Colin Johnson wrote:
"I remember as a student believing that any handouts that I got were vague
guides to the course, unlikely to be incorrect but likely to be sketchy or
indicative rather than giving a core introduction to the topic; the real
content of the discipline was contained in books and papers. It seems that
many of the students that I teach now believe the
opposite---they will hang on the details of every half-baked example I
come up with in the lecture, and mindlessly repeat it in the exam,
whilst having no confidence in any material that they read.
Perhaps this is a difference between disciplines, generations, or
different types of institution."
No -- I think it is a difference in focus, reflecting a preoccupation with
passing the course (and hence trusting whatever the actual lecturer says,
regardless of the rest of the literature) rather than with the content of
the subject. Surface and deep learning again!
James
|