It has been seen that many teachers in universities have become entertainers rather than focusing mainly on value-addition and learning. A lot of time gets devoted to pleasing the students; knowing them personally; building good relations with them; and telling jokes and creating humour; the focus becomes more of good feedback than rigor. Keeping the audience motivated is good for effective teaching; but since a lot of time goes in entertainment less time remains for analysis and conceptualization. What is your preference and why?
Agree with Adel, Rigorous learning with occasional fun may lean better. In 1 hour class 45 min of rigorous teaching/ discussion and 10-15 min of fun/ joke etc in between helps the students better attentive. Unlike skeletal muscle the brain tissue gets fatigue rapidly and losses attention.
http://teacher.scholastic.com/professional/bruceperry/brainlearns.htm
Rigorous learning is essential in conveying information and knowledge to students. But in addition to that, it is better for teacher to focus also on learning with entertainment.
Hi friends, with the genY students that I have, born in 1996, learning is always better if there's fun. I'm not against fun, if the learning goes well. Here is an analogy, remember the song:
'Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down,
The medicine go down, the medicine go down,
Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down,
In a most delightful way.'
Dear Debi
Teacher need to focus on making the learning process as simple and rewarding as possible. He/she should therefore use any means for the purpose. There is no point teacher to remain stiff and deliver a monotonic lecture which may be rigorous but will not serve the purpose. Telling jokes that will reinforce the concept is more important than simply telling some stupid jokes to just humor the students. See a simple cartoon I use to teach students about strength of materials.
Hello to everyone,
I believe that the classroom time is up several different movements. Also classes develop over a semester or a year, for example. So this time may include activities and learning different movements. We also have intelligence that can develop in various dimensions (multiple intelligences) and learning can use all of these intelligences. It should also defirnir whatever fun or learn "with entertainment." I do not understand this term as learn from play (although they may appear at certain times too). My understanding is diversified activities in order to develop many different skills, using different strategies and facilitates learning. Learning involves rigor but also involves motivation and willingness to learn (which should be developed in students). We can start with simple activities that trigger complex movements. I already gave a course on globalization for students in the 9th grade using cartoons to newspapers from around the world with critical insights on the process of globalization. They had so much fun collecting and analyzing the cartoons. The final study involved a comparison between aspects contained in theories of globalization and the critiques by them in cartoons. Was evidently used the internet to research the cartoons which also motivated the students.
I also think that there are cultural issues involved in this discussion involving student discipline, the relationship between teachers and students etc ...
Not to over extend this post, I will staying here ... but we'll talk more.
See you later,
S.
Dear Debi,
I think teachers should choose the method best suitable for their students. This provides the challenge as well as the enormous diversity of the teaching.
I also agree with Adel. Entertainment can be used as a comic relief at various points in a rigorous discussion or lecture. It's like sprinkling salt on your greens: makes it go down easier. One must always keep in mind that entertainment is no replacement for rigorous and critical thinking.
Here is another thread that is similar with some interesting thoughts.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_you_use_some_comic_art_in_your_teaching?cp=re65_x_p2&ch=reg&loginT=0aawLfZV4odFT85wjZPDx4BOG4Ijnyr68BW8WfvY6Mw%2A&pli=1#view=53970c97cf57d7b43e8b45c4
Many people are known to be very good in delivery; but if you see content in what they say, it is little. I invited a guest speaker from industry, she throughout involved the students for these 180 minutes. They must have felt fresh as they were involved in answering commonsense questions that she asked. When the sessions were over, there was a lot of clapping. But I was terribly disappointed, as there was virtually no content. I have found that in a good number of other such sessions. There was no depth; it was perfunctory. I was asking myself, whether I did the right thing in inviting her!
I use stories, occasional jokes, cartoons and humour to buttress my formulations; which increases the attention of the students. Of course, one has to work indeed very hard to search some relevant humour. But my endeavour is that the students must learn the concepts in sufficient, if not highly rigorous, complexity.
I have also seen that while analyzing cases some students just hanker around the symptoms, and would not go into the causal roots to explain what the problem in the case is and why it has occurred. It is for overcoming this type of limitations that we need to emphasize that entertainment focus should not lead to perfunctory teaching. I agree with the point expressed by most of you which in effect means that entertainment can only supplement content and not supplant it.
I choose learning with entertainment proportionally.
Some students needs to relax and can be outreach with entertainment if it goes to theory and conceptual understanding.
While other need rigorius learning as that is their way of learning and for those who need to behave more.
But when it goes to chemical practice or physic as fusion reaction its need to be rigirious as it have to use strict rule.
I've known teacher whose good in delivery as good as depth of content.
But as Prof. Debi said at least only 1 out of 3 on that kind of teacher. Two of teacher especially industrial practicioner good in delivery as attracting students but not deep in content this one needs to be brief first on the day we invite them. Because they might not know what really the thing that they need to give in context of deep rather than entertaining.
Dear Debi,
It really is a paradox of our time. We have more information available than in any era of our history, however, our critical faculties, our power of reflection and complexity in approaching things and facts is deeply impaired.
Certainly rigorous learning involves the critical ability of what we learn, inclusive. Give value, value judgment, and achieve joint information of complex and deeply underlies a deep learning.
Of course you can not do it all through play and just playing. But I think using the play moderately, to motivate, strengthen attention to something or to break certain times when the whole thing starts to get a little monotonous is important.
Speakers-show are also a current phenomenon. My strategy is to use what they say (or do not speak, actually) as a reverse discourse leading students to realize how shallow is their approach and how lack of knowledge and complexity in his speech.
