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.
[quote=catfancier;9054785] It annoys the hell out of me, though, when an instructor at a seminar (one-shot class or very short series of classes) uses it, in my opinion, simply to FILL TIME. In that type of class, I am paying to hear the expert's knowledge and wisdom, not what my fellow classmates are guessing to be the answers. I see absolutely no need for "participation" in such events and I don't care what the other students think. I want to learn as much as possible in a short time and hear the lecturer do the talking!!
[quote]
I'm sorry that you view classroom participation as a waste of time. Adult learners tend to have much better retention of knowledge and concepts when they apply what they are being taught rather than just listening to an instructor speak. The caveat is that the student interaction must further the process of learning the material. It's up to the instructor to ask relevant questions and keep answers concise and avoid allowing students to veer off on tangents.
I have never seen an instructor evaluation where a student complained about too much interaction, but I've read countless evaluations where the instructor droned on and failed to engage their audience.
I guess the Socratic method is good for some types of academic study,as cited by previous posters. e.g. philosophy subjects or whatever that aren't fact-based per se.
It annoys the hell out of me, though, when an instructor at a seminar (one-shot class or very short series of classes) uses it, in my opinion, simply to FILL TIME. In that type of class, I am paying to hear the expert's knowledge and wisdom, not what my fellow classmates are guessing to be the answers. I see absolutely no need for "participation" in such events and I don't care what the other students think. I want to learn as much as possible in a short time and hear the lecturer do the talking!!
Really, this is a huge pet peeve of mine.
Quote:
from Artsyguy: I agree, I find it very frustrating when the professor uses the students for ideas vs. teaching, instructing, and allowing the class to probe him. You see it should be the other way around. The students should be asking the questions. Class is not a focus group for the professors research.
I taught science classes (several advanced nursing classes) that are not based in philosophy. Yes, the Socratic method IS appropriate in that situation - used in combination with other methods. Asking questions of the students does not seek their opinions. Rather it seeks their ability to build their knowledge in a subject based on other subjects. I asked questions that required them to know and apply knowledge of anatomy, physiology, pharmacology and biochemistry to the particular nursing specialty. Being able to integrate, analyze, synthesize, and evaluate information is integral to nursing - and all the health care professions. The Socratic method is well-fitted to determine the depth to which the student has absorbed knowledge and is able to apply it appropriately in clinical situations.
But no matter the discipline, if a student is signed up for and attending classes in a subject it is appropriate to expect mastery to one degree or another. My standard was 95% - do you want a nurse caring for you who only knows 90%? In a less critical subject (lives don't depend on mastery), a lower percent may be acceptable.
Students need to get over thinking they can "slide" through a subject at the college/university level. They aren't there to be spoon-fed. They are there to think critically, to learn to do research that will yield correct answers and some mind-tickling serendipity, to critically appraise the information the professor is presenting (no matter the format), and to make the connections to be able to apply the information.
"Even in technical school" you have to do that. I have highest respect for knowledgeable tech school graduates in the trades - who do excellent work and THINK about what they are doing. I have NO respect for anyone at any level in any technical or professional field who don't care about what he is doing and doesn't think about it.
Frankly, I don't know what you might be in college for if you don't want to learn to think and study and research independently.
Your tough attitude is fine for some but not everybody learns your way and you are not totally responsible for individual performance in the real world.
Some people are amazing at telling the professor what he or she wants to hear, I see that happen all the time in academia, however, in the real world the person is behaviorally incompetent despite being able to tell people what they want to hear, or their supervisor or managers train a whole other ball game, so they have to retrain and relearn a whole other way of doing things ..........
