Random Postings

Ebor

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
6,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
64
Location
Maryland
Asteriktos said:
Ebor said:
SolEX01 said:
^ How about Dean of Dignified Discussion?
:)  Don't Deans have be be appointed or chosen as opposed to claiming the title on their own?   If so, I guess it would be the Moderators and Admins who would be the committee...  ;D
Come on, that's not the American way. Just look at the way Americans have screwed up reinvented the martial arts, with all sorts of people creating their own styles and declaring themselves super duper 10th dan supreme grand masters. Just declare yourself dean, and ignore the naysayers!  :p
It would be so wrong.  Peer review of ones work and not promoting oneself is the proper way for Deans, I think.  ;) :)
 

Fr. George

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
21,844
Reaction score
24
Points
38
Age
39
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
GiC said:
Fr. George said:
GiC said:
I can't count how many high school classes I got B's in instead of A's because I flat out refused to do most the homework. In general it's useless busy work that doesn't teach you anything not covered in the lecture, what's the point?
Some people get it without the homework, some people need the repetition to understand the underlying principle.  For being a man of the people, you sure don't do well understanding different learning needs...
But you know me well enough to know that I'm also an elitist when it comes to academic circles; especially the most reverend and esteemed discipline of mathematics...heck, I get offended when engineers use mathematical principles they are unable to derive and prove using the fundamental axioms of number theory, analysis, and topology. ;)
Let's face it - your elitism has been waning lately.  4 years ago your last statement would have said "heck, I get offended by engineers" instead of its current form.
 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,123
Reaction score
45
Points
48
Age
41
Ebor said:
Asteriktos said:
Ebor said:
SolEX01 said:
^ How about Dean of Dignified Discussion?
:)  Don't Deans have be be appointed or chosen as opposed to claiming the title on their own?   If so, I guess it would be the Moderators and Admins who would be the committee...  ;D
Come on, that's not the American way. Just look at the way Americans have screwed up reinvented the martial arts, with all sorts of people creating their own styles and declaring themselves super duper 10th dan supreme grand masters. Just declare yourself dean, and ignore the naysayers!  :p
It would be so wrong.  Peer review of ones work and not promoting oneself is the proper way for Deans, I think.   ;) :)
What about the Dean of Mean, Keith Jardine? He's terrible, but he doesn't let that stop him...

 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
GiC said:
Papist said:
GiC said:
Papist said:
GiC said:
Papist said:
GiC said:
I can't count how many high school classes I got B's in instead of A's because I flat out refused to do most the homework. In general it's useless busy work that doesn't teach you anything not covered in the lecture, what's the point?
There is alot less lecturing in the High School classroom these days. Its more about discovery learning and higher level thinking skills. The home work is there to drill the basic skills.
Sounds like people are trying to blame poor teaching methods and abilities on S.E.C. ;D
Are you suggesting that lecture is a better teaching method?
Having been forced to endure some of the teaching methods you speak of in Secondary School...I'd say that without the hint of hesitation or doubt. Nothing like taking a month to teach a subject that should take one lecture hour.
Look, lecture is for me the best method of learning. But I am a fairly intelligent person, as are you. However, for most students this method does not work as well. In fact, most research demonstrates that of all the teaching methods regurlarly used, lecture has the least positive effect. Sorry to say that this but for the masses, there is no evidence that lectures are effective.
I remember in high school that we spent probably a semester (between Pre-Calculus and Calculus I) teaching the concept of an integral. 'Exploring' this idea of area under the curve being approximated by rectangles, belabouring a concept as simple as the limit week after week, then doing it all again the following year. It's a VERY simple concept, one lecture to introduce the concept, one more to provide the theoretical background, two more to derive the 'rules' used for practical application...with class every day, that's LESS than ONE WEEK. If it would make people feel better, you could spend the last day of that week going over examples to make the concept obvious (as though it wouldn't be already), the next week you could move on to something else.

Lecture is a better approach for two reasons, first it gives you all the information in a logically ordered fashion making it much easier to grasp and internalize the subject than the shotgun approach of 'exploration'. Secondly, and most importantly, the lecture is MUCH more efficient, as I discussed above, you can do in a week what in some schools today will occupy a semester. Education takes long enough without slowing instruction down to a snail's pace, to do so wastes time that could be spent on other topics, DEPRIVING students of the education they deserve.