Take the maximum of the "nothing is lost, everything is transformed" the ultimate consequences (laughs).
See you later,
S.
I am in favor of rigorous learning...
According to me 'rigorous learning' is most important ....
I believe learning is a serious business! I would therefore adopt the approach of "interesting" or motivating learning! what do you think?
Dear Sergio: you are so very right. I fully support this view. I am also an advocate of moderate play so as to motivate the class. I think, if you make a light atmosphere in the class, it is easier for the students to grasp the concepts and inter-relate them. This is especially important as i have observed that Gen Y students do not take notes in India, though my Danish students take copious notes. So the problem is how to remember. Stories do help.
Dear Nishant
You must indeed have been a very good student. The best students are often not in favour of entertainment. They are so hungry for knowledge. But I believe that rigorous learning can also be made interesting by making things simple, developing confidence in yourself (I mean the teacher) by thorough preparation of the lecture to be delivered, and by keeping yourself physically fit. One needs good energy to deliver an influential lecture. Unlike in Europe where classes are of 45 minutes to 1 hour, in my institute we have 90 to 180 minutes classes.
Undoubtedly, Nishant, theoretical rigour is very important. Many people have such a great clarity about tedious concepts; they can make highly complex things very simple. Perhaps, then we need far less entertainment. While stressing the value orientation of a well formulated theory, K. Lewin (1951) has observed:“There is nothing so practical as a good theory” I am attaching a paper that might be interesting to some.
http://faculty.washington.edu/agg/pdf/NothingSoTheoretical.PPS.2012.pdf
All work and no play, makes Jack a dull boy! I think this holds true in all cases. Again a golden mean should be achieved with more learning and moderate fun !
Personally I prefer the second one. I don't know whether I am a successful teacher or not but I have seen my students usually don't miss my classes. I take the course Pharmaceutical Management which is a pretty boring one for pharmacy students! But they enjoy the class. I think if you give them "entertainment" they will give you back their "attention".
Dear Debi, thank you for interest question.
Perhaps we need to define the rigorous learning and its goals before further discussion. Most answers concentrate on using or not using the entertainment in the class. with the goals given below, I am in favor of rigorous learning. A little entertainment which is related to the course materials does nit hurt!
What are rigorous learning goals?
Rigorous learning goals are specific standards set by teachers and administrators to which students must aspire. Rather than using broad or general ideas like grade-level reading and math, students should be given an objective for each class or content area, the purpose of that objective, and a weekly or even daily agenda. Students are often involved in setting individual goals that help them advance or reach the learning goals.
In order to promote rigorous learning, teachers must clearly explain how and why they have set the academic benchmarks they are using, especially as they relate to real-world applications. Students then undergo regular checkups, or formative assessment, to determine how they are faring in this rigorous environment. Ongoing use of formative assessment strategies ensures that students are comprehending instruction and deriving meaning from the material they are learning.
These are a few things a rigorous learning curriculum should include:
Higher-order thinking skills
Depth and complexity of material
Required investment of time outside of class
Research
Problem solving
Critical thinking exercises
Acceleration above grade-level work
Relevant writing across content areas
http://www.mentoringminds.com/blog/applying-rigorous-learning-goals/
Teaching also goes well with AIDA -
Attention grab,
Interest Creation,
Desire to learn invoked,
Active Learning
I'm not an expert, but I believe there is a modern trend that considers important to teach with fun. I'm not sure that's so good.
If this "entertainment" comes to improving the human part of teaching, so can run. If it is just something circus, can be a waste of time.
I would argue that a teacher should focus on rigorous learning and the facilitation of that learning---and importantly avoid the pressures of grade inflation or we are "cheating" the future. However, with that said they should also be a master of facilitating the learning process and that involves creating engaging and intriguing learning opportunities that enhance the freedom within that learning environment to "take risks", be creative and to explore divergent thinking ---so I guess in short I am saying you can focus on rigor in an engaging and motivational manner to achieve learning success, but you do not need to do the bells and whistle
Once upon a time when I attended my Chemistry class, my late teacher was a very strict one, when he asked questions and we can't answer he will hit our desk. Those who were not strong enough will definitely cry. And we came to his lab in fear.
When I attended my Biology class, my teacher always bring humour when explaining. He will use gestures and body movement to explain the abstract term.
My Mathematics teacher was more of a father-figure. Always provide us with guidance and advises even after class to ensure we all got As.
Four years after, for my undergraduate course, my major was Biology and my minor was Maths. Today, I become a special education officer reading Biology education for my PhD.
So Prof., my answer - rigorous learning is good but bring us back to home - laughter and love works well in class. Violence is outdated!
Dear Fatimah
Thanks for sharing your story. Perhaps, in subjects like sciences and mathematics there is much less scope for spending the whole class by narrating semi-relevant things through gossips and stories. My subject is human resource management. Many HRM teachers who do not update themselves and do not have much content with them, have the art of spending the whole class in talking general semi-relevant things, and still becoming popular with the students through extraneous means. Actually, my question was intended to such subjects where that kind of entertainment is possible. I can understand your concern for making the classroom atmosphere comfortable.
Thanks and cheers
I do agree with Mr. Adel M. Aladwani
I myself am a student and I do like some occasional fun. I would prefer the lecture to begin with a small activity or a joke that is associated to the topic at hand and give a fun entry to the subject. Most people (especially students) do not prefer a very strict and monotonous explanation of the subject, but rather prefer a more casual approach. But I do not go for a totally entertaining manner, as that would take more time. A good 40% rigor and a 60% casual ratio is great.
