<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“Minister tells schools to copy China - and ditch trendy teaching for 'chalk and talk': Teachers speaking in front of a class 'much more effective than independent learning' | Daily Mail Online”>Minister tells schools to copy China - and ditch trendy teaching for 'chalk and talk': Teachers speaking in front of a class 'much more effective than independent learning' | Daily Mail Online;
<p>(BTW, maths means math)</p>
<p>To me, it depends on what is being taught and to what kid(s)/group. Most kids learn more and better when they are engaged in some manner. I don’t see a lot of engagement when there is a lecture with someone in the front of the class and lots of others in the room scribbling notes. That IS part of the way teaching is delivered at the university, but then there are discussion groups and labs, where there is more interaction among students and between instructor and students.</p>
<p>There is a reason that engineering schools urge study groups and have students work in teams–that is what they will have to do in the workworld to solve problems, not just write and take notes and be passive vessels “accepting” knowledge. They will have to synthesize information from multiple sources and then come up with various ways of putting it together to come up with solutions to novel situations and problems.</p>
<p>There are mutliple intelligences and many folks lean best by doing or other than lecture and seeing written materials. If everything goes back to that, so much is lost. It is ONE (generally economical way) of transferring information that works for some folks and some situations.</p>
<p>I’m assuming this means “children” as in children still in elementary or secondary education. </p>
<p>From what my son, a first year teacher who says he never sits at his desk and that he is always on his feet - either in front of the class at the board, or walking around the room desk to desk, he sees MANY teachers in his school teaching from their desk chair. That overall, seems not very effective!!! </p>
<p>The effective teachers I knew were always walking around but had the kids do a LOT of groupwork, WITH guidance and supervision. They would circulate to be sure each student was engaged and understood what was going on and had a grasp of the material covered.</p>
<p>The lazy ones that were not effective would just have the kids “share” and teach each other but didn’t bother to teach the kids anything to look for or give them any guidance. It was a cop out and they just gave the kids busy work and had them “peer review” work of each other. </p>
<p>Chalk and talk has its limitations; you need a hands-on component to a course most of the time.</p>
<p>Throughout elementary and secondary education I had a few opportunities to conduct self-guided learning and it was disastrous. I simply didn’t learn much. Teachers should be central to the classroom. Of course, instruction doesn’t have to be boring. I think the point of the article was not that having kids simply come to a lecture and then leave is effective, but rather that teacher-guided rather than self-guided learning is most effective.</p>
<p>As a future educator, I see effective teaching as a situation where a teacher guides students in learning - gets them to think in the right ways for learning. Students don’t know the conclusions they’re supposed to reach - how then can they guide themselves in learning? The theory of self-guided learning is excellent for a genius, but falls short for the average student. Teaching should also accommodate a wide variety of students - interactivity and physical involvement is crucial. It’s a balance, and I don’t think that taking the teacher out of the equation is any more effective than a rigid, boring day full of only lectures. Unfortunately, education methods are often seen as a “pick only one” situation, when a multitude of individual students calls for teachers to use a multitude of teaching styles.</p>
<p>I feel like we are always searching for that perfect one-size-fits-all teaching technique that works for every teacher, every student, every subject, etc. We use and abuse statistics in this hunt, hoping against hope that some day we will be able to find the right physical stance, the right haircut, the right chalk color, etc that guarantees perfection.</p>
<p>But-but…we just threw that out in favor of teacher-assisted group “discovery”! <em>rolleyes</em></p>
<p>I agree with runner019.</p>
<p>I agree with the articles on some points, but not on others. Yes I do agree that more teacher involvement is necessary and it can be crucial to how involved children feel in the classroom. In our eighth grade algebra I class, I remember having a terrible experience because at the beginning of the class our teacher would put a problem on the board, tell us to work in groups, and then leave us while checking her email or walk around the classroom. </p>
<p>This was not effective way of teaching for most of us because as soon as she left us to do work by ourselves, people started talking about things not related to the class whatsoever. Not many people were motivated to tackle a problem they hadn’t been taught yet. Also, while some would work on the problem, other people would just sit there and “wait for the answer.” Keep in mind that this was an eighth grade honors Algebra I class, the highest level at the time. The practice was time consuming, yet not much came out of it. </p>