There's a place for 'exploration', we call it research. It's MUCH harder, not easier, than learning from a lecture. Giving the choice of 'exploring' the Riemann Hypothesis myself or sitting down and have someone lecture me on how it's proven, I certainly know what choice I'd take; unfortunately, we enjoy no such luxury on this matter. If someone thinks mathematical research is easier than a lecture on mathematics, they'd do much better to start publishing their own original proofs than sitting through a high school math class.
Which is all good and fine except for the fact that all the data from actual research suggests that lecture is the weekest form of teaching with the smallest effect size.
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Papist said:
GiC said:
Papist said:
GiC said:
Papist said:
GiC said:
Papist said:
GiC said:
I can't count how many high school classes I got B's in instead of A's because I flat out refused to do most the homework. In general it's useless busy work that doesn't teach you anything not covered in the lecture, what's the point?
There is alot less lecturing in the High School classroom these days. Its more about discovery learning and higher level thinking skills. The home work is there to drill the basic skills.
Sounds like people are trying to blame poor teaching methods and abilities on S.E.C. ;D
Are you suggesting that lecture is a better teaching method?
Having been forced to endure some of the teaching methods you speak of in Secondary School...I'd say that without the hint of hesitation or doubt. Nothing like taking a month to teach a subject that should take one lecture hour.
Look, lecture is for me the best method of learning. But I am a fairly intelligent person, as are you. However, for most students this method does not work as well. In fact, most research demonstrates that of all the teaching methods regurlarly used, lecture has the least positive effect. Sorry to say that this but for the masses, there is no evidence that lectures are effective.
I remember in high school that we spent probably a semester (between Pre-Calculus and Calculus I) teaching the concept of an integral. 'Exploring' this idea of area under the curve being approximated by rectangles, belabouring a concept as simple as the limit week after week, then doing it all again the following year. It's a VERY simple concept, one lecture to introduce the concept, one more to provide the theoretical background, two more to derive the 'rules' used for practical application...with class every day, that's LESS than ONE WEEK. If it would make people feel better, you could spend the last day of that week going over examples to make the concept obvious (as though it wouldn't be already), the next week you could move on to something else.

Lecture is a better approach for two reasons, first it gives you all the information in a logically ordered fashion making it much easier to grasp and internalize the subject than the shotgun approach of 'exploration'. Secondly, and most importantly, the lecture is MUCH more efficient, as I discussed above, you can do in a week what in some schools today will occupy a semester. Education takes long enough without slowing instruction down to a snail's pace, to do so wastes time that could be spent on other topics, DEPRIVING students of the education they deserve.

There's a place for 'exploration', we call it research. It's MUCH harder, not easier, than learning from a lecture. Giving the choice of 'exploring' the Riemann Hypothesis myself or sitting down and have someone lecture me on how it's proven, I certainly know what choice I'd take; unfortunately, we enjoy no such luxury on this matter. If someone thinks mathematical research is easier than a lecture on mathematics, they'd do much better to start publishing their own original proofs than sitting through a high school math class.
Which is all good and fine except for the fact that all the data from actual research suggests that lecture is the weekest form of teaching with the smallest effect size.
One thing I've noticed with lectures is that those who pay attention and don't allow their minds to wonder do just fine with them, if someone isn't going to bother paying attention, why should we care if they get anything out of it? I'd be curious how effective it would be if you only took into account those who actually paid attention?

But more to the point, do you have an 'exploration' based curriculum that can present information as quickly and efficiently as a lecture? My primary argument against non-lecture formats has always been that they waste time.
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
GiC said:
Papist said:
GiC said:
Papist said:
GiC said:
Papist said:
GiC said:
Papist said:
GiC said:
I can't count how many high school classes I got B's in instead of A's because I flat out refused to do most the homework. In general it's useless busy work that doesn't teach you anything not covered in the lecture, what's the point?
There is alot less lecturing in the High School classroom these days. Its more about discovery learning and higher level thinking skills. The home work is there to drill the basic skills.
Sounds like people are trying to blame poor teaching methods and abilities on S.E.C. ;D
Are you suggesting that lecture is a better teaching method?
Having been forced to endure some of the teaching methods you speak of in Secondary School...I'd say that without the hint of hesitation or doubt. Nothing like taking a month to teach a subject that should take one lecture hour.
Look, lecture is for me the best method of learning. But I am a fairly intelligent person, as are you. However, for most students this method does not work as well. In fact, most research demonstrates that of all the teaching methods regurlarly used, lecture has the least positive effect. Sorry to say that this but for the masses, there is no evidence that lectures are effective.
I remember in high school that we spent probably a semester (between Pre-Calculus and Calculus I) teaching the concept of an integral. 'Exploring' this idea of area under the curve being approximated by rectangles, belabouring a concept as simple as the limit week after week, then doing it all again the following year. It's a VERY simple concept, one lecture to introduce the concept, one more to provide the theoretical background, two more to derive the 'rules' used for practical application...with class every day, that's LESS than ONE WEEK. If it would make people feel better, you could spend the last day of that week going over examples to make the concept obvious (as though it wouldn't be already), the next week you could move on to something else.