I hope I do not hurt the feelings of any rigorous Professors as it is in my opinion. Thank You
Dear All,
I am a teacher and not a clown. I teach and however teaching is as well a personnel performance my objective is to bring my subjects nearer to students. I cannot sacrifice the aim and the essence for a method. I feel the real science itself at university level should be an entertainment as well.
I am a professor with experience teaching Physiopatology in a School of Medicine and Clinical Chemistry in a School of Pharmacy and Biochemistry. Since many years, I am Emeritus Professor, Dean of Pharmacy and Biochemistry School , always in well known Universiies. Rigourous teaching must be in line with modern developmment, and I think that a way to guide the students is to introduce them in the history of a given problem, the several mistakes in the first experiments and the pleasure to reach new achievements, taking in mind that probably the final goal is far away.
I fully agree with you Andras and Mohammed. For alll those who are interestied in gaining knowledge just the process of acqiuring it, may be entertaining in itself.
How can one say that they teach a university-level course if it is not rigorous? Rigor takes many forms. It can be based on the complexity of the topic, unfamiliarity with the topic, a new way of thinking required to master the topic, and/or the level of creative and critical thinking required to be applied to the topic.
As for entertainment, all of you have demonstrated many ways in which you can "entertain" students. Each of us develops our own brand of entertainment that fits our teaching philosophy.
Personally, I use humor as a teaching tool because that is who I am. I have been a student and fan of comedy since I was a young child. Listen carefully to your favorite stand-up comic. Good comedy requires intelligence and creativity to combine thoughts in an unexpected manner--creative and critical thinking.
In class, if I use too much humor it becomes a distraction and makes my lesson less effective. Also, my humor must be related to a topic. I often use strange and/or humorous organizations or products in my accounting examples because my students tell me that it is easier for them to remember my goofy examples than the examples provided in the textbook. This works for me. It may or may not work for you. I have a friend whose class is the antithesis of mine. He is very strict and does not use much humor. His students like and respect him, and they learn a lot. Use the strengths of your personality and knowledge to your advantage to deliver effective learning opportunities.
The study in the university is not obligatory. Hence, the main obligation of a university professor is to transmit the knowledge in a professional and honest way. . I strongly believe that entertainment is not part of our job. During the class several incidents can happen and the professor should resolve them without panic and with humor. Joking also can help when you feel that the students are not concentrated. But one should be careful because some of your students can misunderstand your joke or can think that you are speaking seriously.
Perhaps this has been mentioned already but ...
" A lot of time gets devoted to pleasing the students; knowing them personally; building good relations with them; and telling jokes and creating humour; the focus becomes more of good feedback than rigor. Keeping the audience motivated is good for effective teaching; but since a lot of time goes in entertainment less time remains for analysis and conceptualization" is not necessarily antithetical to "value added and learning." A joke can carry a lot of meaning sometimes ...
Dear David: You have truly said what was there in my mind--100%--when I posed the question. Ironically, the number of such teachers in increasing. That is the most unfortunate part. @ Kazaros has said it so beautifully in the following words: "The study in the university is not obligatory. Hence, the main obligation of a university professor is to transmit the knowledge in a professional and honest way." Of course, I am not saying that there should not be humour and jokes to create a relaxed atmosphere; but not at the cost of rigour. In fact, last year a students of mine, who was a manager in company, told me: " You are one of the few whose teaching is not oriented to obtaining a good feedback;" most of our teachers are busy pleasing us for feedback. First time, I heard that from a student about teachers.
There's a word in English wchich can cause ambiguities in other languages: "fun". When we say that learning should be "fun", this can be interpreted in different ways. In Italian, for example, "fun" is often though as pure entertainment. I believe that, beyond labels such as "fun" and "rigorous learning", real learning takes place when the shole human being is involved cognitively as well as emotionally, i.e. when one's mind is engaged in making and testing hypotheses, analysing ans synthesizing, etc. - then there is no real need to make distinctions. In other words, a focus on content (even is the content is "fun") does not ensure "per se" active personal involvement, which is also the result of focus on process, i.e. learning activities which imply the active elaboration of that content. Just remember the "flow theory", when you're so involved in the task that you're not even aware of the fact that you're working "to learn". Of course this implies a careful balance in terms of task difficulty, between support provided by the teacher, peers and materials, and challenge, i.e. a problem which can be solved by the learner within the her/his actual "zone of proximal development".
I first thought this was a trick question. Of course, rigorous learning should be favored over learning with entertainment. However, it really depends on how you define "rigorous" and "entertainment." In our mathematics department, some faculty view rigorous as difficult, precise, high level abstraction. Yet, others in the same math department have described rigorous learning as understanding the concept or process so much so that they can explain the principle to another. Rigor is reasoning with understanding.
Likewise, entertainment could suggest, perhaps, the importance of enjoyment, intrinsic rewards that come with learning. The notion of "flow" when engaging in appropriately challenging problems could also be part of this. Sense of humor and laughter is also a possible indicator of a safe and productive classroom environment. But I don't think entertainment really conveys what I am getting at here.
IMO, bias toward the first with an appropriate conception of rigor and recognizing the importance of affect in a productive learning environment.
When people are having fun or playing games together, more often than not they are concentrating, engaged, listening, and active participants. These are exactly the cognitive responses most of us would like in our learners.
To paraphrase a popular philosophy joke - what is the difference between an academic and a ruler? A rules goes for 12 inches but an academic goes on and on and on.
I like David, favour rigour but you often get better outcomes from school students (and many university students) if the material is presented in an engaging manner and a way is found to connect the new knowledge to existing knowledge in authentic ways. It is a long time since my high school days but I still remember what peristalsis is - largely because the teacher helped me drink a class of water standing on my head!
