I'll admit ignorance on this topic. Is there any good empirical evidence that alternative instructional approaches are as effective as, or better than, the traditional lecture? I wonder if there may be some truth to students' perceptions that some of these methods are " irrelevant ‘b.s.,’ a waste of time, or simply a lack of instruction.'"
________________________________ From: Christopher D. Green [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 8:49 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: [tips] News: 'The College Fear Factor' - Inside Higher Ed An interesting article, especially for those who prefer not to lecture, in favor of discussion/participation models of teaching. http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/11/18/fearfactor Here area couple of tidbits: "some students 'interpreted the absence of a lecture as the absence of instruction.' "'Students' firmly held expectations undermined the instructors’ efforts to achieve their pedagogical goals,' Cox [the researcher] writes. 'Ultimately, students’ pedagogical conception led to overt resistance and prevented them from benefiting from alternative instructional approaches, which they perceived variously as irrelevant ‘b.s.,’ a waste of time, or simply a lack of instruction.'" Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ ========================== --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