Lecture is a better approach for two reasons, first it gives you all the information in a logically ordered fashion making it much easier to grasp and internalize the subject than the shotgun approach of 'exploration'. Secondly, and most importantly, the lecture is MUCH more efficient, as I discussed above, you can do in a week what in some schools today will occupy a semester. Education takes long enough without slowing instruction down to a snail's pace, to do so wastes time that could be spent on other topics, DEPRIVING students of the education they deserve.

There's a place for 'exploration', we call it research. It's MUCH harder, not easier, than learning from a lecture. Giving the choice of 'exploring' the Riemann Hypothesis myself or sitting down and have someone lecture me on how it's proven, I certainly know what choice I'd take; unfortunately, we enjoy no such luxury on this matter. If someone thinks mathematical research is easier than a lecture on mathematics, they'd do much better to start publishing their own original proofs than sitting through a high school math class.
Which is all good and fine except for the fact that all the data from actual research suggests that lecture is the weekest form of teaching with the smallest effect size.
One thing I've noticed with lectures is that those who pay attention and don't allow their minds to wonder do just fine with them, if someone isn't going to bother paying attention, why should we care if they get anything out of it? I'd be curious how effective it would be if you only took into account those who actually paid attention?
Well, you are probably gonna be concerned about it and that student fails in school, ends up and welfare, and robs you at the ATM.
 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
Asteriktos said:
Ebor said:
Asteriktos said:
Ebor said:
SolEX01 said:
^ How about Dean of Dignified Discussion?
:)  Don't Deans have be be appointed or chosen as opposed to claiming the title on their own?   If so, I guess it would be the Moderators and Admins who would be the committee...  ;D
Come on, that's not the American way. Just look at the way Americans have screwed up reinvented the martial arts, with all sorts of people creating their own styles and declaring themselves super duper 10th dan supreme grand masters. Just declare yourself dean, and ignore the naysayers!  :p
It would be so wrong.  Peer review of ones work and not promoting oneself is the proper way for Deans, I think.   ;) :)
What about the Dean of Mean, Keith Jardine?
He may be average, but at least he's at the top of average.
 
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
3,397
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
41
Fr. George said:
According to my post total, I need a hobby.
To be fair Father, a large percentage of that total was made prior to your marriage, the birth of your daughter, and your ordination. I am sure in the upcoming years, your daily post average will go down. ;)
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Papist said:
GiC said:
Papist said:
GiC said:
Papist said:
GiC said:
Papist said:
GiC said:
Papist said:
GiC said:
I can't count how many high school classes I got B's in instead of A's because I flat out refused to do most the homework. In general it's useless busy work that doesn't teach you anything not covered in the lecture, what's the point?
There is alot less lecturing in the High School classroom these days. Its more about discovery learning and higher level thinking skills. The home work is there to drill the basic skills.
Sounds like people are trying to blame poor teaching methods and abilities on S.E.C. ;D
Are you suggesting that lecture is a better teaching method?
Having been forced to endure some of the teaching methods you speak of in Secondary School...I'd say that without the hint of hesitation or doubt. Nothing like taking a month to teach a subject that should take one lecture hour.
Look, lecture is for me the best method of learning. But I am a fairly intelligent person, as are you. However, for most students this method does not work as well. In fact, most research demonstrates that of all the teaching methods regurlarly used, lecture has the least positive effect. Sorry to say that this but for the masses, there is no evidence that lectures are effective.
I remember in high school that we spent probably a semester (between Pre-Calculus and Calculus I) teaching the concept of an integral. 'Exploring' this idea of area under the curve being approximated by rectangles, belabouring a concept as simple as the limit week after week, then doing it all again the following year. It's a VERY simple concept, one lecture to introduce the concept, one more to provide the theoretical background, two more to derive the 'rules' used for practical application...with class every day, that's LESS than ONE WEEK. If it would make people feel better, you could spend the last day of that week going over examples to make the concept obvious (as though it wouldn't be already), the next week you could move on to something else.

Lecture is a better approach for two reasons, first it gives you all the information in a logically ordered fashion making it much easier to grasp and internalize the subject than the shotgun approach of 'exploration'. Secondly, and most importantly, the lecture is MUCH more efficient, as I discussed above, you can do in a week what in some schools today will occupy a semester. Education takes long enough without slowing instruction down to a snail's pace, to do so wastes time that could be spent on other topics, DEPRIVING students of the education they deserve.

