Guest lecturer perspective: modern students are absolutely atrocious

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What grade? I teach kindergarten and so many kids are brain damaged from too much technology. Their eyes can barely focus on a picture in a book or on words. They haven't been able to watch a short animated movie for many years.

It was a college course.

I don’t know, OP. I teach at a medical school, and teaching is very different than it was in 2010. Students aren’t going to listen to you just present the facts anymore. No matter how good you are at distilling down complex information and making it digestible, there is someone on YouTube doing it better.
You will have better luck if you make the class more interactive and expect they will get the fact-based data somewhere else.

Does that not seem crazy to you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What grade? I teach kindergarten and so many kids are brain damaged from too much technology. Their eyes can barely focus on a picture in a book or on words. They haven't been able to watch a short animated movie for many years.

It was a college course.

I don’t know, OP. I teach at a medical school, and teaching is very different than it was in 2010. Students aren’t going to listen to you just present the facts anymore. No matter how good you are at distilling down complex information and making it digestible, there is someone on YouTube doing it better.
You will have better luck if you make the class more interactive and expect they will get the fact-based data somewhere else.

Does that not seem crazy to you?

No. It doesn’t seem crazy. If I want to talk about psychopharmacology, I do a case presentation and answer questions about people I have seen in clinic. Maybe talk about it in part of a panel discussion/Q&A with patients who have schizophrenia. I don’t talk about dopamine pathways anymore. I tell them it’s going to be on the exam and put up a YouTube link that they can go to.
Why would they listen to me if they can listen to someone who teaches it better? If the goal is to teach students and not to stroke your own ego, it’s perfectly reasonable.

[Anonymous]

My kids do RSM online and class is 2 hours long even for the fifth grade. So there are kids who can pay attention and my kids do not even care for the math, but do it for general aptitude and are able to learn something judging by what I can observe.
2 hours seems too long in my opinion, but it is what it is at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What grade? I teach kindergarten and so many kids are brain damaged from too much technology. Their eyes can barely focus on a picture in a book or on words. They haven't been able to watch a short animated movie for many years.

It was a college course.

I don’t know, OP. I teach at a medical school, and teaching is very different than it was in 2010. Students aren’t going to listen to you just present the facts anymore. No matter how good you are at distilling down complex information and making it digestible, there is someone on YouTube doing it better.
You will have better luck if you make the class more interactive and expect they will get the fact-based data somewhere else.

Does that not seem crazy to you?

No. It doesn’t seem crazy. If I want to talk about psychopharmacology, I do a case presentation and answer questions about people I have seen in clinic. Maybe talk about it in part of a panel discussion/Q&A with patients who have schizophrenia. I don’t talk about dopamine pathways anymore. I tell them it’s going to be on the exam and put up a YouTube link that they can go to.
Why would they listen to me if they can listen to someone who teaches it better? If the goal is to teach students and not to stroke your own ego, it’s perfectly reasonable.

Oh, that's a little different than what you originally seemed to describe. You're using pre-screened videos as a replacement for text books/articles not sending them into the wild west of youtube on their own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What grade? I teach kindergarten and so many kids are brain damaged from too much technology. Their eyes can barely focus on a picture in a book or on words. They haven't been able to watch a short animated movie for many years.

It was a college course.

I don’t know, OP. I teach at a medical school, and teaching is very different than it was in 2010. Students aren’t going to listen to you just present the facts anymore. No matter how good you are at distilling down complex information and making it digestible, there is someone on YouTube doing it better.
You will have better luck if you make the class more interactive and expect they will get the fact-based data somewhere else.

Does that not seem crazy to you?

No. It doesn’t seem crazy. If I want to talk about psychopharmacology, I do a case presentation and answer questions about people I have seen in clinic. Maybe talk about it in part of a panel discussion/Q&A with patients who have schizophrenia. I don’t talk about dopamine pathways anymore. I tell them it’s going to be on the exam and put up a YouTube link that they can go to.
Why would they listen to me if they can listen to someone who teaches it better? If the goal is to teach students and not to stroke your own ego, it’s perfectly reasonable.

