Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When I was a child, teachers were masters of information that ruled with iron fists (a bit dramatic but you get the point). What they did the most during class time was instruct. They explained and expounded and defined and illustrated the heck out of every and anything. They did a lot of lecturing- a teacher almost had to be a good speaker. The good teachers made it interesting, the poor ones merely spouted out fact after fact after explanation- but still, they all did a lot of...well...teaching. There was a good amount of time left for practice and other work but majority of the period was spent on instruction.
I’m noticing that is no longer the case in my area at least. It appears teachers are more guides than instructors. They spend a few minutes of class time explaining a task they are about to complete then hand out worksheets/materials that the kids spend the rest of the lesson time practicing. There seems to be very little actual instruction. Lots of practice and worksheets for the kids, minimal(comparatively) instruction from the teachers except for kids that may struggle with the work handed out. Seems very montessorian though none of the schools I observed are Montessori.
Is this a new thing? I may be a dinosaur pining for an era that hasn’t existed for a while; but I do worry about the depth of knowledge kids are attain when they are basically teaching themselves with the help of a guide. Is this a more effective method than teacher instruction of the past? What does instruction look like in your schools?
Depth of knowledge is not something people get, or should get in high school. That is what college and grad school are for. What high school students NEED is the skill to problem solve, find and weigh information, and so on. Now whether or not the system you describe does that is still debatable but the changing needs of students is not.
As for my classroom, for my college level science class, I have a flipped classroom. All my lectures have been recorded, placed online, and students are assigned to watch them, take notes, and write down any questions which we then go over in class. This is great. Students can take notes at their own pace, not worry about listening vs writing, and so on. We spend about half an hour going over the lecture the watched the night before, and then we work on problems/labs related to the material. Most of my classes break out into groups who need extra help, the middle group who are working on labs/problem sets, and the fast group who will have challenge problems written specifically for them.
My research class would look like neither system you describe. Today three of them went out in the field and dug for horseshoe crab eggs, another three made adjustments to the ocean acidification flow through system, two set up an ROV and obstacle course in the big tank for an event Sunday, a handful were printing out their posters on the plotter, and one was taking eDNA samples. Tomorrow they will all be doing something completely different.
Depth of knowledge is not something people get, or should get in high school. That is what college and grad school are for. What high school students NEED is the skill to problem solve, find and weigh information, and so on. Now whether or not the system you describe does that is still debatable but the changing needs of students is not.
As for my classroom, for my college level science class, I have a flipped classroom. All my lectures have been recorded, placed online, and students are assigned to watch them, take notes, and write down any questions which we then go over in class. This is great. Students can take notes at their own pace, not worry about listening vs writing, and so on. We spend about half an hour going over the lecture the watched the night before, and then we work on problems/labs related to the material. Most of my classes break out into groups who need extra help, the middle group who are working on labs/problem sets, and the fast group who will have challenge problems written specifically for them.
My research class would look like neither system you describe. Today three of them went out in the field and dug for horseshoe crab eggs, another three made adjustments to the ocean acidification flow through system, two set up an ROV and obstacle course in the big tank for an event Sunday, a handful were printing out their posters on the plotter, and one was taking eDNA samples. Tomorrow they will all be doing something completely different.
Interesting viewpoint about depth of knowledge. I’ve never thought of it that way. My view has always been that K-12’s objective is to acquire a certain depth of general knowledge and College/University was for specialization in an area of interest. That might be the issue at the core of my confusion. (I may be dating myself here.)
Do you feel that the current system is more effective or simply what is? I ask because almost 100% of kids i know are getting additional instruction outside of school either by themselves, from parents or tutors. ( I do not mean homework which in my view is practicing what one already knows, I mean learning what isn’t covered in class) I feel like this type of compensation would have been unnecessary for most kids in the old system.
Do you find that the average student is doing just fine acquiring knowledge in today’s classroom or is there an expectation among educators that the average kid will dedicate time to self-teaching/tutoring/outside instruction in order to meet educational goals?
It does seem like a costly exercise especially for those kids that may not have the means to get additional instruction.
When I was a child, teachers were masters of information that ruled with iron fists (a bit dramatic but you get the point). What they did the most during class time was instruct. They explained and expounded and defined and illustrated the heck out of every and anything. They did a lot of lecturing- a teacher almost had to be a good speaker. The good teachers made it interesting, the poor ones merely spouted out fact after fact after explanation- but still, they all did a lot of...well...teaching. There was a good amount of time left for practice and other work but majority of the period was spent on instruction.
I’m noticing that is no longer the case in my area at least. It appears teachers are more guides than instructors. They spend a few minutes of class time explaining a task they are about to complete then hand out worksheets/materials that the kids spend the rest of the lesson time practicing. There seems to be very little actual instruction. Lots of practice and worksheets for the kids, minimal(comparatively) instruction from the teachers except for kids that may struggle with the work handed out. Seems very montessorian though none of the schools I observed are Montessori.
Is this a new thing? I may be a dinosaur pining for an era that hasn’t existed for a while; but I do worry about the depth of knowledge kids are attain when they are basically teaching themselves with the help of a guide. Is this a more effective method than teacher instruction of the past? What does instruction look like in your schools?
You must be ancient. I mean really ancient. I'm 68, and few of my teachers...in fact I can't think of any...ruled with an iron fist.
But yes...there were lecturers. And what a disaster it really was. I remember Mr. Prittie who lectured for hours on the battles of the Civil War...that no one really listened to...and missed what was really important...the causes of the war and the results of the war.
It is rare that lecturing really teaches students how to think. Facts change as new knowledge emerges. What's important changes. But thinking is eternal.
You must be ancient. I mean really ancient. I'm 68, and few of my teachers...in fact I can't think of any...ruled with an iron fist.
But yes...there were lecturers. And what a disaster it really was. I remember Mr. Prittie who lectured for hours on the battles of the Civil War...that no one really listened to...and missed what was really important...the causes of the war and the results of the war.
It is rare that lecturing really teaches students how to think. Facts change as new knowledge emerges. What's important changes. But thinking is eternal.
Ha, no, i’m not ancient. I WAS being dramatic.
It’s interesting that K-12 teachers think lectures don't work when that is the preferred form of instruction at the highest level. Why is that?
When i say lectures/ instruction etc, they should be age-appropriate. So a 1st grade class shouldn't have to sit through 40 minutes of explanation of what verbs are, but, rather than throwing worksheets at the kids to drill the point for 30 minutes, why not have a teacher explain what the drill exercises are trying to impart? One would assume that it would be easier for them to listen and participate in group exercises at that age than it is for them to concentrate on pen and paper drills?
For the HS kids, i dont see how lecturing could hurt for some subjects especially since they’ll have to do so in college. Instruction does not have to be one sided; many teachers took a more active role in imparting information and allowed discussion, experimentation etc.
My question is more about why it seems the teachers role has changed from instructor to passive guide handing out reading assignments and worksheets.
Interesting viewpoint about depth of knowledge. I’ve never thought of it that way. My view has always been that K-12’s objective is to acquire a certain depth of general knowledge and College/University was for specialization in an area of interest. That might be the issue at the core of my confusion. (I may be dating myself here.)
Do you feel that the current system is more effective or simply what is? I ask because almost 100% of kids i know are getting additional instruction outside of school either by themselves, from parents or tutors. ( I do not mean homework which in my view is practicing what one already knows, I mean learning what isn’t covered in class) I feel like this type of compensation would have been unnecessary for most kids in the old system.
I think that the idea that there is a "system" is in and of itself an overgeneralization.
If you ask me if the flipped class I run is working, it is a resounding yes. My school itself is a good "system".
When we flip a classroom, we practice in class, with the teacher where it is most useful. Lecture is an inefficient model for transferring knowledge. Massive amounts of time are wasted waiting for the slower writers to "catch up", others have to choose between taking notes and listening, meanwhile those who think and write quickly get bored sitting around waiting for others. The other option is to just let the slow kids sink rather than swim.
Quote:
Do you find that the average student is doing just fine acquiring knowledge in today’s classroom or is there an expectation among educators that the average kid will dedicate time to self-teaching/tutoring/outside instruction in order to meet educational goals?
Why the obsession with the mythical "average" student? The whole nation has this obsession. There is no average student, teaching to the middle alone is a mistake for the vast majority of students. Instead get rid of the idea of the "Average", get rid of the idea of a "system", differentiate not just delivery of instruction but the entire school system.
BTW, a flipped classroom is not self teaching. They get the lecture, just not in the classroom. If I make a video of my lecture, and you watch it, how would that be self teaching?
Philosophically, self teaching should be the entire goal of public schooling. Imagine that, a population that has the skill to use resources like Khan Academy to learn any subject they need, to weigh the value of those sources and make adjustments to their own programs of self study. It would be amazing.
Quote:
It does seem like a costly exercise especially for those kids that may not have the means to get additional instruction.
Costly how? There is no cost to flipping a classroom. My videos are free, people from all over the country actually use them, including a college prof in the UC system (sometimes I have issue with that but whatever). Khan academy is free. Internet at your public library free.
Anyway, this exercise of a differentiated school system has resulted in some of the best schools in the country, including my own district, though BASIS is totally winning this year.
So in the biz we call what you describe "direct instruction" and I think we all do at least some of it. Research shows that it has a pretty decent effect on learning, especially when questioning and other techniques are involved. Some modern methods such as discussion, student lead learning etc. Show somewhat stronger returns but does not fit all content and skills.
IMHO all good teachers should be able to give engaging lectures. If you can't teach with just a chalk board you simply can't teach. However if you teach as if you only have a chalk board and lectures in 2018 you are holding your students back.
Edit: I would never flip my classroom as is being discussed, it does not fit my content or style. The Hattie effect size of direct instruction is much higher than video anyway. In the end though I think we all have different methods and there is no one true way to teach. Some techniques benefit certain types of content... Some teachers are masters of a style others can't pull off.
It’s interesting that K-12 teachers think lectures don't work when that is the preferred form of instruction at the highest level. Why is that?