There's a place for 'exploration', we call it research. It's MUCH harder, not easier, than learning from a lecture. Giving the choice of 'exploring' the Riemann Hypothesis myself or sitting down and have someone lecture me on how it's proven, I certainly know what choice I'd take; unfortunately, we enjoy no such luxury on this matter. If someone thinks mathematical research is easier than a lecture on mathematics, they'd do much better to start publishing their own original proofs than sitting through a high school math class.
Which is all good and fine except for the fact that all the data from actual research suggests that lecture is the weekest form of teaching with the smallest effect size.
One thing I've noticed with lectures is that those who pay attention and don't allow their minds to wonder do just fine with them, if someone isn't going to bother paying attention, why should we care if they get anything out of it? I'd be curious how effective it would be if you only took into account those who actually paid attention?
Well, you are probably gonna be concerned about it and that student fails in school, ends up and welfare, and robs you at the ATM.
Wow. I am gonna call myself out here. Was drunk while typing?
 

Fr. George

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
21,844
Reaction score
24
Points
38
Age
39
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
HandmaidenofGod said:
Fr. George said:
According to my post total, I need a hobby.
To be fair Father, a large percentage of that total was made prior to your marriage, the birth of your daughter, and your ordination. I am sure in the upcoming years, your daily post average will go down. ;)  
Don't go by time - you've got to go by rate.  My posting rate after my marriage is 12.2/day.  Since the birth of my daughter, about 9.13/day.  And since Ordination, 12.4/day.  Each of those is higher than my overall average of 7.44/day.

Of course, my overall average is affected by the fact that in my first year I only made 173 posts (to contrast, I've already made well more than that this month).  My average minus the first year is in the mid- to upper-9's.  

(Yes, I like statistical analysis.  At least to a limited degree.)
 

SolEX01

Toumarches
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
13,747
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Location
Central Maryland
Website
www.goarch.org
I'm just 342 posts away (counting this one) from the next milestone as I continue my posting fast to lower my average to 8 posts per day or less by my 2nd anniversary on this forum.
 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,123
Reaction score
45
Points
48
Age
41
That graphic reminded me of borg nanoprobes... is the future pre-determined!? Is resistance futile!?
 
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
3,397
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
41
Fr. George said:
HandmaidenofGod said:
Fr. George said:
According to my post total, I need a hobby.
To be fair Father, a large percentage of that total was made prior to your marriage, the birth of your daughter, and your ordination. I am sure in the upcoming years, your daily post average will go down. ;) 
Don't go by time - you've got to go by rate.  My posting rate after my marriage is 12.2/day.  Since the birth of my daughter, about 9.13/day.  And since Ordination, 12.4/day.  Each of those is higher than my overall average of 7.44/day.

Of course, my overall average is affected by the fact that in my first year I only made 173 posts (to contrast, I've already made well more than that this month).  My average minus the first year is in the mid- to upper-9's. 

(Yes, I like statistical analysis.  At least to a limited degree.)
Okay, this post alone shows that you need a hobby, as you had the time and mental energy to look all that information up and analyze it. LOL
 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,123
Reaction score
45
Points
48
Age
41
Kevin lost on Top Chef. He was my favorite contestant, but I must admit that he sort of confused me. He seemed to be a pious Catholic (wore a rosary, abstained from meat during Lent, etc.), yet he had no issues dropping F-bombs on national television. *shrugs* Anyway...  maybe I was just a fan of his beard... supposedly his beard had it's own fan club on facebook.

 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Nebelpfade said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-2Xw-GNkUQ

Such a cool looking CG of the medical future.
I can imagine Glen Beck seeing this and talking about the end of the world and new world order.

But if they can can make neurobots, do you know how many nervous conditions we can cure?  Christopher Reeves and Ronald Reagan would have dreamed of this day.
 

Friul

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
4,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Earth, Solar System, Local Interstellar Cloud, Loc
Website
www.iheu.org
minasoliman said:
I can imagine Glen Beck seeing this and talking about the end of the world and new world order.

But if they can can make neurobots, do you know how many nervous conditions we can cure?  Christopher Reeves and Ronald Reagan would have dreamed of this day.
Plus imagine the abilities of small armies of nanobots travelling through the blood stream.  Cancer cells destroyed on sight, the ability to control or eliminate HIV/AIDS, etc.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Nebelpfade said:
minasoliman said:
I can imagine Glen Beck seeing this and talking about the end of the world and new world order.

