Why would a student go to a lecture at all if everything was in the book already? The lectures make sense if and only if the lecturer tells more than in the book(s) and in more detail (or at least, in a better/more clear way). [not my comment]
Especially in light of the Internet in general, what is the added value of a lecture over a (hypertext)book?
Reasons I can think of:
spoken word might stick better, because our language is not primarily based on text,
the possibility to ask for clarification,
some material might not translate well to media
I dislike those arguments, because a huge class can neither run at a comfortable speed for all at once nor answer everyone's questions. The expectation seems to be that the students should be homogeneous and everyone nonconforming should be filtered out.
- personal contact affects us on a deeper level, role models are important
Depending on the class size, even that is doubtful.
- to form communities,
which would substitute or supplement the professors, but obviously at a different rate.
This is a trick question, because it depends on the style of the lecture. In my experience the lecturer is acting as a medium and I'm watching them half the time writing on the board, or someone is asking obvious or distracting questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment