tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post1778476933020880551..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Socrates and His MethodLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-55478256954472771232010-08-25T23:28:58.792-04:002010-08-25T23:28:58.792-04:00> I really, really dislike the idea of giving o...> I really, really dislike the idea of giving out marks just for participation.<br /><br />Agreed, in the setup I'm in, "thoughtful participation" is the requirement, along with the minimum requirement of posts. I shall see, I suppose, if I agree with their assessment of my level of thoughtfulness!lee_merrillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08757197085138422700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-64021373945092029832010-08-25T12:20:00.798-04:002010-08-25T12:20:00.798-04:00lee-merrill says,
I'm in a course right now (...lee-merrill says,<br /><br /><i>I'm in a course right now (Greek) where students are required to do four posts in a student-to-professor forum (ask the professor a question), four posts in a student-to-student forum (ask and answer questions with other students), and you also have to post your answer to some weekly topic questions, each one of these questions being its own sub-forum.<br /><br />This seems to work fairly well, maybe these being requirements helps keep a focus.</i><br /><br />The idea of forcing students to participate in online discussions has been tried, and debated, for almost ten years. Most courses give marks for participation in order to reward the students who post comments.<br /><br />The studies so far suggest that you have to give out marks for this exercise or students will just ignore the forum. When you offer a reward, the evidence suggests that many students will just do what's necessary to get the marks and they won't really get involved in the discussion.<br /><br />I really, really dislike the idea of giving out marks just for participation. What I've tried to do in the past is base some exam questions on the discussions that took place in the forum but many students objected to this. They pointed out that most of what goes on in the fora is a waste of time and they have better things to do with their time. <br /><br />They have a valid point.<br /><br><br>Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-72666488760197251242010-08-25T00:39:13.594-04:002010-08-25T00:39:13.594-04:00> Prof. Moran: However, there are a some proble...> Prof. Moran: However, there are a some problems with the online concept.<br /><br />Yes, I know of all these problems! They're endemic to Internet forums of any kind.<br /><br />I'm in a course right now (Greek) where students are required to do four posts in a student-to-professor forum (ask the professor a question), four posts in a student-to-student forum (ask and answer questions with other students), and you also have to post your answer to some weekly topic questions, each one of these questions being its own sub-forum.<br /><br />This seems to work fairly well, maybe these being requirements helps keep a focus.<br /><br />And maybe your setup could have students choose anonymous names, yet with their email addresses? This is pretty usual with Internet forums, and the email addresses could then be hidden, yet by knowing which student had which email address, participation could be verified.<br /><br />I'm not sure what to do about the ravenous posters, though! Maybe give demerits for over-posting...lee_merrillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08757197085138422700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-65296139951196510082010-08-25T00:37:23.808-04:002010-08-25T00:37:23.808-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.lee_merrillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08757197085138422700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-67957191012747275902010-08-23T11:24:52.184-04:002010-08-23T11:24:52.184-04:00lee-merril says,
So the online Socratic method wo...lee-merril says,<br /><br /><i>So the online Socratic method works! Q.E.D. :-)<br /><br />I believe it can work, and it can be better than in-class dialogue, because both students and professors have more time to consider and frame their points.</i><br /><br />Of course it can work online if it's done properly. It can never be as good as actual discussions in class but it's better than stupid lectures that just repeat what's in the textbook.<br /><br />We started our first online discussion groups back in 1988 as a supplement to our introductory biochemistry course. The problem back then was that too few students had access to the internet.<br /><br />We been much more successful in the past eight years after the university set up some systems to make these discussion much easier (e.g. <a href="http://biome.utoronto.ca/" rel="nofollow">BIOME</a>). However, there are a some problems with the online concept.<br /><br />First, it's really hard to get the majority of student to participate. The fora tend to be dominated by just a handful of students who really like the format. Most students don't like the rough and tumble of this kind of debate so they avoid it entirely. They don't even read the forum.<br /><br />Second, it's impossible to reward (or punish) students who participate by assigning grades. This is partly because the policy at the University of Toronto is to allow students to post anonymously. (It's the politically correct stance, but it defeats most of the purpose of the exercise.)