Rebecca Weitz-Shapiro points me to this blog by Luis von Ahn, suggesting that college lectures be replaced by high-production-quality Hollywood-style videos. You can click over to see his arguments, but, I gotta say, I don’t buy it. When I teach a course, the goal of the classroom time (I don’t call it “lectures”) is to to get the students engaged in the material and thinking hard, not to sit back and be entertained, which is what you’re getting from the Hollywood video.
Phil Zimbardo: "Computers will never replace the good teachers, but ought to replace the bad ones." I suspect that goes for Hollywood-style videos as well.
Ramiro: I think video lectures (perhaps not Hollywood-quality) but well thought delivery of the basic material would really work for me. BUT, in addition however, a professor that I can discuss the material with and that would provide challenge and learning would also be indispensable. I just find it that spending classroom time going over what one could learn from the book or a video would not be as good as learning the basics at home and then getting more deep and challenging discussions with an expert. (perspective from a Ph.D student)
Such videos could provide an alternative to textbooks rather than an alternative to lectures, and this would allow more opportunity for interactive learning during class time.
I'd like to see the level of interaction that takes place. Usually when I see someone talking to a TV screen, I call the police.
Lectures should be improved (like everything, they're imperfect) but this is a truly awful idea. Has anyone done a study of how much students actually learn from a Hollywood blockbuster?
I agree completely with the statement that, "the goal of the classroom time (I don't call it "lectures") is to to get the students engaged in the material and thinking hard, not to sit back and be entertained". Sometimes learning is hard work and not exciting. But I bet the teaching evaluations would be good, so a Hollywood video course would be considered better than a traditional course.
Piffle.
A data point: Sesame Street has been analyzed many times for its impact on learning, attention spans, etc. Look it up. Bottom line is that Sesame Street is acceptable entertainment for very young children.
I would say the question is whether media can present information and if that then leads to greater attention and understanding. There's little evidence that media does that; studies say it tends to be observed more than taken in.* Perhaps the best learning solution is a slightly dry talk by an actual human being because getting a grade requires paying attention despite the poor entertainment quality.
*And there's lots of discussion about the nature of attention paid to mixed media. Some of that is spurred by the effect of music and sound in film because seeing, for example, the shower scene in Psycho has a dramatically different effect with and without music. These are highly manipulative methods.
You all sound naive and ivy-towered. Video classes have been the norm for at least 40 years.
Back in 1970, at Megga Midwest U. I took many classes on TV. The lecture halls often had 500 people sleeping, eating and smoking – yes, we smoked in classrooms. Why not at least get to see the Prof in a close up?
My daughter, a 2006 grad of a public college, took courses on line and in some cases, simply bought the DVDs. Same old lecture, but at your convenience.
All we are talking about is improving the production values. Good use of media is a good thing. Wasn't that the point of the films the AV geeks brought us in grade school?