The decline and fall of the art of teaching?
- PDF / 107,199 Bytes
- 3 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 92 Downloads / 177 Views
The decline and fall of the art of teaching? Geoff Norman
Published online: 6 November 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013
It seems that every time I turn, around I encounter yet another educationalist who has been asked/ordered by her Dean to devise an online Master’s program in Health Sciences Education. I have not escaped their clutches—our M.Sc. program began last year, and I was responsible for the introductory course in learning and curriculum. Of course, that’s not the end of it. As universities exist in a state of chronic recession, it’s not sufficient to create a graduate course from scratch. The course must also be online, so that we can extract punitive tuitions from thousands of eager students worldwide. On the surface it does seem like a cash cow, although the economics are not that persuasive unless enrolment approaches that of the MOOCs (massive open online courses), and they often don’t even charge tuition. The received wisdom appears to be that regular online courses will take far more preparation time than a face to face course, and at least the same amount of ongoing commitment once it’s underway. The good news is that online instruction is purported to be as effective as face to face, in systematic reviews both within health sciences and elsewhere. Cook et al. (2008) examined 201 studies and showed that, in comparison to classroom instruction, internet instruction had an effect size of 0.12. They did find that one size does not fit all, and some components, like tutorials and practice exercises had a significant benefit. Outside health sciences, Yu, in the present issue, cites 5 different systematic reviews showing similar findings, what Russell (1999) labeled the ‘‘no significant difference phenomenon’’. So, like elevator operators, telephone receptionists, and train drivers, teachers can be replaced by computers? Well, maybe not. While the systematic reviews may examine how various instructional factors may influence learning, that is not the whole story. It is, I think, critical to go further and examine what is being learned and who is doing the learning. That is, the real effect of the teacher may arise only with particularly difficult concepts and particular students. We should not treat face to face instruction like ‘‘300 mg of face to face 3 times a week’’; instead it seems more plausible that good teachers will have a greater effect than less good teachers.
G. Norman (&) McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada e-mail: [email protected]
123
870
G. Norman
First, the ‘‘what’’ is being learned. It’s likely the case that there are many situations where the teacher may have a minimal role beyond taking attendance and entertaining. As Glenn Regehr says, ‘‘Learning isn’t fun. Learning fun things is fun. Learning boring things is boring. And learning hard things is hard…’’ Teachers may well be advised to, in many situations, assign some readings and then get out of the way so students can learn. But that may not always be the case. Some things are not easy to learn. In
Data Loading...