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtlemom
I taught science classes (several advanced nursing classes) that are not based in philosophy. Yes, the Socratic method IS appropriate in that situation - used in combination with other methods. Asking questions of the students does not seek their opinions. Rather it seeks their ability to build their knowledge in a subject based on other subjects. I asked questions that required them to know and apply knowledge of anatomy, physiology, pharmacology and biochemistry to the particular nursing specialty. Being able to integrate, analyze, synthesize, and evaluate information is integral to nursing - and all the health care professions. The Socratic method is well-fitted to determine the depth to which the student has absorbed knowledge and is able to apply it appropriately in clinical situations.
But no matter the discipline, if a student is signed up for and attending classes in a subject it is appropriate to expect mastery to one degree or another. My standard was 95% - do you want a nurse caring for you who only knows 90%? In a less critical subject (lives don't depend on mastery), a lower percent may be acceptable.
Students need to get over thinking they can "slide" through a subject at the college/university level. They aren't there to be spoon-fed. They are there to think critically, to learn to do research that will yield correct answers and some mind-tickling serendipity, to critically appraise the information the professor is presenting (no matter the format), and to make the connections to be able to apply the information.
"Even in technical school" you have to do that. I have highest respect for knowledgeable tech school graduates in the trades - who do excellent work and THINK about what they are doing. I have NO respect for anyone at any level in any technical or professional field who don't care about what he is doing and doesn't think about it.
Frankly, I don't know what you might be in college for if you don't want to learn to think and study and research independently.
Humiliating people is not right nor is it conducive to learning and not every student is going to live up to your standards of perfection.
I made A's in most of my classes as an undergraduate and I never participated in any class discussion. I did exams, projects, essays, homework, classwork, powerpoints, readings, and team assignments and yes I learned through that type of work.
I was in two government classes that involved non-stop class discussion and opinion sharing, with very few assignments.......did I learn anything from that class. Nope, because the professor rarely lectured, she facilitated discussion of opinion 90% of the time. Can you imagine hearing 45 peoples differing opinions each and every class period? That is seriously irritating.
How did I learn about government. Later in life I had some friends very interested in the subject and in politics that would inform me. I would later go and do research on the specifics of what my more intellectual friends were speaking of and it worked out great that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtlemom
I think the original poster was concerned about the upcoming semester and basing that concern on the previous summer semester. I may be wrong.
Having taught both at the AD and BS and MS levels, I believe some students will be "humiliated" by the least little thing that challenges them, and they need to learn to deal with it and get on with their lives. In the "real" world (non-academic world, the business world), they will encounter many more situations they will have to deal with. College preps them for this. College level lecturers and professors are responsible for helping them learn to handle "life, the universe and everything" without having to go put their heads under their pillows for comfort.
If they want to avoid humiliation the students should prepare for class. Attendance has become lackadaisical. Back when I taught, a student could fail by not attending at least 90% of the classes. That included sickness and family emergencies. Helped them learn to plan ahead.
I used a mixture of methods, including the Socratic method. It allowed me to pull in the shy students, and pinpoint the unprepared students. I was accountable for their learning all of the material. I taught in Nursing Schools (AD and BS and MS levels, as I said), and complete mastery of the material was (and is!) critical. I found students who needed additional work in anatomy and physiology, and others who needed additional work in English and Math. I was considered one of the toughest instructors, and now, 30 years later, I STILL have students who seek me out to tell me that I was the only one who forced them to learn the things they NEEDED to know in order to make it through the work.
So, my advice is to stand your ground - be tough. Expect adherence to your high standards. Go for it!
Class discussion is not, I repeat not the same thing as application of the subject matter. Unless it is litigation or negotiation.
[quote=Pirateclosingon40;9056900][quote=catfancier;9054785] It annoys the hell out of me, though, when an instructor at a seminar (one-shot class or very short series of classes) uses it, in my opinion, simply to FILL TIME. In that type of class, I am paying to hear the expert's knowledge and wisdom, not what my fellow classmates are guessing to be the answers. I see absolutely no need for "participation" in such events and I don't care what the other students think. I want to learn as much as possible in a short time and hear the lecturer do the talking!!
