Methods of teaching.

[Vendetta21]

I've noticed from my years of schooling that teachers who ask a question to try to get students to illuminate something they might already know or try to get groups to discuss things to make conclusions similar to the orthodox can often weaken the lesson. The reason for this is that the students hold the teacher as the knowledge giver, and in a lecture the teacher says things with confidence and fluency, whereas in a discussion/response based classroom that fluency can be lost, and the teacher feigns ignorance. I don't think that this is the case for every subject, just those where there is an orthodox or accepted fact that must be held as true for the coursework. Like History.

It's a good way to get a summary on their formative learning, but not a good way to form learning. I've had teachers who ask too many questions and try to use that to teach, when lecturing, I feel, is often much stronger in helping a student remember.

This is of course, two methods amongst many, but I'm currently just examining these two. I don't know what the most effective teaching method over-all is, but from my experience I think lectures, especially passionate ones, have been the most successful in helping me remember things.

My questions are thus; Do you think learning based on student answers (a rope-memory technique) and group discussion (trying to show that students already know something) is good for teaching, or just good for evaluating? What is the most effective teaching method or methods?

[abro13]

Depends on what subject you are speaking of. If it deals with formulas such as math, science, and such then I believe that asking questions and having the class answer would be great for learning. However, for history and other things that deal with memory, I would choose group discussion.

[flawofhumanity]

Originally Posted by Vendetta21

This is of course, two methods amongst many, but I'm currently just examining these two. I don't know what the most effective teaching method over-all is, but from my experience I think lectures, especially passionate ones, have been the most successful in helping me remember things.

My questions are thus; Do you think learning based on student answers (a rope-memory technique) and group discussion (trying to show that students already know something) is good for teaching, or just good for evaluating? What is the most effective teaching method or methods?

Well, the problem with group discussion or student answers in high school is that it usually results in just two or three of the smartest kids of the class being the only ones participating, thus becoming to all the other students a lecture from someone less qualified, and often with less clarity. What makes this a bigger problem is there is really no way to keep it from happening without other repercussions, for example by making every student participate you usually end up with people that make it harder for everyone else (calling them stupid, not taking it seriously, or just being a general nuisance.) In any normal grade school classroom I would definitely suggest lecturing over the other two.

However, in an AP class or college classes, the students are usually brighter and take the subject more seriously (since in one way or another they are paying for it, and most likely interested in said subject.) This results in group discussion coming more easily, as they are more likely to have a firm grasp of the matter and be on the same page as everyone else. Student answers are great here, as long as they are not mandatory. Students can sometimes explain things in more layman's terms (I know it's contradictory to what I said earlier, but again, this is because I assume they are closer to the same level as knowledge than the basic high school level) and watching/hearing the others work through it gives the teacher a chance to explain things that weren't understood beforehand.

So really, like everything, I think it's situational.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Vendetta21

My questions are thus; Do you think learning based on student answers (a rope-memory technique) and group discussion (trying to show that students already know something) is good for teaching, or just good for evaluating? What is the most effective teaching method or methods?

Having taken many history lecture courses, and also having just finished a seminar course in history as well, I do (surprise, surprise) have some thoughts on the subject.

As you said, history is one of those subjects where there is a "version" that you are supposed to know for the purposes of the course. While lectures are a solid way for the professor to communicate that version to the students, if appropriate readings can be found and assigned to convey the same version, I did find that a seminar style of group discussion and synthesis was actually quite effective as a tool for learning.

Professors are as bound in their style as students are, and will emphasize specific aspects of the course information over others. I have some history profs that emphasize religion, some who emphasize geography, and so forth. So a given professor's communication of the information will look towards certain things, and a given student's communication of the information will look towards potentially other aspects.

By fostering discussion among the students, a wider range of topics will almost certainly be discussed, simply because each student will have particularly noted a different aspect of the information.

Now, which is -better- in an objective sense? That depends on the stated goals of the course, and whether the professor is the sort who will utilize these tools at their disposal. If the professor simply wants to test you on memory of the facts: dates, names and events, then a lecture would seem to be the best course. They can manually ensure that all of the relevant information you are supposed to memorize is presented to you, because they'll just do it themselves.

If the professor is inclined instead to want to communicate the -significance- of the events in their historical context, the reasons -why- something was important, the ramifications of historical events, then a seminar style would seem to be called for. Bringing a wider range of observations and incliniations into the discussion will necessarily create a deeper understanding of all aspects of a historical event in context.

[jewpinthethird]

Group discussions allow the class to teach itself, in a sense. And in many ways, this is very beneficial for the students because it fosters critical thinking development, as apposed to conditioning children to behave passively in academic settings. Therefore it is important to employ group discussions at a young age. So that the children are properly equipped with the ability to think of themselves and to form their own arguments.

I didn't learn how to write a proper essay until I got into college (and even then, I'm bull****ting it half the time). I feel as if my high school career were a waste of time.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by jewpinthethird

I didn't learn how to write a proper essay until I got into college (and even then, I'm bull****ting it half the time).

So you -did- learn how to write a proper essay then, at least half the time even!

