quote:

Originally posted by KaliKo:
Why slam the teaching (mostly lecturing) that goes on in our universities? Do you truly think that nobody learns anything there?

OK. Cool. How about this: for classes where the content does not change frequently (e.g. English, American History, Basic Chemistry and Physics), have the professor video her lectures one semester. Then in the future she can just have a TA play back the videos. That would mean more of her time could be spent in research or teaching other classes, the videos could be offered on-line bringing in more revenue, etc.

We could do this for coprorate training, too. It would eliminate the need, yea the opportunity, to cater to learners and their individuality. In fact, why have synchronous learning of any kind? If the tell-test model works, it seems a waste of human and other energy to have synchronous learning at all.

I'm sorry. I don't buy it. I think tell-test works for some, but not (or not well, at least) for the majority of learners.

Travelerjjim,

I am assuming still that you had a bad experience in college. If you did not have professors who "'catered' to learners and their individuality', you missed out somehow. Most professors I know bend over backwards to work with students on an individual level, IN and out of the classroom; but of course, they still call it lecture in most cases. (They aren't bothered by buzz-words.) The use of the word, "cater" is bothersome though. By this do you mean spoon feeding each individual and absolving them of any individual responsibility for their own learning - for learning how to learn? That's what I hear an awful lot of corporate trainers preaching.

And training is different than education. But some trainers do not know that and could not tell you the difference. I agree that, "telliing ain't training"; but "educating ain't training" either, and "training ain't educating." Which are you trying to do? The answer to that helps detemine HOW you do it.

There is room for all styles involved with helping someone to learn. I don't think lecturing is the be all and end all - but it is certainly a PART of exposing learners to a subject. Don't you ever "tell" learners anything? The saying, "don't throw the baby away with the bathwater," is applicable here, isn't it?

quote:

Originally posted by KaliKo:
I am assuming still that you had a bad experience in college. If you did not have professors who "'catered' to learners and their individuality', you missed out somehow. Most professors I know bend over backwards to work with students on an individual level, IN and out of the classroom; but of course, they still call it lecture in most cases. (They aren't bothered by buzz-words.)

I would surely not use the word bad. I had some professors who were very good and available during office hours to help students. I even had a few classes when there was time to interact directly with a professor.

The vast majority of the classes I took (outside of labs) were "chalkboard lectures" with time for only a few questions, if any, during the lecture time.

quote:

The use of the word, "cater" is bothersome though. By this do you mean spoon feeding each individual and absolving them of any individual responsibility for their own learning - for learning how to learn? That's what I hear an awful lot of corporate trainers preaching.

I did not mean to use a word with such negative conotations to you. First, I believe everyone is responsible for his or her own learning. But it is the job of the team, including the SME, IDer, deliverer and anyone else, to help facilitate that learning. And I mean that word in its true sense: to make easier. I do believe in combining materials targeted at different learning styles to make any WLP intervention more approachable and appropriate.

quote:

And training is different than education. But some trainers do not know that and could not tell you the difference. I agree that, "telliing ain't training"; but "educating ain't training" either, and "training ain't educating." Which are you trying to do? The answer to that helps detemine HOW you do it.

Indeed it does. And many argue over the fine points of education vs training. Most of what I do I see as educating. When I teach someone the concepts behind computer security, I cannot call it training, for instance.

quote:

There is room for all styles involved with helping someone to learn. I don't think lecturing is the be all and end all - but it is certainly a PART of exposing learners to a subject. Don't you ever "tell" learners anything? The saying, "don't throw the baby away with the bathwater," is applicable here, isn't it?

Yes, I do tell learners things, but instead of lecturing I prefer to see it as a smaller part of what I do. In fact, I have taught courses whare it was, to some extent, incidental.

In an high school or university course, classroom time is generally 90 or 100% lecture (outside of labs again). When I teach I like to see 40% "lecture" at most, whenever possible.

But I eschew the model LL talked about earlier:
Talk at students for an hour
Assign homework
Check homework
Test students' ability to regurgitate what was lectured
Lather, rinse, repeat

In fact, when I do "lecture" (I prefer the phrase "didactic instruction", but in some cultures and arenas that has a negative connotation) I prever to have a conversation with the participants. In fact, you will see that I just called them "participants" because I expect them to participate in their own learning and not just listen to a lecture.

Thanks travelerjjim for the explanations! I think we basically agree.

quote:

I am merely observing that one reason it is so common is that it is likely all many trainers/educators have ever actually seen or participated in.

How is that possible? How can anyone call himself a facilitator of learning (using whatever word - trainer, educator, teacher, etc) who does not know that there are methods far beyond lecture?

This is why I fight rather strongly against the oft spoken assertion that "anybody" can be a trainer.