But if they can can make neurobots, do you know how many nervous conditions we can cure?  Christopher Reeves and Ronald Reagan would have dreamed of this day.
Plus imagine the abilities of small armies of nanobots travelling through the blood stream.  Cancer cells destroyed on sight, the ability to control or eliminate HIV/AIDS, etc.
Indeed, the next decade may in fact be the birth of nanosurgery in the field of Medicine.
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Papist said:
GiC said:
Papist said:
GiC said:
Papist said:
GiC said:
Papist said:
GiC said:
Papist said:
GiC said:
I can't count how many high school classes I got B's in instead of A's because I flat out refused to do most the homework. In general it's useless busy work that doesn't teach you anything not covered in the lecture, what's the point?
There is alot less lecturing in the High School classroom these days. Its more about discovery learning and higher level thinking skills. The home work is there to drill the basic skills.
Sounds like people are trying to blame poor teaching methods and abilities on S.E.C. ;D
Are you suggesting that lecture is a better teaching method?
Having been forced to endure some of the teaching methods you speak of in Secondary School...I'd say that without the hint of hesitation or doubt. Nothing like taking a month to teach a subject that should take one lecture hour.
Look, lecture is for me the best method of learning. But I am a fairly intelligent person, as are you. However, for most students this method does not work as well. In fact, most research demonstrates that of all the teaching methods regurlarly used, lecture has the least positive effect. Sorry to say that this but for the masses, there is no evidence that lectures are effective.
I remember in high school that we spent probably a semester (between Pre-Calculus and Calculus I) teaching the concept of an integral. 'Exploring' this idea of area under the curve being approximated by rectangles, belabouring a concept as simple as the limit week after week, then doing it all again the following year. It's a VERY simple concept, one lecture to introduce the concept, one more to provide the theoretical background, two more to derive the 'rules' used for practical application...with class every day, that's LESS than ONE WEEK. If it would make people feel better, you could spend the last day of that week going over examples to make the concept obvious (as though it wouldn't be already), the next week you could move on to something else.

Lecture is a better approach for two reasons, first it gives you all the information in a logically ordered fashion making it much easier to grasp and internalize the subject than the shotgun approach of 'exploration'. Secondly, and most importantly, the lecture is MUCH more efficient, as I discussed above, you can do in a week what in some schools today will occupy a semester. Education takes long enough without slowing instruction down to a snail's pace, to do so wastes time that could be spent on other topics, DEPRIVING students of the education they deserve.

There's a place for 'exploration', we call it research. It's MUCH harder, not easier, than learning from a lecture. Giving the choice of 'exploring' the Riemann Hypothesis myself or sitting down and have someone lecture me on how it's proven, I certainly know what choice I'd take; unfortunately, we enjoy no such luxury on this matter. If someone thinks mathematical research is easier than a lecture on mathematics, they'd do much better to start publishing their own original proofs than sitting through a high school math class.
Which is all good and fine except for the fact that all the data from actual research suggests that lecture is the weekest form of teaching with the smallest effect size.
One thing I've noticed with lectures is that those who pay attention and don't allow their minds to wonder do just fine with them, if someone isn't going to bother paying attention, why should we care if they get anything out of it? I'd be curious how effective it would be if you only took into account those who actually paid attention?
Well, you are probably gonna be concerned about it and that student fails in school, ends up and welfare, and robs you at the ATM.
Well, any more everyone says you need a college education to be successful, so should we dumb down that curriculum as well? I mean, why require proofs to get a math degree, or quantum mechanics for a physics degree, or biochemistry for a biology degree...those things are hard, they might discourage students who would drop out of college. And why stop with the bachelors? Maybe we should start awarding Ph.D. for effort, without regard for the quality of academic work and original research?

I'm all for making education as widely available as possible, but not at the expense of a rigorous and efficient curriculum; if you get rid of those things, nobody's education has any value.
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
GiC said:
Papist said:
GiC said:
Papist said:
GiC said:
Papist said:
GiC said:
Papist said:
GiC said:
Papist said:
GiC said:
I can't count how many high school classes I got B's in instead of A's because I flat out refused to do most the homework. In general it's useless busy work that doesn't teach you anything not covered in the lecture, what's the point?
There is alot less lecturing in the High School classroom these days. Its more about discovery learning and higher level thinking skills. The home work is there to drill the basic skills.
Sounds like people are trying to blame poor teaching methods and abilities on S.E.C. ;D
Are you suggesting that lecture is a better teaching method?
Having been forced to endure some of the teaching methods you speak of in Secondary School...I'd say that without the hint of hesitation or doubt. Nothing like taking a month to teach a subject that should take one lecture hour.
Look, lecture is for me the best method of learning. But I am a fairly intelligent person, as are you. However, for most students this method does not work as well. In fact, most research demonstrates that of all the teaching methods regurlarly used, lecture has the least positive effect. Sorry to say that this but for the masses, there is no evidence that lectures are effective.
I remember in high school that we spent probably a semester (between Pre-Calculus and Calculus I) teaching the concept of an integral. 'Exploring' this idea of area under the curve being approximated by rectangles, belabouring a concept as simple as the limit week after week, then doing it all again the following year. It's a VERY simple concept, one lecture to introduce the concept, one more to provide the theoretical background, two more to derive the 'rules' used for practical application...with class every day, that's LESS than ONE WEEK. If it would make people feel better, you could spend the last day of that week going over examples to make the concept obvious (as though it wouldn't be already), the next week you could move on to something else.