<p>However, independent discovery or research can be highly rewarding. In the same grade, our social studies teacher made class projects and independent discovery a big portion of the class. We’d research different countries, cultures, and become experts on different topics. This guy was one of the best teachers I’ve ever had. I remember doing an extra credit project for him looking at the graphical interpretation of state administered standardized test scores and average household income in different towns and cities. The results were mind blowing. I never realized there was such a gap between the place you lived and the education ones receive. Now, it is something I am closing working with at the college level, doing community based research and an honors thesis on the same topic.</p>
<p>I do agree that independent discovery has many merits, it teaches research skills and inquiry about the world. (More so than just regurgitating what was written on the board) However, it has to be used effectively. For something like a mathematics course, using class time for instruction while homework for trying out those methods would probably be more effective</p>
<p>The style of teaching is a whole lot less important than the actual preparation of the teacher. If a teacher needs the instructor manual to prepare the classes and cannot grade the tests without the book’s test bank AND the answers, chances are that no amount of lipstick will help the pig. </p>
<p>Our country is fascinated with any technology that can replace the need to properly prepare the next generations of teachers. Other countries that have a fraction of our tools and spending have no other choice than to look at teachers being decent teachers. We, in turn, think that good teachers are simply the conduit between “something” such a book publisher and the pupils. </p>
<p>Perhaps time has come so merely punt the problem and save on teachers but give each student a budget to acquite more home tools and hire the industry to deliver the instruction privately. Heck, it could not be worse than what is masquerading as an education. Most students already have to look outside the school for real learning.</p>
<p>It’s really interesting to see what people think about student-led teaching. I don’t necessarily think that student-led teaching is best for all students (and certainly not for the kids I teach), but in order to be rated a “highly effective” teacher on the Danielson rubric, the bulk of class time is supposed to be student-led</p>
<p>I haven’t the patience today to read through the full article. But truly, unless we read the whole blessed report ourselves, and it clearly defines the student bodies that were included in the study, the educational background of those students, the training of the instructors, the classroom environment, etc., etc., etc. we aren’t going to be able to begin to evaluate which situations could be indicated (based on this study) as being ones in which more chalk and talk would be a good thing.</p>
<p>When my kids were in middle school they did CPM - a cousin to everyday math. I was so worried about it they had me come in several times to observe. It made me out right dislike it. Kids shouldn’t be in charge of teaching other kids in their group. I witnessed everything you’d think would happen - some sat there chatting, some just worked by themselves anyway, some tried to help their teammates understand but couldn’t get the child to understand. </p>
<p>Not all kids learn in the same style. It’s another reason I don’t like common core and am so glad my kids are past that age. </p>
<p>In figuring out why young Chinese are more academically competent and successful, there are many more variables than the style of teaching. I think that’s pretty obvious. </p>
<p>My kids both prefer “chalk and talk” to group work and kids working at their desks. Many math teachers seem to want MS and HS kids to ask their neighbor first. Either their neighbor doesn’t know or the kid who does at each desk pod end up spending all their time trying to help others while the teacher is at their desk. Our son is more auditory and likes the lecture with diagrams, explanations and group questions MUCH better than trying to self focus. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think that’s a false dichotomy. You don’t need to be in a group to be an active learner. All that synthesizing and putting together and solution-finding can be done by an individual.</p>
<p>Corporations run by this model, but that doesn’t mean that it’s the best way to learn. It just means that that is what business wants.</p>
<p>My S was forced to mentor peers from K they 8th grade. It killed his enjoyment of teaching and helping others pretty early and he came to see it as a chore and burden (tho he was gifted at it). It also prevented him from pursuing his interests and was very unfair to him to be always cast in that unwanted role. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I call it hero worship, hoping a swish of a magic wand will do the job. In some cases, that’s true. Education is more labor intensive, I am afraid. I believe we have many good teaching methods and lacking in implement.</p>
<p>I had chalk and talk teaching back in elementary in Taiwan. We had 80 min classes, still surprised we could focus for so long.
After 6 years in the US and now a junior in HS, I can tell you that I definitely focus better when a teacher is up there teaching instead of sitting down writing on something under a doc cam. It’s about half and half in our school; older teachers tend to want to write stuff on the white board, while younger teachers prefer using a notebook under a doc cam. I do have one teacher that just love to stand in front and talk (good thing he’s not boring).</p>
<p>You have to watch a video SEVEN times to get the same results as a live session according to studies.
There are probably tons of reasons–someone to actually ask questions of…probably a slower pace…focus.</p>