Quote:
I'm sorry that you view classroom participation as a waste of time. Adult learners tend to have much better retention of knowledge and concepts when they apply what they are being taught rather than just listening to an instructor speak. The caveat is that the student interaction must further the process of learning the material. It's up to the instructor to ask relevant questions and keep answers concise and avoid allowing students to veer off on tangents.
I have never seen an instructor evaluation where a student complained about too much interaction, but I've read countless evaluations where the instructor droned on and failed to engage their audience.
OP,
Socratic Method--Hmmm....really depends on type and level of class. Classes that require debate and discussion it is essential students learn how to voice their reasoning and any follow up opinions. The most efficient way is to do this is through verbal interaction.
Now, as for Socratic method, it need not be the harsher interpretation seen in the Paper Chase. This is the 1973 movie with John Houseman, Lindsay Wagner and Timothy Bottoms where 1L students at Harvard Law School, 22-28 years old and many with professional experience, use the format to launch their legal careers and go through the rite of passage that used to be law school. It is an incredible movie.
I think that might be a bit much for undergrads, save for upper division electives at schools with a commitment to excellence. However, starting of the discussion with a question and letting the conversation flow organically with follow-up questions and redirections is perfectly within reason. In fact, it should be used in junior and senior years in high school in classes such as history, economics or government.
Upper division social science and humanities electives should see Socratic method used more frequently. However, I can tell you, in this day and age of the consumer model of higher ed, many students will back away from such an approach. So... you'll need institutional commitment and vision to get the support from administrators (Dean, etc.). Not likely today. Also, few professors have the true talent, time or patience to use this method well.
S.
P.S. An additional comment. Use of Socratic Method requires an exceptional degree of maturity, ambition, and respect in the students. After all, among Scorates's students was none other than Plato. I think the maturity criterion would be the hardest to satisfy today. The standard of the average university student in the world today is terribly low compared to previous generations. This is due in part to higher education no longer being the domain of the elite. However, within any school, there should be a cadre of bright students who have the psychological make-up to not only handle a class using Socratic method, but thrive. Hopefully you can find such a collection of students and get them to enroll in your class! This is among the greatest challenges of a college professor.
Last edited by Sandpointian; 05-30-2009 at 10:52 PM..
class discussion is not, i repeat not the same thing as application of the subject matter. Unless it is litigation or negotiation
That's woefully inaccurate. We use case studies and real world examples to demonstrate how to apply all types of concepts, rules, procedures and processes, especially where a supervisor has to make decisions and give instruction and guidance and team members need to complete assigned tasks. All of these can benefit from class discussion and interaction.
Whether you wish to admit it or not, in real life, which hopefully most students will strive to enter after attaining their degree, all occupations require at least some level of interaction with others, no matter how shy or introverted a person may be. The OP teaches management courses; introverted and shy are not two of the most prevalent traits in successful managers.
As I said earlier, if the student is not prepared to answer a question in a college classroom, what will they do when their boss, or a customer, or an employee asks a truly difficult question? Real life is not fair. There are conflicts. You sometimes have to do things you don't like. Unless someone plans to be a professional student, win the lottery, or live in their parents' basement eating frozen pizza and whining all their life about how mean and unfair the whole world is, an instructor who coddles shy students in fear of hurting their feelings or embarassing them is doing them no favors.
In the real world we don't have to interact with 40+ diverse people at any given time like you do in the classroom.
Work in the real world are usually broken down in individual work assignments and with schedules at least with the people I know. At work the hiring manager does personality inventories and resume checks to determine if you will fit in with their culture.
The point of on the job training and job description manuals is so that the employees know what to say to the customers or director when a question or two is asked. People also don't have to memorize all the answers, they can simply say "I don't know. Let me find out for you" and then quickly go and do research. On the job training is not 'spoon feeding' or 'hand holding'.
I've been to many many companies and even colleges where the staff doesn't answer my questions and they have very abrasive interpersonal skills yet they are highly qualified and have graduated from colleges. Hmmm something tells me that people change?