I also teach college, it is no longer the preferred form of instruction at the higher levels in many, many classes and fields.
But college is not high school. College is for those who want to gain depth in knowledge in a particular field. At that level classes tend to come in two types: ones with teachers who disseminate information, because it is at a depth that is far beyond that in a simple text book, and ones with discussion type classes where students practice thinking. Grad school, in the sciences at least, is almost entirely the thinking type classes or discussions. Hardly any lecture at all in grad school.
Quote:
When i say lectures/ instruction etc, they should be age-appropriate. So a 1st grade class shouldn't have to sit through 40 minutes of explanation of what verbs are, but, rather than throwing worksheets at the kids to drill the point for 30 minutes, why not have a teacher explain what the drill exercises are trying to impart? One would assume that it would be easier for them to listen and participate in group exercises at that age than it is for them to concentrate on pen and paper drills?
Why do you think teachers don't explain the point? Or didn't in another class? Why do you think classes are all about worksheets? There are 180 days in most school years, why do you think you know that all classes are all worksheets all the time?
Quote:
For the HS kids, i dont see how lecturing could hurt for some subjects especially since they’ll have to do so in college. Instruction does not have to be one sided; many teachers took a more active role in imparting information and allowed discussion, experimentation etc.
Why do you think lecture is the norm in college? Once you get into higher level course (300 and above) it is rare indeed to have a strictly lecture based course.
Quote:
My question is more about why it seems the teachers role has changed from instructor to passive guide handing out reading assignments and worksheets.
Lol! Being a guide is passive? By what definition of the word?
So in the biz we call what you describe "direct instruction" and I think we all do at least some of it. Research shows that it has a pretty decent effect on learning, especially when questioning and other techniques are involved. Some modern methods such as discussion, student lead learning etc. Show somewhat stronger returns but does not fit all content and skills.
IMHO all good teachers should be able to give engaging lectures. If you can't teach with just a chalk board you simply can't teach. However if you teach as if you only have a chalk board and lectures in 2018 you are holding your students back.
Edit: I would never flip my classroom as is being discussed, it does not fit my content or style. The Hattie effect size of direct instruction is much higher than video anyway. In the end though I think we all have different methods and there is no one true way to teach. Some techniques benefit certain types of content... Some teachers are masters of a style others can't pull off.
Flipping definitely doesn't work in some subject areas, math springs to mind. Two of our history teachers have flipped models. One does lectures at home so they can stage debates, have prolonged discussions, and so on. It is an AP class so maybe that makes a difference. She also teaches a freshman history course, but those kids don't have the discipline yet to manage a flipped scenario so she switched back. In a course that is equal parts content knowledge and application it can work well. Science is a particularly good fit.
I think that the idea that there is a "system" is in and of itself an overgeneralization.
If you ask me if the flipped class I run is working, it is a resounding yes. My school itself is a good "system".
When we flip a classroom, we practice in class, with the teacher where it is most useful. Lecture is an inefficient model for transferring knowledge. Massive amounts of time are wasted waiting for the slower writers to "catch up", others have to choose between taking notes and listening, meanwhile those who think and write quickly get bored sitting around waiting for others. The other option is to just let the slow kids sink rather than swim.
Why the obsession with the mythical "average" student? The whole nation has this obsession. There is no average student, teaching to the middle alone is a mistake for the vast majority of students. Instead get rid of the idea of the "Average", get rid of the idea of a "system", differentiate not just delivery of instruction but the entire school system.
BTW, a flipped classroom is not self teaching. They get the lecture, just not in the classroom. If I make a video of my lecture, and you watch it, how would that be self teaching?
Philosophically, self teaching should be the entire goal of public schooling. Imagine that, a population that has the skill to use resources like Khan Academy to learn any subject they need, to weigh the value of those sources and make adjustments to their own programs of self study. It would be amazing.
Costly how? There is no cost to flipping a classroom. My videos are free, people from all over the country actually use them, including a college prof in the UC system (sometimes I have issue with that but whatever). Khan academy is free. Internet at your public library free.
Anyway, this exercise of a differentiated school system has resulted in some of the best schools in the country, including my own district, though BASIS is totally winning this year.
I don't believe average students are mythical, they are a fact of life. The reason why they are used as a standard is because they are the majority. Majority is the basis of all standards, and thats not to say there aren’t exceptions. But to have standards one has to start somewhere.
I don't consider a flipped classroom self teaching per-se if the teacher facilitates classroom discussion of what was covered. Without that aspect, its akin to distance learning only with a designated study time. And in that scenario, what is the point of a teacher even being in the class?
I do not think self-teaching is a possible goal for the vast majority of people. If it was, schools as they are wouldn’t exist. There are those people that can self teach. But even among the best and brightest those people are few and far between. Most people need some level of instruction to learn.
I get that education has changed, technology has made things far easier (and more complicated) than some of us remember. But, i do believe that some have taken the student-led learning thing a little too literally. I’m sure it works for some kids; but given the ubiquity of tutors and tutoring services for kids of all ages, one wonders if these strategies are actually working or whether the extra help many students are getting on the side masks the inefficiencies of these methods.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