<br /><br />Third, it's hard for the moderator (professor) to keep the discussion focused. The threads invariably degenerate into debates about whether someone was treated unfairly or whether the material will help you get a job.<br /><br><br>Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-53016259938974740322010-08-23T00:53:59.195-04:002010-08-23T00:53:59.195-04:00..and just to throw some fuel on the fire of this .....and just to throw some fuel on the fire of this education system agruemnt, here's a tidbit posted over at "Bad Science". <br /><br />https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=37148773&postID=1778476933020880551<br /><br /><i> “Measuring the Mathematics Problem” is a report done for the Engineering Council and other august bodies in 2000, analysing data from 60 departments of maths, physics and engineering who gave diagnostic tests on basic maths skills to their new undergraduates each year. They found strong evidence of a steady decline in scores on these tests, over the preceeing decade, among students accepted onto degree courses where they would naturally need good maths."</i><br /><br />This current student centric, goals oriented, school-as-a-stepping-stone-to-some-better-reward way of thinking about education is not actually helping anyone. It seems that modern thinkers in education are completely unaware of the Dunning-Kruger effect. It took me being kick out of my 1st undergrad program to realize that I actually had to try in university, after being spoon-fed through highschool. Sometime failure or being shown you are being stupid is the only way forward, regardless how uncomfortable you feel at the time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-69585506034426437432010-08-22T21:47:08.345-04:002010-08-22T21:47:08.345-04:00> Dr. Moran: Keep in mind that even this discus...> Dr. Moran: Keep in mind that even this discussion in the comments is an example of the Socratic method in the sense that it involves questions and answers.<br /><br />So the online Socratic method works! Q.E.D. :-)<br /><br />I believe it can work, and it can be better than in-class dialogue, because both students and professors have more time to consider and frame their points.<br /><br />Unless of course, you're training lawyers, where you're required to think on your feet.lee_merrillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08757197085138422700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-87628177279112000922010-08-21T20:27:56.929-04:002010-08-21T20:27:56.929-04:00Bayman says,
How to critically evaluate informati...Bayman says,<br /><br /><i>How to critically evaluate information you find on the web. How to engage in productive and critical discussion using the web and other internet-based tools.</i><br /><br />I very interested in teaching these things. However, I don't see it as anything other than teaching critical thinking. The skills needed to evaluate websites aren't any different than those required to evaluate books, TV programs, or verbal discourse. <br /><br />I think the idealized Socratic method is an excellent way to teach critical thinking. I await your description of a superior method.<br /><br /><i>We really haven't begun to tap into the potential of these tools. Because the best way to do these things in today's world is going to be different than the most effective methods that emerged from Iron age civilization.</i><br /><br />Please give me an example of how you propose to use internet based tools to teach critical thinking. Keep in mind that even this discussion in the comments is an example of the Socratic method in the sense that it involves questions and answers. Your proposal has to be something very different in order to support your claim.<br /><br><br>Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-18631636503173906592010-08-21T10:56:01.829-04:002010-08-21T10:56:01.829-04:00First of all, I am highly suspicious of your defin...First of all, I am highly suspicious of your definition of the so-called "Socratic Method" which seems to have appeared out of the evil and nebulous world of the internet. Surely a Wikipedia entry is not the proper basis for proper critical discussion amongst esteemed fellows of the academy?<br /><br />OK but ignoring the obvious irony of this clearly Socratic internet post and moving along...<br /><br />I share your nostalgia for Socratic ideals as much as anyone. But I disagree with what seems to be your implicit assumption that the best way to teach, now and forever, is some through sort of method that happened to be described in writing thousands of years ago in Greece. <br /><br />I think it's reasonable to expect that someday better methods might just evolve (or may have already even appeared!!!???). Like maybe now for example, in a time when human communication is being completely revolutionized some adaptation of classic approaches might be warranted?<br /><br />In fact, I think professors who are today teaching their students that the only proper way to learn is in some ivory tower classroom under the guidance of the esteemed white-beard are doing them an extreme disservice and should be fired. Students would emerge from such a program mentally handicapped and unfit to function in the modern world. They would totally unprepared to productively harness the vast stores of information and human interactivity offered by internet based technologies.