Comment by cheesecakegood
16 hours ago
Needs qualification. Research shows trial and error learning is very durable, but it’s not the most time efficient (in fact it’s relatively poor, usually, on that front). The two concepts are a bit different. Yes, trial and error engages more of the brain and provides a degree of difficulty that can sometimes be helpful in making the concepts sticky, but well designed teaching coupled with meaningful and appropriately difficult retrieval and practice is better on most axes. When possible… good teaching often needs refinement. And you’d be surprised how many educators know very little about the neuroscience of learning!
> And you’d be surprised how many educators know very little about the neuroscience of learning!
I'm (pleasantly) surprised every time I see evidence of one of them knowing anything about it.
At the university level in the US, few faculty get any kind of training before they are expected to start teaching. And the teaching requirement is more or less “do no harm.” If you’re at a research university, which includes many publicly funded universities, then your career trajectory is based almost exclusively on your research output. I could go on, but it suffices to say that it’s not surprising that the teaching could be better.
That said, most institutions have teacher training resources for faculty. I was fortunate to be able to work intensely with a mentor for a summer, and it improved my teaching dramatically. Still, teaching is hard. Students sometimes know—but often don’t know—what is best for their learning. It’s easy to conflate student satisfaction with teaching effectiveness. The former is definitely an important ingredient, but there’s a lot more to it, and a really effective teacher knows when to employ tools (eg quizzes) that students really do not like.
I am frequently amused by the thought that here we have a bunch of people who have paid tons of money, set aside a significant fraction of their time, and nominally want to learn a subject that they signed up for; and yet, they still won’t sit down and actually do the reading unless they are going to be quizzes on it.
> the thought that here we have a bunch of people who have paid tons of money, set aside a significant fraction of their time, and nominally want to learn a subject that they signed up for; and yet, they still won’t sit down and actually do the reading unless they are going to be quizzes on it.
How often have they put down the money, as opposed to their parents?
How often do they actually care about learning the subject, as opposed to be able to credibly represent (e.g. to employers) that they have learned the subject?
How often is the nominally set-aside time actually an inconvenience? (Generally, they would either be at leisure or at the kind of unskilled work their parents would be disappointed by, right?) My recollection of university is that there was hardly any actual obligation to spend the time on anything specific aside from exams and midterms, as long as you were figuring out some way or other to do well enough on those.
1 reply →