There really isn't very much hard data and proof to show that universities or colleges 100% prepare people. They might teach students to tell the teacher what the teacher wants to hear, but they don't necessarily learn or apply what they've learned. Students are just pampering and coddling the professor or teacher by telling him or her what he or she wants to hear, that's how they get A's and this type of trickery has been going on for ages, students talk about how to get by in classes, just tell the teacher what he or she wants to hear and you will be a favorite. It's the teacher that wants to be 'spoon fed' and 'hand held' so that he or she's magnificence and supreme intellect is validated. In my book that does not equal to learning or to high quality education.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pirateclosingon40
That's woefully inaccurate. We use case studies and real world examples to demonstrate how to apply all types of concepts, rules, procedures and processes, especially where a supervisor has to make decisions and give instruction and guidance and team members need to complete assigned tasks. All of these can benefit from class discussion and interaction.
Whether you wish to admit it or not, in real life, which hopefully most students will strive to enter after attaining their degree, all occupations require at least some level of interaction with others, no matter how shy or introverted a person may be. The OP teaches management courses; introverted and shy are not two of the most prevalent traits in successful managers.
As I said earlier, if the student is not prepared to answer a question in a college classroom, what will they do when their boss, or a customer, or an employee asks a truly difficult question? Real life is not fair. There are conflicts. You sometimes have to do things you don't like. Unless someone plans to be a professional student, win the lottery, or live in their parents' basement eating frozen pizza and whining all their life about how mean and unfair the whole world is, an instructor who coddles shy students in fear of hurting their feelings or embarassing them is doing them no favors.
Um so why does college classes or high school learning have to be traumatic?
If a professor or classmates do a "crash and burn" on me then I will be demanding my tuition money back. Not everyone thinks at an equivalent level. Humiliating them doesn't aid in the learning process either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimboburnsy
.
I disagree that what the OP is describing would actually be the Socratic method. It sounds to me that this is simply going to great lengths to enforce reading of the material according to the syllabus schedule. I think its great to be strict. Demanding teachers get the best results. Perhaps not everyone's self esteem will be protected, but a crash-and-burn in a class of your peers is a significant psychological event that more or less guarantees that the victim will know the material inside and out for the remainder of the course.
The point of on the job training and job description manuals is so that the employees know what to say to the customers or director when a question or two is asked. People also don't have to memorize all the answers, they can simply say "I don't know. Let me find out for you" and then quickly go and do research. On the job training is not 'spoon feeding' or 'hand holding'.
On the job training is for the employer to make sure that the employee does the job in the manner that the employer wants. This has to do with the employers' personality, more or less, and the way that they employer simply wants to do things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by artsyguy
I've been to many many companies and even colleges where the staff doesn't answer my questions and they have very abrasive interpersonal skills yet they are highly qualified and have graduated from colleges. Hmmm something tells me that people change?
Perhaps these were the introverted and shy students?
Quote:
Originally Posted by artsyguy
There really isn't very much hard data and proof to show that universities or colleges 100% prepare people. They might teach students to tell the teacher what the teacher wants to hear, but they don't necessarily learn or apply what they've learned.
Hard data? Proof? What for?
Wouldn't the student be applying what they are learning when they participate in class?
Quote:
Originally Posted by artsyguy
Students are just pampering and coddling the professor or teacher by telling him or her what he or she wants to hear, that's how they get A's and this type of trickery has been going on for ages, students talk about how to get by in classes, just tell the teacher what he or she wants to hear and you will be a favorite. It's the teacher that wants to be 'spoon fed' and 'hand held' so that he or she's magnificence and supreme intellect is validated. In my book that does not equal to learning or to high quality education.
I do not understand how someone with such a negative view on college, college experience, and the lack of preparation for the real world bothered to go all the way to grad school.
Or perhaps I just chose pleasant schools with pleasant profs?
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.