Oh, that's a little different than what you originally seemed to describe. You're using pre-screened videos as a replacement for text books/articles not sending them into the wild west of youtube on their own.

Not really. These are things that the students previously found on their own. And if a student finds something better, most of the class will know about it before the lecturer finds out about it.

This all changed 5-8 years ago because students stopped coming to traditional classes.

I will say that I’m surprised that there isn’t a professionally done video curriculum being sold to colleges and medical schools right now, the way that textbooks had been sold.

[Anonymous]

In my daughter's elementary school conference I asked a few questions regarding prepping for upcoming state tests and the teacher (who I love btw) said "we can't do it that way anymore as the kids don't have the attention spans."

On my end, I have worked hard to ensure that my kids have not become technological zombies. However, I feel like they are doomed anyway because they will never be challenged or have high learning standards placed on them as they are dumbing down their public school experience. It just becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In my daughter's elementary school conference I asked a few questions regarding prepping for upcoming state tests and the teacher (who I love btw) said "we can't do it that way anymore as the kids don't have the attention spans."

On my end, I have worked hard to ensure that my kids have not become technological zombies. However, I feel like they are doomed anyway because they will never be challenged or have high learning standards placed on them as they are dumbing down their public school experience. It just becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Homeschool or send them to a private school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What grade? I teach kindergarten and so many kids are brain damaged from too much technology. Their eyes can barely focus on a picture in a book or on words. They haven't been able to watch a short animated movie for many years.

It was a college course.

I don’t know, OP. I teach at a medical school, and teaching is very different than it was in 2010. Students aren’t going to listen to you just present the facts anymore. No matter how good you are at distilling down complex information and making it digestible, there is someone on YouTube doing it better.
You will have better luck if you make the class more interactive and expect they will get the fact-based data somewhere else.

I think that's exactly the problem. We thought - understandably - that with the internet the pure fact-based information would be easily accessible so we could sort of skip right to the higher-level thinking and analysis. But turns out that's not true. Having those facts in your head, instead of in your phone, is actually really critical to being able to do the higher level analysis. It also has the benefit of instilling some study skills and training your brain to be ok with a little monotony.

Memorizing your times tables is critical to doing fractions well. And it's also critical to just learning how to learn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What grade? I teach kindergarten and so many kids are brain damaged from too much technology. Their eyes can barely focus on a picture in a book or on words. They haven't been able to watch a short animated movie for many years.

It was a college course.

I don’t know, OP. I teach at a medical school, and teaching is very different than it was in 2010. Students aren’t going to listen to you just present the facts anymore. No matter how good you are at distilling down complex information and making it digestible, there is someone on YouTube doing it better.
You will have better luck if you make the class more interactive and expect they will get the fact-based data somewhere else.

Ha! In an age where everything is going to be steeped to the brim with AI generated fake content and deep fakes, what could possibly go wrong with trying to learn from the Internet and not actual professionals who have been doing the job for the last 20 years?

This country is doomed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What grade? I teach kindergarten and so many kids are brain damaged from too much technology. Their eyes can barely focus on a picture in a book or on words. They haven't been able to watch a short animated movie for many years.

It was a college course.

I don’t know, OP. I teach at a medical school, and teaching is very different than it was in 2010. Students aren’t going to listen to you just present the facts anymore. No matter how good you are at distilling down complex information and making it digestible, there is someone on YouTube doing it better.
You will have better luck if you make the class more interactive and expect they will get the fact-based data somewhere else.

I think that's exactly the problem. We thought - understandably - that with the internet the pure fact-based information would be easily accessible so we could sort of skip right to the higher-level thinking and analysis. But turns out that's not true. Having those facts in your head, instead of in your phone, is actually really critical to being able to do the higher level analysis. It also has the benefit of instilling some study skills and training your brain to be ok with a little monotony.

Memorizing your times tables is critical to doing fractions well. And it's also critical to just learning how to learn.

PP here. I agree with you, and I send my children to a school that does not use any technology. I don’t think it has any place in elementary school or middle school. Kids need to learn to memorize times tables and lists of prepositions and poetry.

