On the surface I think many will just read that this method is about reading assigned material before you enter a classroom. But I think the real gist of this method is creating a different, better, relationship between student and teacher to create genuine excitement in imagination.
After 2 years in college I stopped taking notes and just started listening. My GPA went from Deans list to "average," but my learning increased exponentially (ever notice how science types like an excuse to use that work?). I did horrible in classes that were only about memorizing facts, like sociology, even though, I have learned now, that that was a horrible way to approach such an awesome topic.
However, I did excel in classes where I had an "endeavor to conquer the subject matter." Most notably, I ended up working way ahead of my CS degree without realizing it. I was just following a path of reading material with just a few conversations with good professors.
In the end, I learned how to learn. I don't really remember much of anything from any of my coursework (4 years out now). But I know how to learn it again if I need to, and more importantly, there is no topic that I fear approaching for the first time or repeatedly.
This can go somewhat badly. I had a professor who did something like this. He would assign reading and spent a lot of time answering questions, sometimes around a half hour or so. The bad part is that he would not require homework to be turned in until the evening, so the questions have ended up being over homework. This means that if you have done the homework correctly, there is a fair amount of wasted time in class. So it seems to benefit more the people who didn't actually finish the homework before class.
Some people just learn better from hearing, so the lectures are better for them, even if they seem redundant. But reading the book aloud isn't enough. Effective lectures sound different from books: shorter, simpler, more repetitive.
Really, the right thing for a student to do is to read the relevant material before the lecture, then listen for nuances and ask questions in class. Of course, I only occasionally attained this ideal when I was in college.
I feel like a good lecture is like a passage in a textbook where someone has highlighted all the good parts for you, and then written a single sentence at the end in thick, dark marker that sums it all up.
How does this compare to the oxbridge tutorial method? I haven't actually experienced it; others are probably more knowledgeable in this regard.
Basically, the way I understand it is that while the students do attend lectures, the focus of their education is in "tutorials". In these tutorials, the students are assigned reading, which they then write a paper on, and debate about with their tutor and maybe one other student. Now I never thought this would scale that well, but that seems to be what the article is about. Obviously the large class discussions are less personal, but more doable in a university without the bottomless endowments of Oxford and Cambridge.
I can't stand watching a whole lecture in video. I tried for SICP, for various screencasts... I'd rather have a book, really, so I can decide on my own if I need to spend more time understanding a certain section and skim the other.
Agreed. I can't stand watching/listening people talk online in general: interviews, podcasts, lectures whatever. It always feels like enormous waste of time: I'd rather quickly scan the text of what they're saying, slowing down on important things and "fast-forwarding" water.
In general, I agree, but if it's a really great video, I would like to watch it. And in an academic world that is growing to embrace free culture, you will only need one great lectures on each chunk of material. In fact, it is best in some cases for everyone to have enjoyed the same bit of greatness, because they can all draw similar references and allusions later. Not always, or even most of the time, mind you, but there are some lectures that are definitely worth watching.
Honestly though, it seems that almost all the classes on the site seem to be language learning, even though the site doesn't seem to explicitly cater to that.
This is for lecturers. And, for students who want to advocate for better use of class time.
Morrison, the author of the first essay, is a famous organic chemist who wrote the foundational book of organic chemistry used in many programs. He apparently wrote it to avoid lecturing. Class time was for answering questions. His essay extols the virtues of the Gutenberg system he got from Frank Lambert, another organic chemistry professor, and the author of the second essay.
If you want to see the meat of the central idea, the elements of the Gutenberg method, the first section of the second essay is what you want to read: The Beginning, From Failure.
After 2 years in college I stopped taking notes and just started listening. My GPA went from Deans list to "average," but my learning increased exponentially (ever notice how science types like an excuse to use that work?). I did horrible in classes that were only about memorizing facts, like sociology, even though, I have learned now, that that was a horrible way to approach such an awesome topic.
However, I did excel in classes where I had an "endeavor to conquer the subject matter." Most notably, I ended up working way ahead of my CS degree without realizing it. I was just following a path of reading material with just a few conversations with good professors.
In the end, I learned how to learn. I don't really remember much of anything from any of my coursework (4 years out now). But I know how to learn it again if I need to, and more importantly, there is no topic that I fear approaching for the first time or repeatedly.