Students literally can't tell what's good for them

[red assassin]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/09 ... ng-method/

I know we have a few teachers in the audience, so - here's a cute study which finds that, despite active learning being consistently more effective than non-interactive lectures, not only do students dislike it, but they actually think they've learnt less.

[fiksal]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/09 ... ng-method/

I know we have a few teachers in the audience, so - here's a cute study which finds that, despite active learning being consistently more effective than non-interactive lectures, not only do students dislike it, but they actually think they've learnt less.

interesting stuff

as a former student from long ago, I think I'll disagree, with them. I found lecture style incredibly boring, and consider 2hr lectures a certain level of insanity.

I am a bit biased however. As my university (apparently!) picked the active learning way, as fair bit of my classes included lectures mixed in with problem solving on the fly, new topic followed by an example, and lab assignments.

[Observe]

as a former student from long ago, I think I'll disagree, with them. I found lecture style incredibly boring, and consider 2hr lectures a certain level of insanity.

I am a bit biased however. As my university (apparently!) picked the active learning way, as fair bit of my classes included lectures mixed in with problem solving on the fly, new topic followed by an example, and lab assignments.

I agree. I often feel that lectures get in the way of actually doing the things that the lecture is talking about doing. But I know many people who learn best by hearing someone talk about it. Whatever fly's one's kite I guess.

[red assassin]

I agree. I often feel that lectures get in the way of actually doing the things that the lecture is talking about doing. But I know many people who learn best by hearing someone talk about it. Whatever fly's one's kite I guess.

Or at least, many people who think they learn best from hearing someone talk about it.

[Mightysword]

Well, human history had produced many great academic and intellectual over the centuries with the old lecturing model, there is a reason why that model is called "traditional" and college instructors are also referred to as "lecturer". So I avoid ditching or criticizing it. But on the other hand, I'm also a big advocator for active learning over the traditional lecturing. It's not really which is better, but which is more suitable. It came down to two reasons for me:

- The students of old only had to study, often they don't have to worry about paying rent, supporting a kid, or working to support themselves. That's why the old golden standard of "for every one hour in class you need to spend 2 hours outside to study it". It's quite possible to learn a lot from just listening, if you can spend another 2 hours contemplating on what you heard. The majority of modern students can't afford that, and setting them up to that standard is setting them up to fail. They need to be more hand on so they can make the most out of the limited time available to them. My approach to teaching is that the students will complete most of their learning objectives in class, and the things I have them do outside of class is simply to retain what they already learn until the next class.

- For the student of olds education itself is a goal and an aspiration. A while part of that still may be true, my experience shows that these days most treat it simply as a mean, or worse - a job they hate but have to do. And just like such cases in any other area, that causes human to just do the minimum or half-arsing to get by. That's why they have to be "engaged" to perform.

[Mightysword]

Also after giving that article a throughout read, I don't think it proved anything. First, the sample size is so small it can't even be called tiny. Secondly I wouldn't called the study method described here as "wise".

he person teaching the other half would use the same slides and class materials but lead these students through an active learning process during the class

Switching a study model doesn't simply mean you just change what the instructor doing. You need proper material designed for it. Institutions invest in trainings, curriculum designs, and classroom technology in order to properly switching the teaching model.

two weeks later, the two groups of students would swap places; the first would now have an active learning class on a different physics topic, and the second would receive a standard lecture. That way, the same students experience both regular lectures and active learning, and the instructors would bring any talents they had to both approaches.

That's a bad practice with a flawed reasoning. Any educators had worked on designing an active learning course would know there is a procedure to it. Most students haven't been exposed to it, so they need a proper 'onboarding' process to warm up to the idea, then ramming up at a proper pace into full interactive mode. The anarchist observation described in this study (quoted:students found the active learning classroom to lack a bit of coherence, and it suffered from the frequent interruptions, which made the experience frustrating and confusing) are common observed symptoms when the process wasn't done correctly, or the method were applied too naively. Active learning is still a guided process, not an open forum. I experienced some of that myself when I first started doing it, and it took me ~a year of receiving instructional coaching to eliminate most of those problems.


So I won't be too quick to judge the response from these students. In fact, after being subjected to such a study I would actually be surprised had their response were any different. The result that article described is quite different from what I experience on an institutional level. And schools at all levels across the nation are investing in active learning, we wouldn't be doing that if most students actually hate it.