A very common resource among educators, but are master lecture rooms efficient to learn?The crowded classrooms, students sitting in the dark, unable to see the teacher, a voice in a microphone, slides on the screen of the project. The master classes are often described as boring and little attended, but should they be eliminated as an educational resource? Several academics argue about it. Consider your arguments. There is a great role of ultimate success master class
The characteristics of a good master class
- When these types of classes are dealt with seriously and carried out correctly, they are the most pragmatic way to teach those who want to know. Good master classes are possible and achievable, but nothing simple to organize, require great effort.
- Likewise, they require a high level of concentration, which implies an effort on the part of the teacher and the audience. A good class is hard work because it is the performance of a person, but at the same time requires the contribution of all for success or failure.
- They add that they have to deal with attendance problems and that the classes end half empty at the end of the semester. They even claim to have modified the course material, introduced online tests and even shown videos...
Explaining and learning are very distant facts
- Let's enter into delicate matter. The reform of the teaching methodology, at the university level, runs into an enormous difficulty: the conviction, on the part of the majority of the professors, that the control of the taught subject is exercised from what the teacher explains.
- It can be explained better or worse - that is how, traditionally, a good teacher is different from a bad teacher - but explanation is the basic parameter. Through the explanation we regulate the content of the course, in the explanations we can make more emphasis on what is important ... in short, through our narration we fix our attention on what we consider most relevant.
- But the argumentations, and the conceptual discussions, that the professor realizes, are lost in the intangible ethereal lightness. The average student says to himself: "Well, I have to look at this calmly afterwards, because now I do not understand anything". Or, what is worse and even more frequent: "ah, well I'm following it well, it's very easy", when in reality you have not understood practically nothing, as you will verify the one who tries to do some exercise.
What's going on? Why is something so round, like the explanation of a good teacher, so inefficient?
Explaining well is not easy. It requires an important effort, of the highest intellectual level. Proof of this is that the student appreciates, very willingly, the didactic efforts that the good teacher can make in improving their explanations. But the performance of these, in terms of the level of assimilation of the audience, is too low. My experience dictates that it is due, at least, some reasons:
The explanation is too ephemeral. Oral language can only be imperfectly retained in notes ... or volatility in the brains of students.
