Thank you for telling us about your journey. I too started with disappointment, when I discovered that my brilliant calculus lectures to undergraduates weren't making it into their heads. So I started giving them problems that were within their abilities and would reveal how they were thinking—at first in office hours, later in my lectures. I didn't have a name for it then; these days I call it problem-based instruction.
-the same basic structure all the time may seem dull.
- If the assumptions are not correct it would be bad to keep to the script no matter what.
But these don’t seem to be good arguments against prepared slides.
For variety- yes add some variation in the scripts. It’s got to be easier to do this with scripts than ad-hoc on your feet.
For assumptions being incorrect- well this depends the assumption failure rate.
How do you handle failed assumptions about whether the slide deck is matched to the students. Also with your approach how common is this? Is it a significant problem?
Our slides are often on something like their tenth iteration, so we can make good predictions about their effect. Also, variability is built in. There’s no point asking kids questions if the next thing you are going to do will be exactly the same regardless of their answers.
Without freedom to try other things you won’t find out novel better ways. You could tweak but end up in an evolutionary rut. But there must also be essential parts of an effective approach. Being willing to be observed often, measuring the outcome, spending time being the observer.
", the evidence for differentiation is weak." - that reference (Graham, et al. 2020) says "prevents comparison of findings and weakens the evidential basis to make claims of either differentiation's effectiveness or indeed its ineffectiveness."
Thank you for telling us about your journey. I too started with disappointment, when I discovered that my brilliant calculus lectures to undergraduates weren't making it into their heads. So I started giving them problems that were within their abilities and would reveal how they were thinking—at first in office hours, later in my lectures. I didn't have a name for it then; these days I call it problem-based instruction.
Over on the other side of the well prepared slide deck Chris Reid is extending his whine about the evils of rigid scripts.
https://substack.com/@chrisgetcurious/note/c-276890210?r=59cba&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
There are some fair points -
-the same basic structure all the time may seem dull.
- If the assumptions are not correct it would be bad to keep to the script no matter what.
But these don’t seem to be good arguments against prepared slides.
For variety- yes add some variation in the scripts. It’s got to be easier to do this with scripts than ad-hoc on your feet.
For assumptions being incorrect- well this depends the assumption failure rate.
How do you handle failed assumptions about whether the slide deck is matched to the students. Also with your approach how common is this? Is it a significant problem?
Our slides are often on something like their tenth iteration, so we can make good predictions about their effect. Also, variability is built in. There’s no point asking kids questions if the next thing you are going to do will be exactly the same regardless of their answers.
Without freedom to try other things you won’t find out novel better ways. You could tweak but end up in an evolutionary rut. But there must also be essential parts of an effective approach. Being willing to be observed often, measuring the outcome, spending time being the observer.
What else would you say is essential?
", the evidence for differentiation is weak." - that reference (Graham, et al. 2020) says "prevents comparison of findings and weakens the evidential basis to make claims of either differentiation's effectiveness or indeed its ineffectiveness."
Correct