One way to engage students and have fun and get them to learn is to use role play. You can use compelling narratives and allow learners to choose character roles. There is a growing body of evidence that this approach can help achieve learning outcomes and make learning a more enjoyable experience.
Kieran,
That is a great idea. A friend of mine does that in her tax courses. She conducts mock trials, but instead of a student being the judge, she gets an actual IRS agent or CPA to be the judge.
Surely they are not mutually exclusive. I am aware of research that indicates humour is a salient feature of engagement in learning.
Role play does require a little bit of preparation however. You need scenarios beforehand, good facilitators and a good environment, and adequate time for debriefing. You might need technology - depending on what you are trying to role play. But technology should not dominate - the learners and learning outcomes are what should drive the process.
As a former teacher of 16 years, I observed ample evidence that when students are "on the edge of their seats" (highly engaged) they do remember better and many will continue thinking about the experience for a good while afterwards; however, the debriefing, as Kieran mentions, is often critical to actually deepening understanding. Another helpful strategy is to follow the role-play with exposure to a live version of the scenario. Example: when teaching government in Maine, we would do mock town meetings, taking the roles of townspeople and following an actual town warrant. Afterwards, we attended a town meeting together to observe similarities and differences in comparison to our simulation - as well as some components are role play might have missed. Video could also work here.
Videoing role play can make a real difference - especially to the debriefing. Enabling learners to watch their own performance on a video can have a powerful effect on their insight and subsequent behaviour.
Hello Colleagues,
Good day to you all.
My answer to this question is going to be short but significant.
No man is an island. All learning is social (Vygostsky, 1978). This is the very reason why current learning and teaching embraces social constructivism (Vygostsky, 1978). We do not live in a bubble. We interact with people on a daily basis. This is the same thing for students.
In real life, there are times when we are serious, and there are times when are jovial. In light of that, both forms of learning ought to be embraced in the pedagogical process as it wholly represents real-life scenarios.
Regards,
Kerwin.
---------------------------------------------------
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interactions between learning and development. In Mind in Society (pp. 79-91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Retrieved March 30, 2014, from
http://www.psy.cmu.edu/~siegler/vygotsky78.pdf
Hello to everyone,
I think we learn better about things we like (motivation), in ways that we like to learn and with people they like and know how to teach. I personally think that things are serious but do not need to be boring (at least all the time l0l). I do not think teachers should become clowns to teach, though a bit of humor, lightness, joy, companionship, friendship, technology, jokes and smiles some time to learn (and teach) will not do harm to anyone. Sometimes simple things can be. Does work very well. Art and technology also. Working on projects too. Children and young people love to build and make things they did and built. So teach using "entertainment" does not always mean just being funny. I mean just provide more pleasant conditions to learn (and teach) something.
See you later,
S.
Ones perception of rigorous teaching and entertainment varies. Rigorous teaching interspersed with humor and entertainment is my preferred choice as experiential learning is more effective compared to a rigorous method. Games jokes etc. may be used very effectively in bringing home the need for the topic and drawing the students attention. Entertainment need not be perceived as " student pleasers" rather as a means of making learning more fun and enjoyable.
Kerwin and Segio have introducedt the important idea that learnming is not about the passive transfer of knowledge from a master to a novice (didactic approach), but about active processing of information, reconstrcution of it, expression of it in multiple forms. This type of learning is much easier managed in a school environment than in a traditional university (although perhaps tertiary students would benefit from a more holistic learning approach).
If rigour equals imparting content, and entertainment equals attempts to engage students in learning, I still maintain that both are necessary. Blance is the key.
I'm not a fan of entertainment! I 've watched staff have 'goodie boxes' and stand on lecterns to shock students, try and be 'cool' and be part of the student group etc. We are in danger of losing the real value of education if we try and mirror 'quick fix', trendy, flashy methods to engage our students. What about deep learning that is not about those things but instead is about real engagement, discussion of ideas and original thinking. What is important is relationships, connections, empathy - actually caring for your students, their wellbeing and outcomes. This is what being a teacher is all about in my opinion and students respond accordingly. I find the more student-centred I become - giving my students the opportunity to take responsibility for their own learning, the more successful my teaching is. They don't need extrinsic rewards because they are self-motivated. Problem-based learning is a great tool for doing this.
teaching session should be customized to participants requirements of course in line with the teaching contents planned......More than teaching session being Rigorous or entertaining it needs to informative and learnable to those who participate to become benefited....hence ....To make the sessions be interesting adaptive learning simulations such as Case studies, Role enactments, debates, labs etc., can be organized to break the monotony of regimental learning.....
Rigorous learning is essential, however the trick to it is creating a learning environment whereby the student doesn't realize it. Before we began going to school (aka a formal learning environment) we played....and learned through play. Some of that learning was rigorous, some of it was fun/entertainment. Could we tell the difference?
Hi Fellow Lecturers,
Agree with all others with blended teaching combining theory, practical applications interspered with humour. Explainations with reference to student's reality situations enables them to remember. I dozed off listening to boring theoretical lecturers when I was a student. Lets make an impact that student can remember even when they graduate!
I agree with those who have implied this is a false dichotomy. Most of us who teach enjoy our subjects--depending on our personality and areas of expertise, we may even especially enjoy the "rigorous" parts. But even if that's the case, did we enjoy a professor droning on, providing a paraphrase of what was already in the textbook?
Our professional lives are social; our work is competitive at times and cooperative at times, and sometimes both at the same time. If we're not giving students that sense, then we're not teaching the subject fully.