[9_ki_kid]

I have yet to be in college or high-school, but I would think it would depend on how deep the teacher would want to go, do they want to get you to know the facts for a test, or get a deeper meaning out of things.
Like in history, do they want you to pass a test, or do they want you to learn lessons from the stories the tell you. That would probably depend on if the teacher is passionate about teaching, or just wants to make a living.
But pure math doesn't need to be discussed, because it is mostly straight forward.

Situational

[jewpinthethird]

Well, right now, the US government somehow thinks "the more tests a student takes, the smarter s/he will be. And schools with dumb kids are a worthless cause, so we should just cut their funds and reward the schools that do good."

[Vendetta21]

Originally Posted by jewpinthethird

Well, right now, the US government somehow thinks "the more tests a student takes, the smarter s/he will be. And schools with dumb kids are a worthless cause, so we should just cut their funds and reward the schools that do good."

This topic will easily hijack the original point of the thread, as it is about top-down school administration tactics and not teaching style, and many people believe that the government is being counter-intuitive to some degree. This topic stirs up a certain vehemency in people who are fluent in it, and may deserve it's own thread, but not this one.

[jamuko]

There is also the problem of personal preferences within every group of students... there will always be the types who would prefer to sit back and absorb information (like me), and then the types who prefer a more hands-on approach and will speak their mind, enjoy group discussion etc.

I think one of the most important factors in how well one learns from a certain teaching style is how comfortable they are in it. No matter how good a group might be, if a more introverted student is nervous about the discussion, they will not be as receptive as they would be lying low during a lecture. Same for the opposite; an extroverted student will likely gain more from something that engages them, while they may get restless or bored during a lecture.

These differences in people make it hard to decide on a blanket teaching style for everyone.

[tsugomaru]

I've said it before, I'll say it again. It's difficult to cater towards each individual student's need. People have varying learning style and as such, it's difficult to find an "effective" method.

Some teachers try hard to cater towards everyone's needs by implementing a lot of different teaching styles, such as lecturing, demonstration, and hands-on activities in one unit to make sure they cover all the bases. Unfortunately however, most students have only one learning style and will think that the rest of the activities the do is a waste of their time.

Jewpin, rich schools depend on a rich community more than anything. If you go to a city with ghettos, you'll find that the school won't be very nice at all because it has no funding due to lack of money. However, if you live in a rich area, you'll have schools that look really nice and are well funded. Even then, the smartest schools will have less priority when it comes to funding compared to schools that do not do as well.

~Tsugomaru

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by Vendetta21

I don't think that this is the case for every subject, just those where there is an orthodox or accepted fact that must be held as true for the coursework. Like History.

...What? Are you joking?

My questions are thus; Do you think learning based on student answers (a rope-memory technique) and group discussion (trying to show that students already know something) is good for teaching, or just good for evaluating? What is the most effective teaching method or methods?

Lecturing is good for input, student answers and group discussion are necessary for students to learn how to use input (and give meaningful output). If a student is well read or has lots of independent knowledge, they can do fine with just discussion, but in 99% of cases some level of lecturing is required in order for real educational benefit to be derived.

[Cavernio]

The more in-depth you think about something, the more likely it is to stay in your head. Let's use history again for example. Even if you're only instructed to learn dates and names, and basic, not-in-depth reasons why something happened, it's hard to remember pieces of fluff like that without applying it to something. And even though when you're thinking about any given historic event, even though you're not repeating the year it started in your head, you're going to establish an idea of when it took place much much stronger than if you hadn't critically thought about it.

I'm unsure as to whether group discussion in class brings this about better than a teacher does though.

What I rather liked in courses was the online courses. In the few which I took, they all had, essentially, participation points. Each week or so, there was a topic to be discussed, which you were supposed to discuss with everyone else. I've never had so much discussion in a course as when I had taken them online, and I loved that I was able to mention thoughts that I had about things. It also helped alot because the courses I took at university were generally too big to have decent discussion in them anyways, not if you wanted to involve everyone. Even my seminar courses had close to 50 people.

I guess I sorta answered there. I think group discussion helps to learn, and if not, at least it makes learning fun.

[Boatz]

If I were a teacher I would definately try to be charming rather than informative.

Yes, that is kind of missing the point of teaching, but if you don't get the class involved they won't listen even if you ARE informative. Truth. But its also true to make some progress with a class by being informative....

I suppose I'm going in circles. The point I'm trying to make is that any outstanding teacher as to push boundaries with his/her actions and yet still try and teach. That's my philosophy.

My other philosophy is that children are the future, and they should lead the way.

[cuivien2]

I think that group discussion as a general idea is good, no matter the subject. However, in order to have a good discussion, people need to have a foundation from proper lecturing.
I never profited on "teacher asks the class questions", b.c. (like others have said) either a few smart ppl take over and answer, or the dumb kids cause irritation with the lecturer, causing him to discontinue the questioning.

In my courses in British literature, the guy in charge always set a date for lecturing pretty much in the middle of time spent on reading a novel, then maybe a week later, we took a step back and used the background information given by the lecturer as well as our own opinions, had a general discussion, then he went back to lecturing and focused on maybe one or two problem areas/topics that we had raised during the discussion. I found that a really good way to learn, and was most dissapointed when the next course in American literature (British in the fall, American in spring semester) featured a boring guy who's basic approach was "read the book, write a paper. I correct it based on my own opinions"