Lecture is a better approach for two reasons, first it gives you all the information in a logically ordered fashion making it much easier to grasp and internalize the subject than the shotgun approach of 'exploration'. Secondly, and most importantly, the lecture is MUCH more efficient, as I discussed above, you can do in a week what in some schools today will occupy a semester. Education takes long enough without slowing instruction down to a snail's pace, to do so wastes time that could be spent on other topics, DEPRIVING students of the education they deserve.

There's a place for 'exploration', we call it research. It's MUCH harder, not easier, than learning from a lecture. Giving the choice of 'exploring' the Riemann Hypothesis myself or sitting down and have someone lecture me on how it's proven, I certainly know what choice I'd take; unfortunately, we enjoy no such luxury on this matter. If someone thinks mathematical research is easier than a lecture on mathematics, they'd do much better to start publishing their own original proofs than sitting through a high school math class.
Which is all good and fine except for the fact that all the data from actual research suggests that lecture is the weekest form of teaching with the smallest effect size.
One thing I've noticed with lectures is that those who pay attention and don't allow their minds to wonder do just fine with them, if someone isn't going to bother paying attention, why should we care if they get anything out of it? I'd be curious how effective it would be if you only took into account those who actually paid attention?
Well, you are probably gonna be concerned about it and that student fails in school, ends up and welfare, and robs you at the ATM.
Well, any more everyone says you need a college education to be successful, so should we dumb down that curriculum as well? I mean, why require proofs to get a math degree, or quantum mechanics for a physics degree, or biochemistry for a biology degree...those things are hard, they might discourage students who would drop out of college. And why stop with the bachelors? Maybe we should start awarding Ph.D. for effort, without regard for the quality of academic work and original research?

I'm all for making education as widely available as possible, but not at the expense of a rigorous and efficient curriculum; if you get rid of those things, nobody's education has any value.
The problem is that you have no idea what goes on in a classroom. Its not about "dumbing down" the curriculum. Rather, its about getting students to use their higher level thinking skills and helping them to become creative and critical thinkers, rather than throwing information at them and hoping it sticks. We are creating an environment of rigor rather than an evironment of mediocricy. I would think you would like the idea of creating learners and thinkers rather than tape recorders. Again, every bit of evidence from research has demonstrated that the lecture only model only addresses the lowest level of thinking. But if you want students who can analyze, create, synthesize, apply, and evaluate, you need more than a lecture.
 

Fr. George

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
21,844
Reaction score
24
Points
38
Age
39
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Papist said:
HandmaidenofGod said:
Drunk still you are. 
That's it. I need to read my posts three times before letting anyone else see them.
If you're that drunk, you'll be able to see your post 3 times at once before letting others see it.
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Fr. George said:
Papist said:
HandmaidenofGod said:
Drunk still you are. 
That's it. I need to read my posts three times before letting anyone else see them.
If you're that drunk, you'll be able to see your post 3 times at once before letting others see it.
LOL. I actually haven't been drunk in a very long time but my post give the appearance that I have an alcohol problem. LOL
 
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
3,397
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
41
Papist said:
Fr. George said:
Papist said:
HandmaidenofGod said:
Drunk still you are. 
That's it. I need to read my posts three times before letting anyone else see them.
If you're that drunk, you'll be able to see your post 3 times at once before letting others see it.
LOL. I actually haven't been drunk in a very long time but my post give the appearance that I have an alcohol problem. LOL
The first step to recovery is admitting you have the problem. ;) :p
 

Fr. George

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
21,844
Reaction score
24
Points
38
Age
39
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
HandmaidenofGod said:
The first step to recovery is admitting you have the problem. ;) :p
All of us who have more than 2 or 3 thousand posts have a problem... Forum addiction. ;)
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Fr. George said:
HandmaidenofGod said:
The first step to recovery is admitting you have the problem. ;) :p
All of us who have more than 2 or 3 thousand posts have a problem... Forum addiction. ;)
Very true. BTW, if you notice I am getting close to my 4,000 post goal. I will most certainly be there by the end of the year.
 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,123
Reaction score
45
Points
48
Age
41
Fr. George said:
HandmaidenofGod said:
The first step to recovery is admitting you have the problem. ;) :p
All of us who have more than 2 or 3 thousand posts have a problem... Forum addiction. ;)
Hi, I'm Justin, and I'm a forum addict. And I have an advanced form of it, because I'm a binge poster. My stats would seem to indicate a rather modest 2.169 posts per day, but the number is only that low because I take lengthy vacations from the forum. My posts per day when I'm actually here at the forum is probably more like 12+.
 

