On May 30, 2014, at 1:10 PM, George Rudolph <rudolp...@citadel.edu> wrote:
> I agree with you--it's not our job to entertain students. > They may not even like our classes. It should be hard work, > and they should learn how to learn along the way. It is perfectly okay to entertain students in the classroom. As a matter of fact, I tell my 200 freshmen over and over again that I am an entertainer who reminds them with interactive and hopefully fun lectures what they should have read, studied, and understood at this point in class -- on their own, from the text book and in pair programming sessions with their partners. So no I don't object to entertaining delivery or connecting with your students on a personal level (I know their names after two weeks and I remember a good number of them and greet them by name when I encounter them). I object to making material [acquisition] easy/fun/entertaining. I object to pretty colorful pictures in text books. I object to fast-paced delivery via our primary sensory mechanisms as opposed to forcing the brain to do the hard work. Because I think there is no other way to learn than engaging your brain actively. > I'm actually experimenting with an idea that live coding skills > can be useful as preparatory for developing cyberdefense skills. > Real-time interaction of a sort. Someone might argue that you can develop > those skills playing video games--but it's not the same thing. > > Why would I choose this way? Honestly, I'm just exploring possibilities. > It may be a horrible idea. Certainly it will be if they lose sight of what > I'm really trying to teach. George, that is an experiment worth conducting. Report back to the list on how it goes. -- Matthias ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
