Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: Homework (Was Measure of student understanding)



But if we 'baby-sit them through the process, have we really done them a
favor in the long term. If, at some point, students are not required to
'think for themselves', if we (over) structure their learning constantly,
how then do they become effective 'life-long' learners? [This is a real
question--I don't know the answer. If we do cut off the 'artificial'
supports, when? At the College level--1st year, 4th year? At the Graduate
Level? ]

Rick

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael N. Monce" <mnmon@CONNCOLL.EDU>
To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 8:34 AM
Subject: Re: Homework (Was Measure of student understanding)


On Mon, 29 Apr 2002, Rick Tarara wrote:


2) The real active engagement is to actively engage the student's
brains.
There are many ways to do this--self motivation having been cited
recently
as one. It seems to me that much of the 'new pedagogy' focuses on
forcing
students into situations where they _must think_ whereas more
traditional
pedagogies simple expect that thinking to come from those students who
are
serious about the course.


This is the crux of my reading of what the PER literature is
saying. After 20+ years of teaching the intro. course the biggest change
I have seen is in the way students approach the course. The PER literature
is very useful in addressing this change. The lecture/lab format worked.
The problem for me, is that *now* it doesn't work nearly as well as it
used to. Until the students become more self-motivated in their learning
again, the new strategies are worth looking at. Of course, people being
people no one teaching technique will ever work for every student.

Mike Monce
Connecticut College