Okay. I'm now using Firefox for my New Media assignments instead of Explorer. It is soooo much faster and more efficient! Thank god.
Just a reflection on yesterday's in-class discussion around lectures. I now think that it was actually three distinct things we were talking about, in kind of a mooshed together way: straight lectures, lectures with a question and answer period, and focused class discussions. Our readings, on the other hand, well, two of the three (the lecture tips and the Clark blog), focused on pure lecturing, sans q&a, with no mention of discussions.
I appreciate that we covered style, considering entertainment value and engagement, but I still question whether a lecture need be entertaining to hold an audience, as different subject matters require different approaches. I certainly wouldn't want to see Angela Davis juggling in the middle of a lecture on the American prison system.
I'm glad we covered this topic, as lecturing will obviously be one of the more complex aspects of teaching, and I really hadn't thought about it in this way before. Once I am in the profession (teaching, that is), I hope to conjure up a good laugh at times, but also remain earnest enough for students to take the subject matter seriously. Which makes me wonder, if a lecturer is focused on being entertaining, can she still treat the subject matter seriously? Will students believe that an entertaining instructor is serious? Is there a risk of losing control of the class and/or focus on the subject matter? Could the entertainment aspect serve as a distraction, and become more important/memorable than the lesson? I'm not down on entertaining lectures, I just had some thoughts.
End-note: I had no idea that State had English classes with over 100 students! How completely frightening--on a variety of levels!
No comments:
Post a Comment