Re: Homework (Was Measure of student understanding)

["Michael N. Monce" <mnmon@CONNCOLL.EDU>]

> 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