So while a corny joke may keep students awake and attending, it's not as good as some of the other suggestions people have made: role-playing, gamification, engagement in problem-solving where there is no one "right answer." These things are entertaining because practicing whatever the subject is should itself be entertaining to the practitioners.
I don't want to pretend there's no trade-off in doing those things--it usually means covering the material more slowly but more thoroughly. When there's a lot on the syllabus, those techniques may have to be used sparingly.
And one final work on "jokes": the best ones, in my opinion, are the ones where the students wouldn't have understood them at the start of the class. In one first-year seminar I taught, for example, we were studying aspects of the history of physics, as well as touching on some of the physics itself. At one point we read about Heisenberg's somewhat hairbrained plan to flee captivity by the English in the countryside and run to London, where he would seek protection in the Danish embassy. The students were quite amused at the picture of Heisenberg running down some dusty and deserted country road, thinking he'd make it to London. Then one student put words in to Heisenberg's mouth: "they know how fast I'm running...so they have no idea where I am!" It was the perfect moment for that joke, and the class all laughed heartily--every single student got the joke. At that moment, I knew I had succeeded with that class!
I vote for learning with or through entertainment.The learning should come naturally. delivering rigorous lectures bores students.The workload of teachers may be high to make the lessons more entertaining but practical based approach can make it more entertaining.The class can proceed with question answer session which may create interest in students .
There are areas which require rigorous training but this can be limited to an extend. The teacher's duty is to motivate the students so that they learn these topics by themselves.Then they won't be boring for them.may be flipped classroom approach can be used.
@ Raji n r"The teacher's duty is to motivate the students so that they learn these topics by themselves." Agree absolutely and there are many methods, including humour, elegant presentation of complex ideas, showing relevance to problems and questions that may also be relevant to the students, showing why thinkers felt the need to develop these ideas and the evidence for them, attending to students' own questions, explaining the importance of being able to argue in the academic way - the list can go on. It is a mix on focusing on what has to be rigorously learned and supporting the students in meeting their needs in developing that rigorous learning themselves.
It's a very difficult question. First, it's not really clear what means 'rigorous learning' or 'learning with entertainment'. I guess each one of us has something in mind associated to those concepts, depending on our experiences and lives. Second, I think there's no black or white, we are not forced to choose one of them. We live in a world where pedagogy and educational psychology (among other sciences) are being constantly developed and where we have at our disposal a whole bunch of awesome new technologies, that we could have not imagined twenty years ago. Also every group, in their own context is completely different. We as teachers or educators have to know how to reach our students, and how and when to use all the tools we have at our disposal. We are not talking anymore about just learning contents, but also developing competences for using that knowledge in real life, that paradigm shift, and that only succeeds with motivated students. How do we achieve that? It depends on each teacher, its style, its group of students and the circumstances.
I wonder is there some confusion between the concept of teaching and the concept of learning. in this debate. Teaching practice can range from monotonous didactic delivery to the comical interesting and funny, but in either case learning does not necessarily occur. Learning can occur as a result of a fun experience or it may not
I am not sure if there is a confusion between learning and teaching as such, Laurence. The debate seems to me to be about what teachers should do so that students learn. You are right, however, if I read you right, that the students' intentions are also important. If they intend to learn and take some responsibility for doing so, they may well do so, even if the teaching is carried out in a 'monotonous didactic delivery.' Certain forms of teaching may make the intention to learn and its achievement easier to fulfil though. I also find if difficult to conceive of the possibility of finding something interesting (comical or otherwise also) and not learning. I think the original question wonders whether by being entertaining, there is some dumbing down. Perhaps, the confusion is in concepts of interesting, entertaining and humorous. Can something might interest us (and so entertain us) without being delivered in an entertaining or humorous manner?
Colin
I think you make valid points here in regard to what a learner might find interesting, entertaining or humorous( or not) and that draws me back to the question as to whether there is confusion between teaching and learning. As the original question suggested keeping audiences motivated may make for effective teaching; but since a lot of time goes in entertainment less may remain for analysis and conceptualization. Is there a risk of developing surface learners who want only the quick easy answer?
Teaching is a form of performance but it isn't simply the same as that of 'stand up comic'. Yes, both teaching and stand-up comics communicate messages and both do not wish to bore the listener, thus loosing the audience. But the comic is broadcasting a message. The teacher, if he or she is a very skillful, wishes to open up a new world to the learner. That requires more deeper commitment to the subject matter than a mere 'song and a dance'. This means that the relationship between the teacher and the learner is more meaningful. The teacher is taking the learner on a journey of discovery. Hopefully a teacher is trying to somehow help or guide a learner to discover and be delighted or pleased with themselves in being able to understand areas of knowledge that were previously unknown to the learner. (I define the teacher as possessing both substantially more knowledge about something than the learner, as well as possessing a desire to share that knowledge with learners.) During that 'sharing' occasionally using humour or irony to elucidate a set of relationship, facts or conditions, may trigger greater understanding. At the same time, there is no doubt in my mind that teaching the arts of rigour, precision and attention to detail are exceedingly important aspects of the process of analysis. Clearly the goal is teaching learners to think...or at least I think that is important.
The teacher certainly wishes to create conditions that trigger 'light bulb moments' from time to time. I think that the teacher has to enjoy teaching in order to do it well. Learning something that one begins to love often creates a feeling of pleasure in the learner. Boredom simply sends a message of please 'turn-off' and learn the minimum required to pass a test...Learners end up absorbing information for a test (a short term end) rather than doing it for their own long term benefit.
