Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
|
|
|
Alan Bennett on Teaching
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login  | |
|
   
guitarbuddha
Posts: 2970
Joined: Jan. 4 2007
|
 RE: Alan Bennett on Teaching (in reply to Paul Magnussen)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Paul Magnussen
quote:
There are no easy solutions
No kidding.
I remember reading in the ’70s about Edward de Bono (the Lateral Thinking bloke), who, observing the pitiful critical faculties of many students, wanted to get thinking taught in schools.
So he went to the Teachers’ Union and proposed that the subject be taught. But, they said, there are no examinations and no syllabus, so what’s the point?
So he went to the examining boards and proposed that a syllabus and examinations be set up. But, they said, nobody teaches the subject, so what’s the point?
Yup it sure is strange.
Why just today some dude, who claims to be a teaching guru, dismissed the supreme goal of lateral thinking in art as childsplay. Makes me think of this Nietzsche quote on women;
'Women are considered deep - why? Because one can never discover any bottom to them. Women are not even shallow.'
If you replace women with 'people who take a pride in a certain shallow kind of 'professionalism'' then of course one realises that anyone who spends a life devoted to a subject and denies themselves access to its depths should be pitied. I have spent way too much time with these soulless shell shocked wretches in staffrooms countrywide.
Of course I do not share Nietzsche's views on women.
Almost needless to say the the same can be said of the shallow mystic who talks about the lofty plain yet never reveals it's fruits. Whether they be selling crystals or teaching half ars@d tai chi at your local community centre.
We should reach for the stars with our feet on the ground. But as usual it is too easy to imagine that we must abandon the stars to have our feet on the ground or else believe one day we will fly.
D.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Aug. 15 2013 22:14:38
 |
|
Richard Jernigan
Posts: 3431
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
|
|
RE: Alan Bennett on Teaching (in reply to guitarbuddha)
|
|
|
The supposed dichotomy between depth of learning and professional preparation is not inevitable, in the hands of a talented teacher who is allowed to teach.
R. L. Moore was arguably the most successful teacher of professional research mathematicians of the 20th century. His 50 PhD students dominated the field of topology during the middle half of the century, and they themselves produced numerous able, productive, and even famous research mathematicians.
Besides his distinction as a teacher, Moore was an outstandingly productive and original research mathematician, President of the American Mathematical Society, Member of the National Academy of Sciences, and so on.
Every year Moore taught freshman calculus. His method was utterly radical. He lectured perhaps a total of fifteen minutes during the two-semester course. Teaching was done via a brilliantly conceived and carefully graduated sequence of problems. Only one problem was assigned at each class meeting. The students were expected to solve the problems on their own and present the solutions at the next class meeting. There was no text, and students were forbidden to read.
By the middle of the fall semester the assigned problems included the proof of theorems in basic mathematical analysis. These were the beginnings of an education in pure mathematics.
At every meeting, Moore would call upon the students for their solutions. Unerringly, he began by calling upon the student least likely to have solved the problem, and worked his way up the list until someone claimed to have a solution. At times he would call on 25 or 30 people before someone presented a solution. Those without a solution were expected to pay careful attention, and to question anything they didn't follow.
The course was notoriously rigorous. Moore would accept about 35 students in the fall. Seldom did more than 25 sign up for the spring semester. There were no exams. Any student who presented a valid solution in class got the highest marks. The rest got the next highest if they persisted in attendance and showed continued interest.
Other professors at the University of Texas taught calculus the usual way. Fifty-minute lectures, reading of a text, and numerous drill problems to be done as homework, graded by a student assistant. Three or four tests were given during each semester, and a final exam. These courses were meant to prepare students for engineering and science.
Every year there was a prize examination. The winner got $100. The deal was that all the other professors could submit problems for the exam. They would elect one of their number to choose the problems for the exam. Moore would contribute only one problem, with the unanimous consent of the other professors. Every single year without exception a Moore student won the prize, with a perfect score.
RNJ
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Aug. 16 2013 19:32:51
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET |
6.152344E-02 secs.
|
Printable Version
