<p>The amount of knowledge in Socrates time compared with today is like comparing a comic book to a 26 volume encyclopedia. Schools cannot spend a day rediscovering how to calculate the area of a triangle.</p>
<p>barrons:</p>
<p>The habits of rational thought, laid down in Socrates time and shortly thereafter by Plato and Aristotle, have not changed a bit.</p>
<p>You seem to equate efficiency of learning with how much data is dumped. I equate efficiency with output/input. If one memorizes a fact for a test and quickly forgets it thereafter, was there any useful output? I would say that, in most cases, the answer is "no." Yet, if I look at efficiency solely as the amount of input, I could count myself among the best faculty ever if I simply forced all my student to drink knowledge from the proverbial firehose.</p>
<p>Right?</p>
<p>And we didn't spend a day doing it. We spent about 1/2 hour or so. And we didn't just learn how to calculate the area of a triangle. We learned, along with other exercises of this type, how to figure things out for ourselves.</p>
<p>It's much more than facts--mostly concepts and their applications. Like in economics--you don't memorize facts. You learn about relationships and turning data into decisions. I can't think of too many classes that focused on memorizing facts. But how long to you really need to learn to be rational? For many it just comes naturally.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Schools cannot spend a day rediscovering how to calculate the area of a triangle.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And, there in one simple sentence, we have the explanation why the United States does so poorly in the international tests such as PISA and TIMMS where we get our collective clocked cleaned by most of the industrialized nations. </p>
<p>Not only do people believe that "schools cannot spend a day rediscovering how to calculate the area of a triangle" they also believe we should allow teachers who could not explain **it to a bunch of 12 years old without finding the answer in the ever needed 700 pages Teacher's Edition ... to be called **teachers. </p>
<p>Indeed, there is no time for "discovering how to calculate" basic concepts when our schools drown in "feel good" activities designed to mask the various degrees of incompetence of the ones who are supposed to deliver the material. The motto is efficiency, isn't it!</p>
<p>Indeed, we now tend to favor the "efficient delivery" over the delivery by well-educated, well-trained, and competent teachers. This explains the fascination with the economics of a model of ex cathedra lectures by professors supported by small groups discussions led by a quasi instructor. Heck, aren't we one step removed from dropping the physical lectures and replacing them with a televised delivery in an auditorium or through a distributed channel. Wouldn't that be wonderful for famous Prof X to spend a few hours a year taping his lectures instead of having to drag himself to the pulpit! After all, students seem to love the "explanations" of the indentured servants known as GF, Teaching Fellows, TA, or whatever fancy titles comes with the job for which no training was really offered. </p>
<p>Of course, we can rejoice in the fact that this economic boon has resulted in amazing savings and massive tuition reductions for the poor families facing college expenses. Whoops ... when did that happen? </p>
<p>What a system!</p>
<p>Yes those international kids are cleaning our clocks economically. Oh wait, they aren't. The fast growing countries are the ones with lots of cheap barely educated labor. I'm not seeing the high level math skills benefitting them much and if we need some we allow them to come here and add to our economy. The connection of high level broad math skills to a successful economy is tenuous at best. Much more important to have many people who start new businesses and are creative. That's why in real life most A students end up working for the C students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
if we need some we allow them to come here and add to our economy.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What a wonderful and thoughtful repartee, Barrons. For what it is worth, you may consider checking your calendar and making sure it shows the right century.</p>
<p>People are assets just like gold and oil. If you don't have them and or it cost too much to produce, then you go on the world market and buy them. So far it has not been a huge problem. When we needed rocket scientists we got them from Germany.</p>
<p>The above link contains teaching tips geared toward college instruction.
I would add that faculty should be able to speak English intelligibly.
There should be a correspondance in the information covered among lecture, reading, and exams.</p>
<p>barrons,</p>
<p>Luring talent is definitely good, but it's not the only way to improve an economy. At the domestic level, education needs to be improved as well. No one is asking for knowledge and hard skills to be scrapped, but it needs to be recognized that rational thinking comes naturally, but applied rational and critical thinking does not come easily. Which is why I think the LACs work - they expose students to subject matter (knowledge) and then train them to make the best out of the material instead of regurgitating. </p>
<p>Your preferred method of instruction is certainly admirable - but I'll argue that that only applies at secondary (elementary and high school level) - where creating a very strong foundation - learning the axioms of math and the rules of grammar and the foundations of science - is absolutely critical. But if you're gonna translate the same style of teaching to university - to me that's an even greater waste of time and money because it doesn't develop a person's critical or mental faculties any further - it just adds more info - for that just give them a textbook and professor office hours and that will prove to be more than sufficient. Singapore, my country, known for attracting foreign talent, wants to set up an LAC because it has recognized that university is a very different animal altogether. No one size fits all, and for many 18 year olds, a close faculty guidance and intense discussion, combined with research, assignments, and papers can prove to be a very effective way of educating others.</p>
<p>I hope that you will see the merit of Tarhunt's and xiggi's argument - please do not equate the LACs with a fancy institution where they teach the mystifying "critical thinking skills". It's much more than that - and that is what you need to realize. It's not the end all of university education (far from it!), but it provides an extremely valuable foundation to step into grad school, or working life or any future area in life.</p>
<p>I recently read thru several of the topics from collegehelp's link (post # 68) which lists a great number of suggestions for Faculty Development and creating a great teaching and learning environment. There are many excellent thoughts contained in the various links. As someone who values excellent classroom teaching, it is clear to me that if a professor effectively practices the methods that are referenced, then the students will benefit greatly from the class. </p>
<p>For the college search process, I encourage students to think more critically about what they will encounter in the classroom at a prospective university. Are the professors there primarily for research purposes and have far more interest in their research subjects and how this might affect their departmental status, tenure possibilities or general reputation? Or are the professors interested in student development and learning? This need not be an either/or situation, but it would be worthwhile for the prospective college student to understand what the reality is on a college campus and how this will affect his/her undergraduate experience. As others have pointed out, schools with high reputations among academics may sometimes actually be places to avoid for undergraduate study because the value set of the professorial class at these institutions is defined by their research accomplishments and not by their efforts toward the development and learning of the undergraduate student.</p>
<p>I never said lectures were my overall preferred method. It just works fine for getting the basics. In virtually all my advanced classes we focused a portion of the time on either analyzing cases or conducting real world problem analysis and problem solving, then writing reports of our findings. So in my view the best case is a combination of methods.</p>
<p>Socratic Method
(from post #68)</p>
<p>Socrates was one of the greatest educators who taught by asking questions and thus drawing out (as 'ex duco', meaning to 'lead out', which is the root of 'education') answers from his pupils. Rather stupidly, he martyred himself by drinking hemlock rather than compromise his principles. Bold, but not a good survival strategy. But then he lived very frugally and was known for his eccentricity. His pupils, by the way, include Plato and Aristotle. Plato wrote up much what we know of him.</p>
<p>Here are the six types of questions that Socrates asked his pupils. Probably often to their initial annoyance but more often to their ultimate delight. He was a man of remarkable integrity and his story makes for marvelous reading.</p>
<p>The overall purpose, by the way, is to challenge accuracy and completeness of thinking in a way that acts to move people towards their ultimate goal. Don't waste time by doing it for your own gratification. Get your kicks vicariously, from the movement you create.</p>
<p>Conceptual clarification questions
Get them to think more about what exactly they are asking or thinking about. Prove the concepts behind their argument. Basic 'tell me more' questions that get them to go deeper.</p>
<p>Why are you saying that?
What exactly does this mean?
How does this relate to what we have been talking about?
What is the nature of ...?
What do we already know about this?
Can you give me an example?
Are you saying ... or ... ?
Can you rephrase that, please?
Probing assumptions
Probing of assumptions makes them think about the presuppositions and unquestioned beliefs on which they are founding their argument. This is shaking the bedrock and should get them really going!</p>
<p>What else could we assume?
You seem to be assuming ... ?
How did you choose those assumptions?
Please explain why/how ... ?
How can you verify or disprove that assumption?
What would happen if ... ?
Do you agree or disagree with ... ?
Probing rationale, reasons and evidence
When they give a rationale for their arguments, dig into that reasoning rather than assuming it is a given. People often use un-thought-through or weakly understood supports for their arguments.</p>
<p>Why is that happening?
How do you know this?
Show me ... ?
Can you give me an example of that?
What do you think causes ... ?
What is the nature of this?
Are these reasons good enough?
Would it stand up in court?
How might it be refuted?
How can I be sure of what you are saying?
Why is ... happening?
Why? (keep asking it -- you'll never get past a few times)
What evidence is there to support what you are saying?
On what authority are you basing your argument?
Questioning viewpoints and perspectives
Most arguments are given from a particular position. So attack the position. Show that there are other, equally valid, viewpoints.</p>
<p>Another way of looking at this is ..., does this seem reasonable?
What alternative ways of looking at this are there?
Why it is ... necessary?
Who benefits from this?
What is the difference between... and...?
Why is it better than ...?
What are the strengths and weaknesses of...?
How are ... and ... similar?
What would ... say about it?
What if you compared ... and ... ?
How could you look another way at this?
Probe implications and consequences
The argument that they give may have logical implications that can be forecast. Do these make sense? Are they desirable?</p>
<p>Then what would happen?
What are the consequences of that assumption?
How could ... be used to ... ?
What are the implications of ... ?
How does ... affect ... ?
How does ... fit with what we learned before?
Why is ... important?
What is the best ... ? Why?
Questions about the question
And you can also get reflexive about the whole thing, turning the question in on itself. Use their attack against themselves. Bounce the ball back into their court. Etc.</p>
<p>What was the point of asking that question?
Why do you think I asked this question?
What does that mean?</p>
<p>I have had professors who were great researchers AND great teachers. I know it can be done. Great research AND great teaching together are better than either one alone.</p>
<p>Yes, that is essentially the process of analyzing business cases. Are we trying to solve the right problem, what is the real problem, what info do we have, what don't we have that we need, etc etc. Most good teachers follow this type of method of questioning what and why. But first you need to know what types of information there might be and what it might mean.</p>