<br /><br />Instead, universities should be teaching students to apply aspects of the Socratic and other pre-existing methods for critical thinking to these novel communication methods.<br /><br />How to critically evaluate information you find on the web. How to engage in productive and critical discussion using the web and other internet-based tools. We really haven't begun to tap into the potential of these tools. Because the best way to do these things in today's world is going to be different than the most effective methods that emerged from Iron age civilization.<br /><br />It's interesting and worthwhile to understand the Socratic method. I'm in favor of presenting it to students as one of many possible ways of learning, with a "take what you need" attitude. But not as some sort of model of intellectual perfection.Baymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03436172198266062229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40495347324900272202010-08-19T19:05:23.237-04:002010-08-19T19:05:23.237-04:00For what it may be worth:
Some years ago when I w...For what it may be worth: <br />Some years ago when I was Chair of a zoology department a senior professor that utilized the 'Socratic Method' in his invertebrate zoology course received awful student evaluations at the end of the course. However, in an evaluation from alumni years later this intructor was highest on the list of professors rated as the best students had as an instructor in their major.vichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00723296203635109377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-91021479529219018582010-08-19T14:43:09.421-04:002010-08-19T14:43:09.421-04:00For a few different reasons, I don't care for ...For a few different reasons, I don't care for the Socratic method, it's a myth based on <b>what we think Socrates was and did</b> not to best way to get started with university education. And was Socrates a great philosopher? I am underwhelmed.<br /><br />We should engage with more recent traditions, some time from the 1920s, because for a very long time universities were training schools for the clergy. How Bologna taught its students in 1100 CE or how Kautilya studied at Takshashila in 400 BCE is not germane. Universities became widely accessible around 100 years back and teaching methods that have developed since are of interest to us.<br /><br />Scholars are not necessarily (rarely ever?) good teachers. They tend to be arrogant, are sometimes not up to date (if their pet theories are dated and refuted) and are not aware of their own learning style, and have no idea how their students do. A teacher must<br />- be interested in how well his students do<br />- help students to finish the course with a better understanding of than they had when they entered<br />-be a persistent teacher and not give up on a struggling students easily<br />-must be capable of managing a variety learning experiences - debates, student led discussions, seminars, drills, lectures, experiments (thought or otherwise as the course demands), and guide a variety of assessments (exams, quizzes, field work, practice teaching etc)<br />-remain up to date on developments in the discipline even if he is not the one doing the developing<br /><br />Calling a student stupid is unacceptable. It took some time to get rid of corporal punishment and calling students names is an idea whose time is over. Critical thinking is little more than a buzzphrase. While some professors may have taken the trouble to understand and fashion a "critical thinking" method, most non-humanities professors think they know what it is, that's all. The ones who have fashioned a method are most often the <b>professors who actually teach</b>. I am sorry, if a professor he is not going to teach my son transport phenomena, is not interested in what my son is learning in TP, but is instead engaged in helping him with "critical thinking", you can bet I will badger the university till they fire that prof. <br /><br />Learning by rote and committing to memory is also important although not the only thing one must do.<br /><br />UG courses should be taught at least when the student has taken the trouble to enroll for a classroom course. I have studied and taught/trained in India and been to a graduate school in the US. I have learned in the US from professors all over the world (I went to a school with a v.diverse faculty). Our best teachers were in no order an American-American, an Indian-American, and a Greek-American - the latter two both being recent migrants themsleves. The former two both are from teacher families (and much to my surprise from families with 3 generations of experience in teaching). All three did not spend much time on research and publishing but have undoubtedly gotten there for being good scholar-scientists. One of them earned tenure and renounced it because he simply wants to teach. They are also v. popular UG teachers and every now and then offer UG courses as well. We also had star scientists who were inarticulate, and never taught a thing.<br /><br />TrutiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-42593688830313348472010-08-19T14:42:52.592-04:002010-08-19T14:42:52.592-04:00For a few different reasons, I don't care for ...For a few different reasons, I don't care for the Socratic method, it's a myth based on <b>what we think Socrates was and did</b> not to best way to get started with university education. And was Socrates a great philosopher? I am underwhelmed.