>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.
>

Some of the best things in life are simple ;-) An excellent lecture IS wasted
if the closure is a disaster.


>As for questions before summary, I can see how it sometimes works, but it
>can also backfire;

Agree - like all methods, should not be used lightly

>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.

Could this be "closure" perchance......?

>Besides if you've fielded questions throughout
>your lecture, you shouldn't need a special session at the end.

Depends on the session. Some presentations are not suited to questions
throughout.

>Moreover if
>you summarise well, then again it often obviates the need for questions.

Not always. And also, the questioning allows you to gauge how much the
audience has understood your presentation. It also allows interaction and
stops it from being an "us and them" session. Finally, if the audience have
gone off on a tangent with their interpretation of your talk, it allows you to
pull things back on line before summarising to reinforce the message.

>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.

Don't lay the blame purely at the door of ALS here!! Seriously, what we are
doing is asking our instructors to use an approach based upon educational
theory rather than allowing random approaches that don't always work. There
has to be SOME quality control with our instructors. Otherwise, people would
be ranting on this list about how many bad instructors there are. After all,
there is still the old fashioned idea that all consultants and, in particular,
"teaching hospital" consultants are born teachers.......!

>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.

You're missing the point. The Instructor course encourages individual
approaches to teaching and reinforces strengths already exisitng. We are not
generating an army of clones. All we are saying is don't fall into the trap of
rambling on for an hour facing the screen in a monotone voice etc.

>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.
>
And there are many who continue to teach. Why? ENTHUSIASM! The most infectious
disease of all.

What do other people think?

Regards

Andy

Totalise - the Users ISP
----------------------
To become a member and a shareholder - visit the site at
www.totalise.co.uk