A fully engaged, enthusiastic and animated lecturer or teacher for didactic sessions is very important. This is not "entertainment." Telling a few jokes, unless they are directly related to the topic, will not engage or enlighten the students in the long run. It may wake them up a little, if they are bored or sleeping, but hopefully that is not necessary. Whenever possible shift away from didactic to interactive, this question then becomes irrelevant.
well a sound ,effectve and competent teacher is a model,teacher,instructor,entertaner,acquintance,friend,encourager,guardian,parent,encourager,counsellor,provider and above all a role model.So it all depends on what is taught,circumstances or context and disposition of both learner and techer.A teacher cannot just impart knowledge,he/she wears many caps.Otherwise he/she is a hireling.
Yes Laurence, surface learning is always a danger, no matter what the teacher does - again, simply because students have their own intentions when they come, including simply getting through the course with the minimum effort. They may even have legitimate reasons for limiting their ambitions in this way - the course they have to do in an already crowded schedule but do not see as their main interest, for example. Such students might welcome an entertaining approach, but as Amanda points out, the entertainment has to be focused on the topic, not a sideshow.
On the topic of teaching and learning - are they confused? - this is a whole other debate. It is said that teachers teach and students learn. There are, however, conceptual options open to us.
The following is overly simplified, but to try and make the point.
We can treat teaching as as set of techniques or technologies that we apply to ensure that students learn. Developing techniques to entertain would fit into this conception. Teaching and learning are distinct. For the purposes of this debate, I suppose most of us are using this conception.
Alternatively, we can see teaching and learning as as labels we give to parts of an educative process in which teachers and students are in partnerships together in which part of the teacher's role is to divine the students' learning intentions, perhaps open their eyes to the possibilities of other intentions, but to support them in reaching them (whatever they are). In this partnership view though, at times, the teacher also is learning and the students also are teaching.
What counts as 'dumbing down' in either of these conceptions? That brings in context. In a heavily outcomes based curriculum (What many of us now work in) in both cases it is students not reaching the specified outcomes. In a (perhaps imaginary) more choice-based system, it is remaining with limited intentions when more ambitious ones are possible.
In my opinion, a teacher is a mix of actor and facilitator. However, I do agree that we need to consider the context of the learners to decide how much of each we need to incorporate in our teaching.
Some of the best instructors I have seen incorporate a form of cooperative learning, where students are engaged in decision making within the class. This can range from students choosing an overall topic of exploration (e.g., a service learning class of students selecting which local organization to work with), to having students develop a contract at the beginning of the course to determine their grade (e.g., X number of Y assignments = A).
The primary downside of this type of teaching however, is that not all departments or students understand the format, which can lead to less than stellar reviews (at least at first). Ultimately students can become engaged with the course (e.g., feeling a part of, and not taught at, or entertained at) and come to feel an ownership of the material, applying it to their own lives.
One useful resource that addresses incorporating students into the class pulls in funds of knowledge, "Teacher Research on Funds of Knowledge: Learning from Households", by Norma González, Luis C. Moll, Martha Floyd-Tenery, Anna Rivera, Patricia Rendón, Raquel Gonzales, and Cathy Amanti.
"..feeling a part of, and not taught at, or entertained at) and come to feel an ownership of the material, applying it to their own lives." Yes A.S. CohenMiller. Your words capture what I was trying to express in the second conception. Also, I think that is more likely to avoid dumbing down or surface learning.
Teachers sense of humor is something necessary to break the ice and to attract the attention of the learners whenever they feel bored by the large number of information, but the question is how much percentage of a sense of humor to be submitted? I think the answer has to do with the academic level of the learners, where the proportion of fun presented to learner in primary school must exceeded the one that presented to more mature learner. Mixing pleasure with learning must gradually decreases as the learner age and experience increase.
I believe that both of them can work together. a effective teacher must know how to balance the two.
I kind of like the idea of MORE pleasure with learning as we age - I think for adult learners that can help them conquer their fear of being involved in a formal learning situation - plus, if adult students have fun learning something truly new, they'll want to do it again... and again....
I think the approach to teaching is largely based on the personality of the teacher. Also, no student enjoys learning without some form of humour. University teachers ought to include some form of entertainment because whether young or old, students need to feel at ease in class and that is the aim of the entertainment. This should be moderated to a level which does not undermine the rigour of the learning. I think it is best to be pragmatic though and use whatever works best to ensure learning takes place.
@ Debi -Do you have a reference for your first statement? sounds like a finding from a research.
It should be a joyful exercise...customized session with Case studies, Role enactments, debates, labs etc. be entertaining as well as informative to participate, contribute, share and learn...
The learning process must include a case study scenario that is realistic and gives the class a chance to see how this knowledge process contributes to society in a positive way. It is an educational Science for the professor to relate how diverse epistemologies impact the public especially when they may seem unrelated to society as a whole. Then the need for entertainment reflects the need to make a positive contribution to society.
Could this shifting behavior of teachers be a natural consequence of teachers seeking to find their place in a new reality where the teacher is actually less and less THE source of knowledge since knowledge has become universally available and accessible? So what value do I get from the teacher if knowledge is available and accessible in multiple formats, media, and learning modes? If I don't like Mr. Khan I go to Coursera, Udacity, or one of the gazillion other resources available to me, Aren't I simply less likely to ask that question if I like the teacher and can relate to him as a person rather than a person of authority based on his knowledge? BTW....I am not a student but teach for a living, not in an academic but a corporate setting. The question remains the same....we have to keep reviewing our value proposition and shift our approach as our environment changes.
"Should" is not a helpful way to begin such a question. It implies an either/or state, suggesting that they cannot coexist in the same experience! It suggests that one has primacy and the other is of lesser value [this is especially important when considering the arrangement of the 2 choices within the question] and it screens out much that is important in considerations of rigorous learning and the relationship of entertainment to learning.