Fr. George

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
21,844
Reaction score
24
Points
38
Age
39
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
ytterbiumanalyst said:
Fr. George said:
ytterbiumanalyst said:
He may be average, but at least he's at the top of average.
What an awful joke.
Wakka wakka!
Well, since you put it that way... Fozzy never made statistics jokes, so you're at least above his level.  Congrats.
 

Fr. George

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
21,844
Reaction score
24
Points
38
Age
39
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Asteriktos said:
Fr. George said:
All of us who have more than 2 or 3 thousand posts have a problem... Forum addiction. ;)
Hi, I'm Justin, and I'm a forum addict. And I have an advanced form of it, because I'm a binge poster. My stats would seem to indicate a rather modest 2.169 posts per day, but the number is only that low because I take lengthy vacations from the forum. My posts per day when I'm actually here at the forum is probably more like 12+. 
Hi Justin.  We'll find you a good sponsor - someone who has been active on the forum since its inception but who has less than 1,000 posts... Someone like CDHealy.
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Papist said:
GiC said:
Papist said:
GiC said:
Papist said:
GiC said:
Papist said:
GiC said:
Papist said:
GiC said:
Papist said:
GiC said:
I can't count how many high school classes I got B's in instead of A's because I flat out refused to do most the homework. In general it's useless busy work that doesn't teach you anything not covered in the lecture, what's the point?
There is alot less lecturing in the High School classroom these days. Its more about discovery learning and higher level thinking skills. The home work is there to drill the basic skills.
Sounds like people are trying to blame poor teaching methods and abilities on S.E.C. ;D
Are you suggesting that lecture is a better teaching method?
Having been forced to endure some of the teaching methods you speak of in Secondary School...I'd say that without the hint of hesitation or doubt. Nothing like taking a month to teach a subject that should take one lecture hour.
Look, lecture is for me the best method of learning. But I am a fairly intelligent person, as are you. However, for most students this method does not work as well. In fact, most research demonstrates that of all the teaching methods regurlarly used, lecture has the least positive effect. Sorry to say that this but for the masses, there is no evidence that lectures are effective.
I remember in high school that we spent probably a semester (between Pre-Calculus and Calculus I) teaching the concept of an integral. 'Exploring' this idea of area under the curve being approximated by rectangles, belabouring a concept as simple as the limit week after week, then doing it all again the following year. It's a VERY simple concept, one lecture to introduce the concept, one more to provide the theoretical background, two more to derive the 'rules' used for practical application...with class every day, that's LESS than ONE WEEK. If it would make people feel better, you could spend the last day of that week going over examples to make the concept obvious (as though it wouldn't be already), the next week you could move on to something else.

Lecture is a better approach for two reasons, first it gives you all the information in a logically ordered fashion making it much easier to grasp and internalize the subject than the shotgun approach of 'exploration'. Secondly, and most importantly, the lecture is MUCH more efficient, as I discussed above, you can do in a week what in some schools today will occupy a semester. Education takes long enough without slowing instruction down to a snail's pace, to do so wastes time that could be spent on other topics, DEPRIVING students of the education they deserve.

There's a place for 'exploration', we call it research. It's MUCH harder, not easier, than learning from a lecture. Giving the choice of 'exploring' the Riemann Hypothesis myself or sitting down and have someone lecture me on how it's proven, I certainly know what choice I'd take; unfortunately, we enjoy no such luxury on this matter. If someone thinks mathematical research is easier than a lecture on mathematics, they'd do much better to start publishing their own original proofs than sitting through a high school math class.
Which is all good and fine except for the fact that all the data from actual research suggests that lecture is the weekest form of teaching with the smallest effect size.
One thing I've noticed with lectures is that those who pay attention and don't allow their minds to wonder do just fine with them, if someone isn't going to bother paying attention, why should we care if they get anything out of it? I'd be curious how effective it would be if you only took into account those who actually paid attention?
Well, you are probably gonna be concerned about it and that student fails in school, ends up and welfare, and robs you at the ATM.
Well, any more everyone says you need a college education to be successful, so should we dumb down that curriculum as well? I mean, why require proofs to get a math degree, or quantum mechanics for a physics degree, or biochemistry for a biology degree...those things are hard, they might discourage students who would drop out of college. And why stop with the bachelors? Maybe we should start awarding Ph.D. for effort, without regard for the quality of academic work and original research?