But you can’t just walk into a classroom of adult learners and expect students to conform to the way you taught things fifteen years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like your lecture sucks honestly.

Nope, it's the same but with updated info. I actually got feedback directly from the students - overwhelmingly positive every single time. The material is fine.

Why could students in 2010 pay attention and listen while kids in 2024 have the attention spans of ants?

Because in 2010 I believed what I was listening was going to make a difference in my life. If I had to go to school today, I would question everything teacher says or listen to YouTube videos about how to get rich.
I'm 46. I was in school as late at 2020/2021.

[Anonymous]

I was an aide in DCPS K class couple of years ago. Reading and writing was 1.5 hours non-stop. No kid zoned out or wondered off. They were working non-stop the whole time. It was me who was worn out afterwards. I thought it was horrific too put the kids through it all at age 5.
This was in upper middle/rich neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gave a guest lecture today. It really hasn't changed much over the years except with updated information. I had a hiatus a bit from doing the lecture, so this was the first time I restarted it since COVID, but holy Toledo modern students are horrible. They have attention spans of ants. And it is absolutely noticeable beyond belief when I think about teaching students and giving a lecture back in 2010 vs 2024. I guess this is the end result of raising entire generations on toxic social media like TikTok since they were out of the womb. We are absolutely doomed. Modern generations' brains have been fried by spastic social media clips that last only 3-4 seconds. Heaven forbid they have to sit through a 75 minute lecture on extremely complex topics that have been distilled down to them in a digestible manner.

Just horrible. Thank God I do not teach for a profession. I'd lose my mind dealing with modern students who are incapable of having focused thought for more than 5 minutes. One student even came into the class wearing headphones and wore them the whole time while I was giving lecture. WTH? If you don't want to listen, simply don't come then. This country is going to be an unmitigated disaster in 30 years when these people take over. I honestly don't know if gen alpha is going to be able to digest baby food for course material at the rate mental capacity and attention spans are rapidly degrading. It is scary how fast the quality of students has declined in only a fraction of my lifetime.

People who can't teach always say this, not just since COVID. I find myself wondering why anyone would give a 75 minute lecture in the first place. In the old days, we did it because most of our knowledge and research were in handwritten notebooks, in books, and in our heads. We had limited ability to copy anything (you won't understand this unless you are old enough to remember ditto machines), and no screens or even whiteboards. That meant that talking at students for an hour or two was the only way to convey our information to them. Then they wrote it down. And if they didn't write it down fast enough or accurately enough, they did not pass, because we tested based on what we talked. But now there are so many much more efficient ways to provide information, that anyone talking for 75 minutes, unless they are gifted enough to Ted Talk, is just wasting a lot of time. I'd be bored, too. I'd probably walk out.

[Anonymous]

Go and teach Asian kids. Your experience will be different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My siblings a college professor. He says it’s really bad for years and gotten worse. Critical thought is dead and there is no interest in reviving it. It’s bad news

That's because we no longer teach kids in a way that makes sense to teach them critical thinking. First stuff their heads with facts in elementary (so they have a basis from which to even begin to think), then teach them logic in middle, then teach the persuasion in high school. Dorothy Sayers was right.

They're now being taught persuasive writing in elementary school. That's one of the things that is leading to all these unintended consequences. Research is no longer about gathering general information that then gets analayzed. Research nowadays is entirely about finding support for the argument they come up with first.

Persuasive writing is a standard written format that has been around since I was a kid (and I just mentioned ditto machines in one of my posts, so that's a long, long time). There is nothing new about it. The skill being taught is not research - it's crafting a written argument so that one supports one's statements. It's about learning the logic of what can soundly support a statement and what can't. Only when one understands that can one actually read and understand research. Researching is a completely different skill, and writing a research paper is a much more elevated and advanced form of writing. Learning how to support an argument is vital - and supporting some stupid idea that you came up with on a whim, perhaps even supporting a stupid idea you don't even agree with, is a very important skill. It's sometimes called "debate." And I'm sure you've heard of that - definitely not new.