Anyone else surprised by the amount of lecturing in humanities classes at T10 universities?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think methods of teaching and learning in K-12 have changed significantly over the last 50 years to being all about student engagement, short attention spans, immediate gratification, pats on the back, active learning, everyone's a winner etc.

However many in post secondary feel that the current style of post secondary better prepares students for life after school and they aren't keen to move to the student led K-12 system. Many feel that lectures have worked well at preparing students for decades and that they don't want to change what isn't broken.

Does anyone actually believe that "lectures have worked well at preparing students for decades"?

It beats the heck out of gallery walks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is why my kids will not be attending US universities. I told them they can only attend a US school if they get a full scholarship. Otherwise it’s a European university because the quality is much better. Also as EU citizens, the cost is much better.

Speaking on behalf of almost all US universities and colleges (for which I am not authorized), we are fine with your decision. We respect the freedom to choose as well as the freedom to criticize and to engage in disagreement.

On what do you base your assessment that European universities are better than American universities ?

DP, but this is undoubtedly true. America has great good boy networks and a much stronger economy, so it doesn't matter to most, but other systems of education, including european ones, emphasize mastery at a very early level. Their first year students are where our students are...in their junior year. As a person in the sciences, it is not uncommon to be one of few Americans in a PhD program.

Highly dependent on the American college, however. Son was abroad at St Andrews, home school is ivy. The other ivy students, the Northwestern student, the UChicago kid, and the Notre Dame kid all did very well and thought St Andrews was frankly, easy, with each course requiring less work than they were used to. They were in classes with other third-year European and international students. The American students from a 30-ish LAC and several 40-50ish ranked publics struggled a lot: almost unable to keep up with the volume of reading and the prep needed for term exams., some of which were oral.

Can I tell the DCUM crowd something without pitchforks in the air? St. Andrews is a party school for the Americans, not really an elite institution. I think better comparisons are Oxbridge and the Russell Group. Many study abroad programs for Americans are also way easier, because you typically leave term before examinations (the bulk of your grade). The UK systems agree to this, because no American would actually come if they were to receive accurate grading (70 is a GOOD score in the UK, 80 is practically unheard of outside of once or twice in the degree program, and a 90 means you did something revelatory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think methods of teaching and learning in K-12 have changed significantly over the last 50 years to being all about student engagement, short attention spans, immediate gratification, pats on the back, active learning, everyone's a winner etc.

However many in post secondary feel that the current style of post secondary better prepares students for life after school and they aren't keen to move to the student led K-12 system. Many feel that lectures have worked well at preparing students for decades and that they don't want to change what isn't broken.

Does anyone actually believe that "lectures have worked well at preparing students for decades"?

It beats the heck out of gallery walks.

Amen. We had to do so many of them in grad school that I refuse to do them in my classroom. Lazy teaching IMO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is why my kids will not be attending US universities. I told them they can only attend a US school if they get a full scholarship. Otherwise it’s a European university because the quality is much better. Also as EU citizens, the cost is much better.

Speaking on behalf of almost all US universities and colleges (for which I am not authorized), we are fine with your decision. We respect the freedom to choose as well as the freedom to criticize and to engage in disagreement.

On what do you base your assessment that European universities are better than American universities ?

DP, but this is undoubtedly true. America has great good boy networks and a much stronger economy, so it doesn't matter to most, but other systems of education, including european ones, emphasize mastery at a very early level. Their first year students are where our students are...in their junior year. As a person in the sciences, it is not uncommon to be one of few Americans in a PhD program.

Highly dependent on the American college, however. Son was abroad at St Andrews, home school is ivy. The other ivy students, the Northwestern student, the UChicago kid, and the Notre Dame kid all did very well and thought St Andrews was frankly, easy, with each course requiring less work than they were used to. They were in classes with other third-year European and international students. The American students from a 30-ish LAC and several 40-50ish ranked publics struggled a lot: almost unable to keep up with the volume of reading and the prep needed for term exams., some of which were oral.