<br /><br />We should engage with more recent traditions, some time from the 1920s, because for a very long time universities were training schools for the clergy. How Bologna taught its students in 1100 CE or how Kautilya studied at Takshashila in 400 BCE is not germane. Universities became widely accessible around 100 years back and teaching methods that have developed since are of interest to us.<br /><br />Scholars are not necessarily (rarely ever?) good teachers. They tend to be arrogant, are sometimes not up to date (if their pet theories are dated and refuted) and are not aware of their own learning style, and have no idea how their students do. A teacher must<br />- be interested in how well his students do<br />- help students to finish the course with a better understanding of than they had when they entered<br />-be a persistent teacher and not give up on a struggling students easily<br />-must be capable of managing a variety learning experiences - debates, student led discussions, seminars, drills, lectures, experiments (thought or otherwise as the course demands), and guide a variety of assessments (exams, quizzes, field work, practice teaching etc)<br />-remain up to date on developments in the discipline even if he is not the one doing the developing<br /><br />Calling a student stupid is unacceptable. It took some time to get rid of corporal punishment and calling students names is an idea whose time is over. Critical thinking is little more than a buzzphrase. While some professors may have taken the trouble to understand and fashion a "critical thinking" method, most non-humanities professors think they know what it is, that's all. The ones who have fashioned a method are most often the <b>professors who actually teach</b>. I am sorry, if a professor he is not going to teach my son transport phenomena, is not interested in what my son is learning in TP, but is instead engaged in helping him with "critical thinking", you can bet I will badger the university till they fire that prof. <br /><br />Learning by rote and committing to memory is also important although not the only thing one must do.<br /><br />UG courses should be taught at least when the student has taken the trouble to enroll for a classroom course. I have studied and taught/trained in India and been to a graduate school in the US. I have learned in the US from professors all over the world (I went to a school with a v.diverse faculty). Our best teachers were in no order an American-American, an Indian-American, and a Greek-American - the latter two both being recent migrants themsleves. The former two both are from teacher families (and much to my surprise from families with 3 generations of experience in teaching). All three did not spend much time on research and publishing but have undoubtedly gotten there for being good scholar-scientists. One of them earned tenure and renounced it because he simply wants to teach. They are also v. popular UG teachers and every now and then offer UG courses as well. We also had star scientists who were inarticulate, and never taught a thing.<br /><br />TrutiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-80406772747475816092010-08-19T14:33:06.734-04:002010-08-19T14:33:06.734-04:00The Socratic method would be the best in an ideal ...The Socratic method would be the best in an ideal world, but unfortunately we don't dwell in that world. It doesn't make sense to shoot for perfection when we know we'll fall quite short, when we can use other methods that, while aren't perfect, will get us further than we would attempting to use the `ideal` method. <br /><br />The cold hard fact is that there is going to be sub-par lecturers at universities. They are going to use poor class materials, or take good course material and use it poorly. I can't see the shame in recognizing either fact, and using technology to accommodate that. I would never argue that all education could be replaced by distance education (if only for the reason that we're social primates, and like to gather), but surely some component of education can be served through these new avenues.TwoYakshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18004999495564178762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-34150289872001464682010-08-19T14:00:28.650-04:002010-08-19T14:00:28.650-04:00Huey Freeman says,
Ethics? I have studied foucaul...Huey Freeman says,<br /><br /><i>Ethics? I have studied foucault's ethics as well as the hippocrathic ethic. However with regard to information, and knowledge seeking- I mainly use hacker ethics to govern if something is right or wrong. I believe all information should be open-source and available in an accessible format- your book online is in a open source format akin to pdf. Since you do not subscribe to this ethic.<br /><br />You will have a fun time searching for it- as I did back in the day. So I do not want to spoil it for you.<br /><br />Hint- there is a link to it on a forum, this forum is used by students (mainly in compsci and engsci) I think its an Asian website- maybe Taiwanese.<br /><br />Google will get you nowhere. Happy trails!</i><br /><br />Thank-you for being so honest. We'll have to agree to disagree. I think you were being highly unethical be condoning a group of Asian students who were breaking the law. <br /><br />What I find so astonishing is that you really think that your "hacker ethics" is justified. If you tried to defend that position in class you would soon hear the words "stupid" and "dumb" coming from the mouths of your fellow students.