• But in here it's so delightful - thoughts on Obama and the weather
• Protectionism: Everybody stimulate yourself!
• I like the pictures
• Mandela, King, Gandhi... Blagojevich
• Shovels are so 1933
• The cutting edge is nipping at its own tail
• Funny Because It's True (yet again)
• Obligatory Gaza
• Being Reasonable--reaction from the Muslim family recently thrown off a flight by AirTrain
• Won't you be my neighbor?
• Snowzilla
• ZOMG! Radioactive coal sludge will kill us all! (updated)
• Quick points on the auto industry bailout
• Slow and Steady
• Foreign policy and international public opinion

• January 2009
• December 2008
• November 2008
• October 2008
• September 2008
• August 2008
• July 2008
• June 2008
• May 2008
• April 2008
• March 2008
• February 2008
• January 2008
• November 2007
• October 2007
• September 2007
• August 2007
• July 2007
• June 2007
• May 2007
• April 2007
• March 2007
• February 2007
• January 2007
• December 2006
• November 2006
• October 2006
• September 2006
• August 2006
• July 2006
• June 2006
• May 2006
• April 2006
• March 2006
• February 2006
• January 2006
• December 2005
• November 2005
• October 2005
• September 2005
• August 2005
• July 2005
• June 2005

« Funny Because It's True (yet again) | Main | Shovels are so 1933 »

The cutting edge is nipping at its own tail

The New York Times reports on a groundbreaking new approach to science education:

[W]ith physicists across the country pushing for universities to do a better job of teaching science, M.I.T. has made a striking change.

The physics department has replaced the traditional large introductory lecture with smaller classes that emphasize hands-on, interactive, collaborative learning...

M.I.T. is not alone. Other universities are changing their ways... physicists have been pioneering teaching methods drawn from research showing that most students learn fundamental concepts more successfully, and are better able to apply them, through interactive, collaborative, student-centered learning.

Pioneering? I think it sounds awfully familiar.

"I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand."

This quote is often attributed to Confucius. I think it's safe to say the Times is giving a lot of credit to these educators today who are just revamping well-known concepts. It would be more appropriate to say that the needs of the universities have changed, than to say that we are pioneering brand new methods. As demand for degrees went up over the last century, so did class sizes. Recitations were introduced because students learn better in smaller classes. But projectors and movie clips permit a single lecturer to reach a large audience, while smaller class sizes would require more lecture-hours from the faculty. So large classes it has long been, not because we were unaware of the limitations of this method, but because it was what we had the time and money to do. It is good that this is changing, but again, it's not because we didn't know that more effective methods existed.

Technology will continue to change both the needs of these institutions and the teaching methods they "pioneer" to address them. Social networking is starting to be taken seriously, and the internet has been revolutionizing the way classrooms work. Accessibility to professors and classmates is changing, and input from people outside the classroom is becoming easier and easier to get. Whereas my own high school science teacher once wrote a letter to a university professor to get an answer about a topic that was beyond his ken, I might email or text one of my contacts. Rather than wait a week or more, I can get that information instantly for my students (assuming my contact is not in a meeting or the Bahamas). This will only get easier with time.

Science education (like most subjects) needs a lot of work, from the top down. Students walk into intro physics courses with a very poor understanding of mechanics and electromagnetism, despite having been exposed to these topics in high school and middle school, where class sizes are considerably smaller than the now abandoned 300 seat auditorium mentioned in the Times article. While I applaud universities like MIT for trying to do something about it, I think we need to remember that this is not a panacea. It does not address the issues that keep our high schools and middle schools from approaching their potentials. It will not take the place of motivation, which is especially necessary for the absolute top students in each field. These and other challenges could very easily be forgotten and left by the wayside in our haste to embrace the new MIT model of Confucian pedagogy.