I'd suggest rephrasing the question to focus on relationships between the two concepts, especially in regard to how each can contribute to the validating and effectiveness of the other.
Elyssebeth, now that you have diligently lectured Debi on the in adequacy, or shall I say illegitimacy, of his question, what are your thoughts about the relationships between the two concepts, especially in regard to how each can contribute to the validating and effectiveness of the other?
Debi, you see, the whole point is, there is a healthy middle ground. I grew up and was educated in Germany. All content, science, academics, single decision making criteria to admission....your GPA. Good stuff. Now I live in the US. Different stuff. Watched my kids grow up here. Will never forget the discussion with my daughter's 3rd grade teacher where he explained to me "it is not about the content, it is all about the presentation" ...instant reaction...."Yuck" Reality is, it is as much about content as it is about presentation since we are interacting with individuals, not machines seeking input. The art is the balance. It is not science, it is connecting to the student and finding out what clicks with them. What clicks with them changes over time. Think Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos...they invent stuff we didn't know we needed, but we want it. Study the Kano model, seek delighters. You can always give them what they need by teaching what they need. Ask yourself what they want, it is so much more powerful and engaging than what they need and you will win their hearts and minds and they will allow you to teach them what they need. Tricky, sneaky, from behind through the chest into they eye....but it works :) Isn't that our job? To figure out how to get the message across and makes them learn, rather than remember what we need to make us teach? Just a thought to ponder.
Hi Achim,
Apologies to Debi if what I wrote was seen as 'diligently lecturing'. I did make a statement that I own - "should is not a good way to begin questions beyond the kind of 'when should we leave home to catch the train on time?'
In my classes I introduce this by saying "I should be about 2 metres tall for the weight I carry' since there is nothing I can do about that 'should', it needs a different kind of expression, which i then suggest is 'What can I do about my weight?' through which options and actions become possible to identify."
In short I advise that we "CAN" the "SHOULDS' and look for the actions.
In the case of the question "Should a teacher focus on 'rigorous learning' or 'learning with entertainment'?"
i would suggest it may be asking -
What actions and learning principles can a teacher apply to daily practice to ensure that students engage with rigourous learning and also experience a deep sense of playfulness to sustain their interest in learning?
Notice I avoid 'entertainment' as that is not a word I usually associate with learning.
Working with a question of the kind I suggest, removes the task of answering an 'either this/or that' question and am free to explore for actions to take, and can share how I create such environments.
One story of how i do so -
I had introduced to a post-graduate group the concept of Bion's 'basic assumptions group' for use in adult education teaching. I identified my difficulty in recognising the 'pairing' phenomenon. We moved on with the session.
A little later one student began demanding a response to an issue that I had noted I would address the following week. He was demanding and intrusive, and I began to move across the floor space as we to'd and fro'd on 'now/next week'.
All attention was on us. Then as one - the class said 'Troy, she said next week!' and suddenly I could both see the 'pairing' he and I had begun creating and could immediately point this out to everyone. The nexus was broken, and most exciting to me was the fact that this 'in the moment' intervention clearly demonstrated how those observing us were paying attention to both the immediate and the 'hidden'.
Bad teacher Complains,
Average Teacher Teaches,
Good Teacher Explain
BUT
A GREAT TEACHER INSPIRE THE STUDENTS.
we should always remember what we are about teaching takes many forms
and each needs a different ballance between the different styles.
lecturing is usually boring if one follows the old definition
(“Lecturing is that mysterious process by means of which the contents of the note-book of the professor are transferred through the instrument of the fountain pen to the note-book of the student without passing through the mind of either.”
usually attributed to Mark Twain, but probably Harry Lloyd Miller in 1927)
but works with a different approach (A semi-interactive process by which understanding transfers from the mind of a teacher to the minds of a large group of students; best without going through the pen (tablet, computer etc.) of either.
Mark Wilkinson 2014)
My personal mnemonic for lectures is SURE (be SURE you know what you are teaching then keep it Short, Understandable ,Relevant and Engaging) entertainment is part of the last criterion. Stories, jokes etc. (regulalry in our char of truth session (see attachment) a colleage and I do Dad at the wedding dancing) should be relevant and serve to illustrate a point.
Students don't really buy into a free comedy show but a sensible mix of fun and work may extend the 10-15 min concentratin period
Other things I do are give away chocolate in respons to challenging questions. (students usually have to use information already given in the lecture to work the answer out, a graduated student wrote a mars bar is an accolade desired by many acheived by few and respcted by all) the students buy into the idea and it becomes very competetive; but they were less impressed by a colleague who gave away cinema tickets as they were worth cheating for.
In small group, and one to one teaching, respect for your interest and willingness to help them learn is more critical, and so the value of an entertainer less, but it has its place.
By chance I was asked to lecture on my lecturing style yesterday, the attached is the powerpoints. 1-8 are about lecturing 9-11 a mini lecture (for medics) the clues to teh mars bar question are all on teh one slide, but teh audience didn't get it.
I tryto expand this idea across all my teaching even internet based ones (http://www.meditaire.com/) and students seem to like it
http://www.meditaire.com/
Today's life is stressful not only for the elders but also for the younger ones (students).... I have seen many students taking part-time jobs to cover up their costs.... It is time that the learning session is joyful at the same time connected to learning with better inter-participatory learning... the students are aware and more exposed....