<br /><br />Is this some kind of ethics that you learned in your computer science courses?<br /><br><br>Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-58438308096322307582010-08-19T13:51:15.632-04:002010-08-19T13:51:15.632-04:00anonymous writes: The traditional law school curri...anonymous writes: <i>The traditional law school curriculum (especially the core first year courses) are still (largely) taught by a version of the Socratic method.</i><br /><br /><i>Having gone through it, I can see its merits.</i><br /><br />I, too, was taught in law school using supposedly "Socratic" methods. Having gone through it, I can't imagine what the supposed merits are.<br /><br />What my education convinced me of is that it's the teacher and not the method that largely determines effectiveness. Occasionally my "teachers" were books. I'm sure nearly everyone here has had the experience of valuable learning from reading, as I'm equally sure nearly all of us have had valuable learning experiences from personal contact with other teachers and students (both in and out of formal classroom settings). When I was a 7-year-old, I was teaching myself some very elementary chemistry from Isaac Asimov's "The World of Carbon" and "The World of Nitrogen," while school rules (I had to get special permission to take out these "advanced" books from the school library) and teachers (my 3rd-grade teacher said to my parents at a conference, "He's in 3rd grade and that means he should be reading 3rd grade books") put obstacles in the way of a child's love of learning.<br /><br />Two additional points:<br /><br />First, the idea of teaching people to think for themselves is fine (though I'm not sure folks who don't have the personality traits which would tend to foster that - the confidence to proceed independently, combined with the humility to self-critically evaluate and seek help from others - can be given them by virtue of time spent in even a stimulating classroom setting), but a certain amount of memorization is necessarily involved. That is, one must have something to think for oneself <i>about</i>.<br /><br />Second, Dr. Moran's criticism of online learning appears to be based on a narrow, frozen view of the available technology. What about online environments that provide for interaction equivalent to that experienced where the students and teachers are together in a classroom (or even outside the classroom)? For anyone who's used Skype - not nearly cutting-edge technology these days - and experienced its qualitative difference from non-video phone conversations, the implications for online education are evident.<br /><br />Currently there is a necessity for students to be at a particular location in order to access resources (labs for science students, shops for woodworking students without access to their own equipment, airports for those learning to fly), but technology may - in fact, likely will - reduce the need for this in the future.<br /><br />To summarize:<br /><br />- The most successful teaching "methods" are whatever the most successful teachers happen to be using.<br /><br />- Auto-didacticism is responsible for a great deal of education now, and there is no good reason why this should not continue to be so.<br /><br />- Learning "critical thinking," to whatever extent it is in fact a behavior that can be taught, must inevitably be accompanied by some amount of memorization in order to attain facility in a discipline.<br /><br />- The difference between collegiate and online environments regarding level of interaction among teachers and students, and access to particular resources, is shrinking due to increasing technological capabilities, and will almost certainly continue to shrink.<br /><br />In conclusion: I don't think a position "for" a classroom environment and "against" online education is currently very tenable, and feel it will become less so in the future.Judnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-82521359995633358762010-08-19T13:50:53.285-04:002010-08-19T13:50:53.285-04:00anonymous writes: The traditional law school curri...anonymous writes: <i>The traditional law school curriculum (especially the core first year courses) are still (largely) taught by a version of the Socratic method.</i><br /><br /><i>Having gone through it, I can see its merits.</i><br /><br />I, too, was taught in law school using supposedly "Socratic" methods. Having gone through it, I can't imagine what the supposed merits are.<br /><br />What my education convinced me of is that it's the teacher and not the method that largely determines effectiveness. Occasionally my "teachers" were books. I'm sure nearly everyone here has had the experience of valuable learning from reading, as I'm equally sure nearly all of us have had valuable learning experiences from personal contact with other teachers and students (both in and out of formal classroom settings). When I was a 7-year-old, I was teaching myself some very elementary chemistry from Isaac Asimov's "The World of Carbon" and "The World of Nitrogen," while school rules (I had to get special permission to take out these "advanced" books from the school library) and teachers (my 3rd-grade teacher said to my parents at a conference, "He's in 3rd grade and that means he should be reading 3rd grade books") put obstacles in the way of a child's love of learning.