SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the fixing-the-teachers-should-help dept.
Active problem-solving confers a deeper understanding of science than does a standard lecture. But some university lecturers are reluctant to change tack.
Outbreak alert: six students at the Chicago State Polytechnic University in Illinois have been hospitalized with severe vomiting, diarrhea and stomach pain, as well as wheezing and difficulty in breathing. Some are in a critical condition. And the university's health centre is fielding dozens of calls from students with similar symptoms.
This was the scenario that 17 third- and fourth-year undergraduates dealt with as part of an innovative virology course led by biologist Tammy Tobin at Susquehanna University in Selinsgrove, Pennsylvania. The students took on the role of federal public-health officials, and were tasked with identifying the pathogen, tracking how it spreads and figuring out how to contain and treat it — all by the end of the semester.
In the end, the students pinpointed the virus, but they also made mistakes: six people died, for example, in part because the students did not pay enough attention to treatment. However, says Tobin, "that doesn't affect their grade so long as they present what they did, how it worked or didn't work, and how they'd do it differently". What matters is that the students got totally wrapped up in the problem, remembered what they learned and got a handle on a range of disciplines. "We looked at the intersection of politics, sociology, biology, even some economics," she says.
Tobin's approach is just one of a diverse range of methods that have been sweeping through the world's undergraduate science classes. Some are complex, immersive exercises similar to Tobin's. But there are also team-based exercises on smaller problems, as well as simple, carefully tailored questions that students in a crowded lecture hall might respond to through hand-held 'clicker' devices. What the methods share is an outcome confirmed in hundreds of empirical studies: students gain a much deeper understanding of science when they actively grapple with questions than when they passively listen to answers.
http://www.nature.com/news/why-we-are-teaching-science-wrong-and-how-to-make-it-right-1.17963
Original Submission
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Geotti on Thursday July 16 2015, @06:52AM
[...] schools are just abysmal in general (except perhaps the best of the best universities) [...]
Schools provide the facilities that can be used or ignored. They're like technology that is morally agnostic.
Sure, some offer more opportunities, but these opportunities have to be used by the students.
Real education suffers when education stops being the primary goal.
Exactly, except that the students are just as well a part of this equation. I.e. if you turn this around and assume that there someone who really wants to become an erudite, that goal will be achieved irrespective of a school going out of its way to only teach a trade for "fame, glory, and money."
At least this is my conviction.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @08:03AM
Schools provide the facilities that can be used or ignored. They're like technology that is morally agnostic.
Sure, some offer more opportunities, but these opportunities have to be used by the students.
I'm not even going to bother going to a school/university if they're not even teaching anything properly; if the staff is incompetent, or they're so burdened by incompetent bureaucrats, then that school has serious issues that make it not worthwhile. Which is why I encourage self-education, which is what I chose to do.
It's not simply a problem with the students. Most schools are just bad all around, and if schools are forcing students to do assignments, go to lectures, and take exams that are garbage, then their time is being wasted; that time could be used to do something more useful.
I.e. if you turn this around and assume that there someone who really wants to become an erudite, that goal will be achieved irrespective of a school going out of its way to only teach a trade for "fame, glory, and money."
Then that is self-education that has absolutely nothing to do with the school. Might as well not waste your time and money.
But many of the students who go there for fame, glory, and money create an environment where that is expected, and so many schools are all too happy to encourage it. There are problems with both schools and the students.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @09:46AM
I'm not even going to bother going to a school/university
Yes, we noticed. Have a nice life!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @10:05AM
Nice refutation. Is this the sort of individual our 'wonderful' schools pump out by the thousands?
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Friday July 17 2015, @12:59AM
It's really not about the work that is laid upon you. You can consider this being a price in addition to the possible price tag (if you choose/have to live in a country, with paid higher education) and a formality.
What you get as a bare minimum is access to scientific databases, which would cost you much, much more, if paid for individually. In addition to that, you can get in touch with peers and faculty, which are undoubtedly helpful. Also, many schools will provide you with equipment (e.g. labs, equipment, machinery, etc.).
Many schools will let you choose most of your courses, so when you choose "garbage" that is mostly going to be your fault. Except, of course, fundamentals such as e.g. math, statistics, etc. which you may not recognize as being necessary to truly excel in technical fields until it "clicks."
For someone who wants to learn, almost any school is going to be an aid, as you will be able to learn much more, and achieve a higher level of education quality than you possibly could as an auto-didact; in almost all cases.
As for the fame and glory part, well... There's bad apples everywhere.