Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, recently suggested that
online courses herald the end of traditional lectures.
In an excellent article in The Observer newspaper, Philip Henshaw,
novelist and professor of creative writing at the University of Bath-Spa, UK
and John Mullan, writer and professor of English at University College London,
went head to head and argued the case for and against.
Henshaw argues: "Since I took to lecturing myself, I
generally approached it as cabaret. You and I have stood together and yammered
in front of silent audiences of sighing Germans. Since nobody much walked out,
we believed ourselves to be extraordinarily fascinating. This discovery for
academics is thrilling, and so there is an incentive to hang on to the
hour-long lecture. But, realistically, if one wanted to teach anyone anything,
I think one should make them participate, interrupt, ask questions, disagree,
talk back, and that's the alternative route I've taken. There are probably a
dozen lecturers in this country so brilliant you don't want to do
anything but listen to them for an hour. The rest of them should approach
learning as an exchange with students."
According to Mullan, this approach is flawed. "Participation,
interruption, disagreement – all those student responses you celebrate are
virtuous, of course, so you have class or seminar teaching, where they are part
of the deal. But sometimes the students want to know what the academic
knows," he says.
"Learning shouldn't all be exchanging thoughts with students
(and in the sciences and quantitative subjects it often cannot be this). The
students can find it frustrating (as they tell us) when they have to spend
their time listening to the least informed but most opinionated fellow student
in the room."
So does this logic apply for ophthalmology students? I'd welcome
your comments so let me know your views.
Colin Kerr
No comments:
Post a Comment