Can I tell the DCUM crowd something without pitchforks in the air? St. Andrews is a party school for the Americans, not really an elite institution. I think better comparisons are Oxbridge and the Russell Group. Many study abroad programs for Americans are also way easier, because you typically leave term before examinations (the bulk of your grade). The UK systems agree to this, because no American would actually come if they were to receive accurate grading (70 is a GOOD score in the UK, 80 is practically unheard of outside of once or twice in the degree program, and a 90 means you did something revelatory.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Times have changed. Smartphones have decimated people’s attention span. Way too many distractions now. Lectures never worked especially well and are even less effective now.
Studies have shown that listeners only retain about 5-10% information from lectures. It is a very inefficient way to deliver information.

Thats why you take notes. Almost all of med school was lectures. Med CME conferences are lectures. Part of undergrad was lectures, part seminar: still took notes . College wellness events have lectures for parents of freshman, and half the audience of parents were taking notes. Take notes if you want to retain more! My kids both took notes, unprompted, on college info sessions they were the most interested in.

Stop talking about med school which is a unique environment. There is a lot of memorisation involved in med school. And med students tend to be obsessive grade grubbers - they pretty much have to be just to get into med school

so your argument is that education should be keyed to the laziest learners? ok.

People have this really stupid belief that memorization is bad when it is actually key to you learning anything.
If you can't remember vast amount of details, you are going to be a bad worker, no matter the major.

Memorization is important as a foundation of acquiring knowledge but it is the lowest order of thinking. Memorization doesn’t require understanding and may not lead to an ability to use that information. We go beyond memorization because you want that information to make sense and to be applied and to translate to real life. You want students to be able to think, not just regurgitate information they memorized but don’t understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Times have changed. Smartphones have decimated people’s attention span. Way too many distractions now. Lectures never worked especially well and are even less effective now.
Studies have shown that listeners only retain about 5-10% information from lectures. It is a very inefficient way to deliver information.

Thats why you take notes. Almost all of med school was lectures. Med CME conferences are lectures. Part of undergrad was lectures, part seminar: still took notes . College wellness events have lectures for parents of freshman, and half the audience of parents were taking notes. Take notes if you want to retain more! My kids both took notes, unprompted, on college info sessions they were the most interested in.

Stop talking about med school which is a unique environment. There is a lot of memorisation involved in med school. And med students tend to be obsessive grade grubbers - they pretty much have to be just to get into med school

so your argument is that education should be keyed to the laziest learners? ok.

People have this really stupid belief that memorization is bad when it is actually key to you learning anything.
If you can't remember vast amount of details, you are going to be a bad worker, no matter the major.

the terrifying thing is that this belief exists in k-12 education as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Times have changed. Smartphones have decimated people’s attention span. Way too many distractions now. Lectures never worked especially well and are even less effective now.
Studies have shown that listeners only retain about 5-10% information from lectures. It is a very inefficient way to deliver information.

Thats why you take notes. Almost all of med school was lectures. Med CME conferences are lectures. Part of undergrad was lectures, part seminar: still took notes . College wellness events have lectures for parents of freshman, and half the audience of parents were taking notes. Take notes if you want to retain more! My kids both took notes, unprompted, on college info sessions they were the most interested in.

Stop talking about med school which is a unique environment. There is a lot of memorisation involved in med school. And med students tend to be obsessive grade grubbers - they pretty much have to be just to get into med school

so your argument is that education should be keyed to the laziest learners? ok.

People have this really stupid belief that memorization is bad when it is actually key to you learning anything.
If you can't remember vast amount of details, you are going to be a bad worker, no matter the major.

Memorization is important as a foundation of acquiring knowledge but it is the lowest order of thinking. Memorization doesn’t require understanding and may not lead to an ability to use that information. We go beyond memorization because you want that information to make sense and to be applied and to translate to real life. You want students to be able to think, not just regurgitate information they memorized but don’t understand.

To go “beyond memorization” you actually have to memorize… and lectures aren’t about memorization per se anyway. They are about conveying information verbally on a theme. Abandoning direct instruction (such as lectures) is a disaster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Times have changed. Smartphones have decimated people’s attention span. Way too many distractions now. Lectures never worked especially well and are even less effective now.
Studies have shown that listeners only retain about 5-10% information from lectures. It is a very inefficient way to deliver information.

Thats why you take notes. Almost all of med school was lectures. Med CME conferences are lectures. Part of undergrad was lectures, part seminar: still took notes . College wellness events have lectures for parents of freshman, and half the audience of parents were taking notes. Take notes if you want to retain more! My kids both took notes, unprompted, on college info sessions they were the most interested in.

