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: 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.