A rather loaded question! I believe that rather than focussing on student entertainment, we need to focus on their engagement. How we achieve this is dependent on many factors such as: the persona of the lecturer; the cognitive level and/or maturity of the student populace and how acclimatised is our student cohort to multimedia. Great orators tend to have a natural ability to engage and hold the attention of an audience, the rest of us may need the support of props. It is my experience that the more mature students tend to have a higher level of commitment to their studies and the attainment of associated knowledge/depth of comprehension. However, even the most interested and capable minds can only hold focus for comparatively short periods and that, I believe, is where the diligent use of technology can be of great assistance. To this avail, having tried numerous different presentation techniques I am currently aligned to the use of “PREZI” cloud based presentation software (http://prezi.com/ ) which provides me with the diversity of functionality to switch between lecture notes, graphic and YouTube video in a varied manner. So far, the feedback has been excellent.
@ Phil
The argument on Young and Mature towards learning is quite interesting .... a mix of these population is required to make the class lively.. i agree
Ideally you achieve both at the same time. If your teaching is not fun, your students won't learn because it is boring and not memorable. People also learn in different ways, what appears to be fun and entertainment should be a way to make meterial accessible and memorable for all. Some people learn best from written materials, others by listening or by seeing something in a graphic/picture format. Yet another group learns best by doing something themselves. If you vary activities, you hopefully cater for all, and what some perceive as primarily fun, will be a core learning experience for others. Rigorous learning can be achieved in different ways, and it can, or perhaps should be, fun at the same time.
I think that depends on teacher's personality. Students are clever. They know if they are actually learning.
Hector, I agree fully with what you say. Studentsshow esteem to the teacher who really teaches them and whose teaching is maniflod.
Learning is emotionally mediated so fun and engagement is good, but quality of learning is paramount.
I am new to this site and I am not sure of correct protocol. I ask your understanding and patience. I note several indications of the format of lectures, of the concept of entertainment as a component of lecture organization, and of the continuing need to "motivate" students, and likewise retain their engagement in the class, course and course objectives. I answer all of these with my own agenda - student-centered or if you prefer, student-based learning, We do away with the concept of the teacher as a lecturer, a dispenser of all -knowing wisdom. A teacher serves as a monitor, a guide, a source of inspiration, a helper, someone who helps the student achieve their own learning. Obviously student-centered learning is amendable to student grade level, as the teacher must direct more at the lower educational levels and less at the higher ones. The overarching principle is the student takes more direct involvment in their own learning. This is a collaborative learning environment in that the students learn to depend on, learn from, provide learning to, and mutually develop critical thinking skills with the other students. By collaborative learning environment I mean on the first day of class, (and perhaps during the session as well depending on all the circumstances involved), we divide the class members into groups - ideal number is about 5 or 6 at most, and these fellow students will interact at all levels with each other and the group in learning the material. The learning objectives are established at the start of the learning period (quarter, semester etc.) with specific learning requirements. As an example, class members will demonstrate knowledge of cursive script, the alphabet, etc., or history of the settlement of XYZ country, or explain specific physics principles and so on. We establish the goals at the start of the school year and how we get there is another story. Each class group has weekly projects (papers, experiments, research investigations etc.). Each group receives 3 grades on the homework - one for the group grade based on the quality of the submission, one based on the individual's submission (their contribution to the group project), and a grade based on the evaluation of the other group members of the individual's efforts, cooperation, etc., for the group project. Collaboration is the name of the game. Anyway, just some ideas of how to remove lecture from the classroom, insist on engagement and actually help develop a spirit of interest and motivation.
Thanks
David
in my opinion, both rigorous and entertainment learning are vital for effective knowledge tranfer. however, rigorous learning should take the greater part of the time while enterntainment can be used to spice up the ideas and call back attention of those already getting fed up. however, the enterntaiiment issues must be those that possess values relevent to the topic under discussion.
I am not really sure why the question is set up as if these are mutually exclusive positions. In fact I am really not sure I agree with the premise of the full question. Where is the literature and references to support the assertion that "teachers in universities have become entertainers rather than focusing mainly on value-addition and learning." Is this anecdotal? Based on what data?
If one is to start a discussion about rigour, surely it is requirment to not just state "It has been seen". Seen by who, where, how often? What do you mean by rigour? What definition are you using for that term?
If we are to have an proper debate or discussion I would expect a bit more rigour in phrasing the question to be honest with you. There is plenty of literature about motivation and engagment and the importance of that for student success. An engaging educator can be very rigourous as well.
Hi Mark,
A question on RG aims to promote discussion. The fact that this question has 98 responses suggests that it is achieving that aim. Among the responses have been questions of conceptualisation which, you rightly in my view, raise again. The issues of the 'loaded' nature of the question and whether engagement and entertainment are necessarily synonomous have certainly been raised already, as has what is meant by rigour. But that does not mean that we should now ignore them and not continue to discuss them.
it might be that a too rigourously framed question stifles debate. It is certainly sometimes fascinating, and informative, to see the different ways a question is interpreted by people from differnet cultures and/or disciplinary backgrounds.
I do not know on what basis Debi made his statement that "It has been seen..." . It resonated with my experience (not data), however, as one teacher educator when I was a student teacher tried very much to turn us into flamboyant entertainers rather than what I believed should have been an approach of trying to empower us to use our own natural personalities in forming relationships with the students to engage them.
Just a general contribution: had a teacher in high school, history, government, "social studies", and the like. Hie real name was Marion Francis Cooper - but he told his students his name was "Mighty FIne" Cooper - I think this gives the best example of his sense of humor. He made history "interesting" and as a result we students were interested is what he had to say and the information we gathered along the way. I literally still remember some of the things he told us - what, about 52-53 years ago.
Thanks
David
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Methodology