Stop talking about med school which is a unique environment. There is a lot of memorisation involved in med school. And med students tend to be obsessive grade grubbers - they pretty much have to be just to get into med school

so your argument is that education should be keyed to the laziest learners? ok.

People have this really stupid belief that memorization is bad when it is actually key to you learning anything.
If you can't remember vast amount of details, you are going to be a bad worker, no matter the major.

Have you taken physics? No memorization involved. Very different from biology. That is why premed students are often scared of physics. Because it involves a different way of learning and understanding than what many of them are used to. You don’t have to memorise equations. You can just derive them if you need them

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Times have changed. Smartphones have decimated people’s attention span. Way too many distractions now. Lectures never worked especially well and are even less effective now.
Studies have shown that listeners only retain about 5-10% information from lectures. It is a very inefficient way to deliver information.

Thats why you take notes. Almost all of med school was lectures. Med CME conferences are lectures. Part of undergrad was lectures, part seminar: still took notes . College wellness events have lectures for parents of freshman, and half the audience of parents were taking notes. Take notes if you want to retain more! My kids both took notes, unprompted, on college info sessions they were the most interested in.

Stop talking about med school which is a unique environment. There is a lot of memorisation involved in med school. And med students tend to be obsessive grade grubbers - they pretty much have to be just to get into med school

so your argument is that education should be keyed to the laziest learners? ok.

People have this really stupid belief that memorization is bad when it is actually key to you learning anything.
If you can't remember vast amount of details, you are going to be a bad worker, no matter the major.

Have you taken physics? No memorization involved. Very different from biology. That is why premed students are often scared of physics. Because it involves a different way of learning and understanding than what many of them are used to. You don’t have to memorise equations. You can just derive them if you need them

Again, lectures are not about rote memorizing (although that has it’s place). They are about conveying information verbally - aka direct instruction. This is especially important in math and physics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Times have changed. Smartphones have decimated people’s attention span. Way too many distractions now. Lectures never worked especially well and are even less effective now.
Studies have shown that listeners only retain about 5-10% information from lectures. It is a very inefficient way to deliver information.

Thats why you take notes. Almost all of med school was lectures. Med CME conferences are lectures. Part of undergrad was lectures, part seminar: still took notes . College wellness events have lectures for parents of freshman, and half the audience of parents were taking notes. Take notes if you want to retain more! My kids both took notes, unprompted, on college info sessions they were the most interested in.

Stop talking about med school which is a unique environment. There is a lot of memorisation involved in med school. And med students tend to be obsessive grade grubbers - they pretty much have to be just to get into med school

so your argument is that education should be keyed to the laziest learners? ok.

People have this really stupid belief that memorization is bad when it is actually key to you learning anything.
If you can't remember vast amount of details, you are going to be a bad worker, no matter the major.

Have you taken physics? No memorization involved. Very different from biology. That is why premed students are often scared of physics. Because it involves a different way of learning and understanding than what many of them are used to. You don’t have to memorise equations. You can just derive them if you need them

Again, lectures are not about rote memorizing (although that has it’s place). They are about conveying information verbally - aka direct instruction. This is especially important in math and physics.

Terrible take. Lectures are the worst way to teach physics, which should be taught through modeling. Even Harvard switched to a form of active learning in their physics classes after determining that students don't learn anything in lectures. Just google it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Times have changed. Smartphones have decimated people’s attention span. Way too many distractions now. Lectures never worked especially well and are even less effective now.
Studies have shown that listeners only retain about 5-10% information from lectures. It is a very inefficient way to deliver information.

Thats why you take notes. Almost all of med school was lectures. Med CME conferences are lectures. Part of undergrad was lectures, part seminar: still took notes . College wellness events have lectures for parents of freshman, and half the audience of parents were taking notes. Take notes if you want to retain more! My kids both took notes, unprompted, on college info sessions they were the most interested in.

Stop talking about med school which is a unique environment. There is a lot of memorisation involved in med school. And med students tend to be obsessive grade grubbers - they pretty much have to be just to get into med school

so your argument is that education should be keyed to the laziest learners? ok.

People have this really stupid belief that memorization is bad when it is actually key to you learning anything.
If you can't remember vast amount of details, you are going to be a bad worker, no matter the major.

