Thought I'd hear from you sooner or later Andy! I didn't really want to get
embroiled on the particular issues of ALS instructing on this thread Andy,
but that was naive of me, wasn't it? As for the silent run through, I think
we battled that one out a few months ago on the list...
As for SET or OPEN, is there a difference? It refers to the first minute of
a lecture, with closure the last minute. Doesn't strike me as common sense
to give the same priority to these two minutes as to the 58 minutes in
between. It all struck me as rather simplistic, a bit like describing
surgery as OPEN, OPERATION, CLOSURE, with the nervous candidates all
chanting this before their vivas, not really knowing what goes on during the
operation proper, but hoping they could buy enough time on OPEN and CLOSURE.
As for questions before summary, I can see how it sometimes works, but it
can also backfire; the speaker can be seriously taken off course and the
audience distracted just when you need to get them to focus and
"crystallise" the subject. Besides if you've fielded questions throughout
your lecture, you shouldn't need a special session at the end. Moreover if
you summarise well, then again it often obviates the need for questions. I
just believe there are merits in the traditional approach as well, but oh
no, the ALS powers-that-be will not let us do that. By all means be didactic
with your content Andy, but it's insulting and belittling to force
established teachers to also teach it in precisely your way. Why should our
precise technique matter as long as we get the subject across. I can't abide
the "Stepford Wives" approach to teaching, reeled out lecture after lecture
in an ALS course, the teachers devoid of any individuality, which should
normally make teaching so interesting. And there are many excellent and
established teachers out there who have been alienated by the ALS
straitjacket approach to tuition, and have consequently never come back.
But to return to my general point, take the SHO "selling" a patient; if he h
as analysed the case properly then it will "sell itself" like any good
product, minimal "communication skill" is needed. Similarly for teaching; I
don't believe in gimmicks or dramatic flourishes, inane rhymes or vacuous
humour. If the teacher knows his subject well, and can analyse, reduce and
explain it (rather than superficial rote learning) then he will keep his
audience captured and, while they may not be rolling in the aisles, they
will leave having learned, and more importantly understood, the subject.
There's nothing worse than a witty "engaging" teacher who demonstrates only
a superficial understanding of his topic, or who can't explain the rational
basis of his subject.
Regards
Adrian
|