and maths. In the first lecture is extraneous if the students really have read and understood ahead of time. The interaction should be a dialog or multilog. In the second lecture with Q&A is a much better form.
This, IMHO, also explains the temperament differences among people and what major they tend to select. Those who are information attractor tend to major in nerd subjects; those who are bubblers tend to major in non-nerd subjects.
Comment by Simple Country Physicist 08.04.09 @ 9:56 amSCP–
Are you saying that I’m a nerd? (Because I totally am.) Take care,
Alexa
Comment by Alexa 08.06.09 @ 11:58 am