Have you taken physics? No memorization involved. Very different from biology. That is why premed students are often scared of physics. Because it involves a different way of learning and understanding than what many of them are used to. You don’t have to memorise equations. You can just derive them if you need them

Again, lectures are not about rote memorizing (although that has it’s place). They are about conveying information verbally - aka direct instruction. This is especially important in math and physics.

Terrible take. Lectures are the worst way to teach physics, which should be taught through modeling. Even Harvard switched to a form of active learning in their physics classes after determining that students don't learn anything in lectures. Just google it.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/09/study-shows-that-students-learn-more-when-taking-part-in-classrooms-that-employ-active-learning-strategies/

"'This work unambiguously debunks the illusion of learning from lectures,' he said. 'It also explains why instructors and students cling to the belief that listening to lectures constitutes learning. I recommend every lecturer reads this article.'"

"Dean of Science Christopher Stubbs, Samuel C. Moncher Professor of Physics and of Astronomy, was an early convert. 'When I first switched to teaching using active learning, some students resisted that change. This research confirms that faculty should persist and encourage active learning. Active engagement in every classroom, led by our incredible science faculty, should be the hallmark of residential undergraduate education at Harvard.'"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Times have changed. Smartphones have decimated people’s attention span. Way too many distractions now. Lectures never worked especially well and are even less effective now.
Studies have shown that listeners only retain about 5-10% information from lectures. It is a very inefficient way to deliver information.

Thats why you take notes. Almost all of med school was lectures. Med CME conferences are lectures. Part of undergrad was lectures, part seminar: still took notes . College wellness events have lectures for parents of freshman, and half the audience of parents were taking notes. Take notes if you want to retain more! My kids both took notes, unprompted, on college info sessions they were the most interested in.

Stop talking about med school which is a unique environment. There is a lot of memorisation involved in med school. And med students tend to be obsessive grade grubbers - they pretty much have to be just to get into med school

so your argument is that education should be keyed to the laziest learners? ok.

People have this really stupid belief that memorization is bad when it is actually key to you learning anything.
If you can't remember vast amount of details, you are going to be a bad worker, no matter the major.

Have you taken physics? No memorization involved. Very different from biology. That is why premed students are often scared of physics. Because it involves a different way of learning and understanding than what many of them are used to. You don’t have to memorise equations. You can just derive them if you need them

Again, lectures are not about rote memorizing (although that has it’s place). They are about conveying information verbally - aka direct instruction. This is especially important in math and physics.

Terrible take. Lectures are the worst way to teach physics, which should be taught through modeling. Even Harvard switched to a form of active learning in their physics classes after determining that students don't learn anything in lectures. Just google it.

Not sure what you mean by “lectures” here. Direct instruction (ie teacher verbally explaining concepts) is key to teaching. It’s not the only component but it’s key.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Times have changed. Smartphones have decimated people’s attention span. Way too many distractions now. Lectures never worked especially well and are even less effective now.
Studies have shown that listeners only retain about 5-10% information from lectures. It is a very inefficient way to deliver information.

Thats why you take notes. Almost all of med school was lectures. Med CME conferences are lectures. Part of undergrad was lectures, part seminar: still took notes . College wellness events have lectures for parents of freshman, and half the audience of parents were taking notes. Take notes if you want to retain more! My kids both took notes, unprompted, on college info sessions they were the most interested in.

Stop talking about med school which is a unique environment. There is a lot of memorisation involved in med school. And med students tend to be obsessive grade grubbers - they pretty much have to be just to get into med school

so your argument is that education should be keyed to the laziest learners? ok.

People have this really stupid belief that memorization is bad when it is actually key to you learning anything.
If you can't remember vast amount of details, you are going to be a bad worker, no matter the major.

Have you taken physics? No memorization involved. Very different from biology. That is why premed students are often scared of physics. Because it involves a different way of learning and understanding than what many of them are used to. You don’t have to memorise equations. You can just derive them if you need them

Again, lectures are not about rote memorizing (although that has it’s place). They are about conveying information verbally - aka direct instruction. This is especially important in math and physics.

Terrible take. Lectures are the worst way to teach physics, which should be taught through modeling. Even Harvard switched to a form of active learning in their physics classes after determining that students don't learn anything in lectures. Just google it.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/09/study-shows-that-students-learn-more-when-taking-part-in-classrooms-that-employ-active-learning-strategies/

"'This work unambiguously debunks the illusion of learning from lectures,' he said. 'It also explains why instructors and students cling to the belief that listening to lectures constitutes learning. I recommend every lecturer reads this article.'"