I'm all for making education as widely available as possible, but not at the expense of a rigorous and efficient curriculum; if you get rid of those things, nobody's education has any value.
The problem is that you have no idea what goes on in a classroom. Its not about "dumbing down" the curriculum. Rather, its about getting students to use their higher level thinking skills and helping them to become creative and critical thinkers, rather than throwing information at them and hoping it sticks. We are creating an environment of rigor rather than an evironment of mediocricy. I would think you would like the idea of creating learners and thinkers rather than tape recorders. Again, every bit of evidence from research has demonstrated that the lecture only model only addresses the lowest level of thinking. But if you want students who can analyze, create, synthesize, apply, and evaluate, you need more than a lecture.
Ok, but then I have one question, if this is the most effective way of teaching mathematics, why is it completely unheard of in Upper Division and Graduate level classes in both Theoretical and Applied Mathematics. Surely you're not suggesting that creative thinking and learning is not essential in Theoretical Mathematics (it's probably not so important in something as easy and straightforward as applied mathematics, but in theoretical mathematics?) But, still, it was universal consensus that the best way to teach was a lecture format, going through the proofs of theorem after theorem, which served the purpose of a) familiarizing with the already established theorems in the field that are essential for anyone who will pursue more advanced classes or research to know and b) by giving the proofs of these theorems allowing the students to see the approaches several mathematicians throughout history have used to prove their theorems. Of course, tests always consisted of proofs of new theorems that none of us had ever seen before. Creative thinking was certainly required to pass the class, but it's the universal consensus in universities across the nation that the best way to teach this is to give the students the greatest possible exposure to the field (and it's a common complaint that four years, even with fast-paced lecture, isn't enough even for an undergraduate education in the field).

If you actually want to teach creative thinking and understanding, theorems and proofs, the theoretical foundation of mathematics, would be infinitely more valuable than 'exploration' of applied subjects.
 

Fr. George

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
21,844
Reaction score
24
Points
38
Age
39
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Methinks you two need to trim the nested quotes a bit.  Take a little off the top.
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
GiC said:
If you actually want to teach creative thinking and understanding, theorems and proofs, the theoretical foundation of mathematics, would be infinitely more valuable than 'exploration' of applied subjects.
First, all research based data disagrees with your conclusion. So you are arguing in favor of a now refuted view point. You might as well be a young-earther. Second, it doesn't happen in upper level math classes because, let's be honest, most college professor are not very good teachers. They are there for their research and care very little about being effective teachers. Third, you cannot compare a graduate level student with a high school freshman. Apples and oranges my friend. Most freshmen have developed the intellecutal capacity to draw out information from a borring lecture the way a college grad has. They are in completely different stages of mental development. Fourth, just because things are done a certain way in college does not mean that its the right way.
Finally, I would again like to emphasize the fact that research on learning and teaching demonstrates that the "lecture only" model of learning is the the least effective.

BTW, explorations in math help students to understand why certain equations work they way they do and where they come from. Just thought you should know that.
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Thought you guys might enjoy this:




From a reader:


I have a question for you. Suppose during a EF Mass, a gunman or threatening person enters the church, and opens fire. What can be done within the rubrics to protect the Blessed Sacrament, the priest, the servers, and the congregation? Please keep in mind that the congregation is made up of slow, aging men, who no offense to them, really can’t protect anyone.

Lemme get this straight… what rubrics are followed in case of gunfire...?

I believe there is a little known rubric which calls for the deacon and subdeacon (who in any event should be packing) to take out, reverently, their .9mm and return fire.  As I read it, they are to recite the Maledictory Psalms while firing.  At the change of a clip/magazine, they may bow, or duck. 

In the case of, probability actually… of the mention of the Holy Name, it is still necessary to uncover.

If one crosses the sanctuary, however, honorifics are not to be observed.

In the case of an incapacitating wound, it is permitted for the priest celebrant, or one of the sacred ministers, or any priest in choir, to give the assailant, et al., last rites. 

Any bishop present ought immediately place himself in the line of fire between the assailant and the priest celebrant and then begin to remonstrate with the attacker, invoking the help of St. Michael.  He is to wave his arms and shout: "in manus tuas commendo spiritum meum".



Complete Article:



http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/12/quaeritur-what-rubrics-to-follow-at-mass-in-case-of-gunfire/
 
Top