<br /><br />Two additional points:<br /><br />First, the idea of teaching people to think for themselves is fine (though I'm not sure folks who don't have the personality traits which would tend to foster that - the confidence to proceed independently, combined with the humility to self-critically evaluate and seek help from others - can be given them by virtue of time spent in even a stimulating classroom setting), but a certain amount of memorization is necessarily involved. That is, one must have something to think for oneself <i>about</i>.<br /><br />Second, Dr. Moran's criticism of online learning appears to be based on a narrow, frozen view of the available technology. What about online environments that provide for interaction equivalent to that experienced where the students and teachers are together in a classroom (or even outside the classroom)? For anyone who's used Skype - not nearly cutting-edge technology these days - and experienced its qualitative difference from non-video phone conversations, the implications for online education are evident.<br /><br />Currently there is a necessity for students to be at a particular location in order to access resources (labs for science students, shops for woodworking students without access to their own equipment, airports for those learning to fly), but technology may - in fact, likely will - reduce the need for this in the future.<br /><br />To summarize:<br /><br />- The most successful teaching "methods" are whatever the most successful teachers happen to be using.<br /><br />- Auto-didacticism is responsible for a great deal of education now, and there is no good reason why this should not continue to be so.<br /><br />- Learning "critical thinking," to whatever extent it is in fact a behavior that can be taught, must inevitably be accompanied by some amount of memorization in order to attain facility in a discipline.<br /><br />- The difference between collegiate and online environments regarding level of interaction among teachers and students, and access to particular resources, is shrinking due to increasing technological capabilities, and will almost certainly continue to shrink.<br /><br />In conclusion: I don't think a position "for" a classroom environment and "against" online education is currently very tenable, and feel it will become less so in the future.Judnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-79382945508843742282010-08-19T11:57:45.973-04:002010-08-19T11:57:45.973-04:00The Socratic method, as actually practiced by Socr...The Socratic method, as actually practiced by Socrates: Stay on the offensive. Criticize your opponents' ideas rather than defend your own. If you sense you are losing an argument, switch the topic to raising horses.Bayesian Bouffant, FCDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-56989239713802141952010-08-19T11:45:08.268-04:002010-08-19T11:45:08.268-04:00Prof Moran, you are confusing yourself- I thought ...Prof Moran, you are confusing yourself- I thought you said you cared about what content is delivered- and how well students are able to <b> LEARN </b> the material. Now you say you are trying to teach students <i>how to think </i>. I assume you are trying to get students to think logically- My argument (which you have misconstrued) is that thinking logically is a skill - like any other skill for it to be learned well, the skill must be taught and practiced in adequate conditions. Can you seriously defend the notion that university classes the class experience requires a student to think logically. Also can you defend the idea that online courses do not require students to think logically about material- they are essentially the same as normal classes in this regard. <br /><br />Ethics? I have studied foucault's ethics as well as the hippocrathic ethic. However with regard to information, and knowledge seeking- I mainly use hacker ethics to govern if something is right or wrong. I believe all information should be open-source and available in an accessible format- your book online is in a open source format akin to pdf. Since you do not subscribe to this ethic. <br /><br />You will have a fun time searching for it- as I did back in the day. So I do not want to spoil it for you. <br /><br />Hint- there is a link to it on a forum, this forum is used by students (mainly in compsci and engsci) I think its an Asian website- maybe Taiwanese. <br /><br />Google will get you nowhere. Happy trails!Huey Freemannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-10247017186346400862010-08-19T11:41:34.897-04:002010-08-19T11:41:34.897-04:00No protective eyewear. Egregious.No protective eyewear. Egregious.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-69979780180272130442010-08-19T11:40:13.885-04:002010-08-19T11:40:13.885-04:00Anonymous says,
