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: [Phys-l] Lecture vs Advocacy



A Quote from the web site:
"A further drawback with this kind of model is that the message is seen as
relatively unproblematic. It's fine for discussing the transformation of
'information', which might be, say &Hui9%/?PLM, but, when we try to apply
the model to communication, problems arise with the assumption that meanings
are somehow contained within the message."

This is the BIG problem in physics. Both the sender and the receiver need
to have the same frame of reference. They don't. And the receiver needs to
have a paradigm which accepts the message. Usually this is not true. So
this is why Mazur developed the interactive lecture, and Thornton & Sokoloff
developed the interactive lecture demo. This is why McDermott developed her
tutorials, and Hake his Socratic Dialog Labs. No matter how interesting the
lecture a large percentage simply will not receive the message and
understand it.

The meaning is NOT in the message, but must be constructed by the receiver
using the information in the message. This big insight comes from Piaget,
who observed how children learn. This doesn't mean that all lectures do not
work, but that most science lectures present a mismatch between the lecturer
and the audience which blocks learning. Limited lectures are appropriate
after exploration, and before application as Karplus and others found.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


I do not mean to overemphasize the importance of the power point/overhead
matter, it is nowhere near as important as the instructors ability to
communicate their ideas...the best power point in the world cant save a
poor instructor, all I mean to say is that if you reduce the "noise" in an
environment the more effective the communication. This is a basic tenant
of the Shannon-Weaver SMCR model of communication. There are, of course,
more complex models, but this servers as a good base.

The following link discusses the components of the SMCR model, including
noise created based on attitudes towards the sender of the message and the
message itself.

http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/introductory/sw.html

The basic idea idea for me is that if you are engaging and your audience
relates to you and actually has a desire to know what you want to teach
the learning process should be enhanced.