"Dean of Science Christopher Stubbs, Samuel C. Moncher Professor of Physics and of Astronomy, was an early convert. 'When I first switched to teaching using active learning, some students resisted that change. This research confirms that faculty should persist and encourage active learning. Active engagement in every classroom, led by our incredible science faculty, should be the hallmark of residential undergraduate education at Harvard.'"

Like most University press releases about research, this one hopelessly overstates the results. It doesn’t prove that lectures are ineffective but rather that direct instruction paired with active learning is effective. Really motivated and good students intuitively know that they have to engage in active learning on top of the lecture - so they do the reading, take notes, ask questions, do problem sets, go to office hours. Less capable or saavy students need more hand-holding in this regard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Times have changed. Smartphones have decimated people’s attention span. Way too many distractions now. Lectures never worked especially well and are even less effective now.
Studies have shown that listeners only retain about 5-10% information from lectures. It is a very inefficient way to deliver information.

Thats why you take notes. Almost all of med school was lectures. Med CME conferences are lectures. Part of undergrad was lectures, part seminar: still took notes . College wellness events have lectures for parents of freshman, and half the audience of parents were taking notes. Take notes if you want to retain more! My kids both took notes, unprompted, on college info sessions they were the most interested in.

Stop talking about med school which is a unique environment. There is a lot of memorisation involved in med school. And med students tend to be obsessive grade grubbers - they pretty much have to be just to get into med school

so your argument is that education should be keyed to the laziest learners? ok.

People have this really stupid belief that memorization is bad when it is actually key to you learning anything.
If you can't remember vast amount of details, you are going to be a bad worker, no matter the major.

Have you taken physics? No memorization involved. Very different from biology. That is why premed students are often scared of physics. Because it involves a different way of learning and understanding than what many of them are used to. You don’t have to memorise equations. You can just derive them if you need them

Again, lectures are not about rote memorizing (although that has it’s place). They are about conveying information verbally - aka direct instruction. This is especially important in math and physics.

Terrible take. Lectures are the worst way to teach physics, which should be taught through modeling. Even Harvard switched to a form of active learning in their physics classes after determining that students don't learn anything in lectures. Just google it.

Not sure what you mean by “lectures” here. Direct instruction (ie teacher verbally explaining concepts) is key to teaching. It’s not the only component but it’s key.

The most sophisticated high school AP physics education uses exclusively modeling with NO direct instruction. Those students do better on the AP Exam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Times have changed. Smartphones have decimated people’s attention span. Way too many distractions now. Lectures never worked especially well and are even less effective now.
Studies have shown that listeners only retain about 5-10% information from lectures. It is a very inefficient way to deliver information.

Thats why you take notes. Almost all of med school was lectures. Med CME conferences are lectures. Part of undergrad was lectures, part seminar: still took notes . College wellness events have lectures for parents of freshman, and half the audience of parents were taking notes. Take notes if you want to retain more! My kids both took notes, unprompted, on college info sessions they were the most interested in.

Stop talking about med school which is a unique environment. There is a lot of memorisation involved in med school. And med students tend to be obsessive grade grubbers - they pretty much have to be just to get into med school

so your argument is that education should be keyed to the laziest learners? ok.

People have this really stupid belief that memorization is bad when it is actually key to you learning anything.
If you can't remember vast amount of details, you are going to be a bad worker, no matter the major.

Have you taken physics? No memorization involved. Very different from biology. That is why premed students are often scared of physics. Because it involves a different way of learning and understanding than what many of them are used to. You don’t have to memorise equations. You can just derive them if you need them

Again, lectures are not about rote memorizing (although that has it’s place). They are about conveying information verbally - aka direct instruction. This is especially important in math and physics.

Terrible take. Lectures are the worst way to teach physics, which should be taught through modeling. Even Harvard switched to a form of active learning in their physics classes after determining that students don't learn anything in lectures. Just google it.

Not sure what you mean by “lectures” here. Direct instruction (ie teacher verbally explaining concepts) is key to teaching. It’s not the only component but it’s key.

The most sophisticated high school AP physics education uses exclusively modeling with NO direct instruction. Those students do better on the AP Exam.

I doubt that.