I think they meant in general you...Anonymous says,<br /><br /><i>I think they meant in general you're not supposed to use the words Stupid or Dumb to describe a student. Those words have negative a very real stigma associated with them.</i><br /><br />When I say that a student is stupid or dumb that's exactly what I mean. I'm well aware of the fact that there can be a real "stigma" attached to learning the truth.<br /><br />When I complement a student by saying that they are intelligent or smart, that's exactly what I mean. They'll know that I'm not just being polite.<br /><br />BTW, have you ever seen what students say about professors on student fora or on "Rate My Professor"? It's pretty clear that they're prepared to handle the truth. They're not shy about using the words "dumb" and "stupid", and even worse. They know what those words mean.<br /><br /><i>You should probably say ridiculous (or something of that nature) Especially as a faculty member communicating on behalf of U of T (whether you like it or not- you represent the university all the time)</i><br /><br />Maybe I should say "intellectually impaired" or "logic deficient"? Maybe I should take them aside after a discussion in class and politely suggest that they drop the course before they flunk? Or maybe I should call in a professional guidance counselor who can break it to them gently so as not to hurt their feelings?<br /><br /><i>I can lend you a thesaurus. </i><br /><br />Thanks, I already have one.<br /><br><br>Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-28252134012505306622010-08-19T02:36:52.785-04:002010-08-19T02:36:52.785-04:00You can't get that kind of experience sitting ...<i>You can't get that kind of experience sitting at a monitor in your room.</i><br /><br />Indeed. If those course pictures are of any indication, it would take a very special effort to teach how to hold the pipetter consistently incorrectly - the way the students do. A special experience, doubtless. <br /><br />http://biochemistry.utoronto.ca/undergraduates/courses/BCH471Y/images/class10.jpg<br /><br />http://biochemistry.utoronto.ca/undergraduates/courses/BCH471Y/images/class7.jpg<br /><br />http://biochemistry.utoronto.ca/undergraduates/courses/BCH471Y/images/class6.jpg<br /><br />OTOH, they all wear gloves, so that's scientific experience.DKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-46772362573482518732010-08-18T23:09:17.076-04:002010-08-18T23:09:17.076-04:00I think they meant in general you're not suppo...I think they meant in general you're not supposed to use the words Stupid or Dumb to describe a student. Those words have negative a very real stigma associated with them. <br /><br />You should probably say ridiculous (or something of that nature) Especially as a faculty member communicating on behalf of U of T (whether you like it or not- you represent the university all the time) <br /><br />I can lend you a thesaurus.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-60095251501521312922010-08-18T22:39:51.054-04:002010-08-18T22:39:51.054-04:00Huey Freeman says,
Your book is still available o...Huey Freeman says,<br /><br /><i>Your book is still available online BTW!!</i><br /><br />Please supply the URL so I can confirm what you say.<br /><br />Assuming you are correct, did you have any qualms about taking advantage of an illegal act? Did you think it was unethical? Have you studied ethics in medical school?<br /><br><br>Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5099520186113836902010-08-18T22:35:41.212-04:002010-08-18T22:35:41.212-04:00Huey Freeman says,
But learning online is no diff...Huey Freeman says,<br /><br /><i>But learning online is no different from learning in a lab- in fact new research from the university of Western ontario in london, and some human factors group in england suggests that electronic anatomy labs are as effective at teaching gross anatomy and dissection as traditional cadaveric anatomy labs.</i><br /><br />Again, we're talking about two different things. I'm not talking about an anatomy lab were the goal is to memorize the look of certain tissues and human anatomy. I'm talking about an advanced biochemistry lab where you do real experiments and where you get real results—including failures.<br /><br />Here's an example: <a href="http://biochemistry.utoronto.ca/undergraduates/courses/BCH471Y/" rel="nofollow">BCH471Y</a>. You can't get that kind of experience sitting at a monitor in your room. <br /><br><br>Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-35839582510474777702010-08-18T22:26:42.474-04:002010-08-18T22:26:42.474-04:00Huey Freeman says,
Okay... My colleague posted on...Huey Freeman says,<br /><br /><i>Okay... My colleague posted on here a while ago- I see you have deleted his post -so I won't comment.</i><br /><br />The only "comments" I delete are spam. I'm very proud of the fact that anyone can comment on my blog.<br /><br /><i>First of all, An educator must never use the word stupid (or dumb or lame) this is very taboo. I know personally because I do research in medical education- and thus have spent a tremendous amount of time conversing with peers who do general education research.</i><br /><br />I know full well that you are expressing a common opinion. I just don't agree with it. Maybe it's a good idea to avoid suggesting that potential physicians are stupid or dumb. I have no experience teaching medical students.<br /><br /><i>It is saddening that a university professor has such a minute understanding of how students learn. Drawing from the literature (which you don't do often enough) let me give you a brief explanation of what learning is. Learning can be assessed in only two ways- long term retention, and transfer tests.</i><br /><br />I don't think we're talking the same language. I'm not that interested in "learning" as a priority. I'm interested in teaching students how to think. I'm especially interested in getting them to think critically about important issues. <br /><br />"Learning" is secondary.<br /><br />You're probably thinking about "learning" in medical school. <br /><br><br>Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.com