nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Would you prefer to learn by video and computer or by live lecture?

finbak

I would like to get some feedback on what students (or anyone else too) think about about the current format of education in comparison to a video / technology based approach.

To have a more complete understanding of the poll's subject area then read this whole post. If you want the short version of what this poll is about then it boils down to: do you prefer to learn by video tutorial and computer technology at your own pace or in the traditional way with a live lecture given by a lecturer. You can skip the rest of the text on this post now and vote in the poll above if you haven't already done so or as recommended continue to read.

In this poll you are asked to consider two points of views on education. One is the traditional education system where one lecturer / teacher teaches a subject to a class of anywhere between 5 to 200 students in a classroom or lecture hall for about an hour. This is familar to most people as it is by far the most used government-run type of education system in the world today. Its unique aspect is that students witness in real-time and in-person the lecturer speaking, demonstrating and engaging with the subject.

The second view is an emerging alternative approach to education involving the use of video and computer software to allow students to learn at their own pace. The main points about this system are as follows. After the creation of enough educational video content, students could sit at computers with headphones watching educational videos, using computer software and internet to learn a set out curriculum. This approach claims that for every aspect except the unique aspect as mentioned above that the traditional system has; it can match it. Further it claims that it offers better control and learning capability in the hands of students. Mainly because students can pause, fast forward and rewind video to learn only the information essential to them. The system can still have classrooms of students where teachers can be on hand to answer questions and ensure class discipline if needed. The same social gathering and opportunities of interaction can still be retained when the student attends a class of computers with others and largely works independently.

Students can still perform supervised exams after learning a certain amount and be graded on them to ensure standards are met. Additional benefits include improved visual presentations through video and computer; more free time made available to teachers to advance education and research. There are many examples on the internet which demonstrate the effectiveness of education through video e.g. on websites such as Youtube there is the Khan Academy http://www.youtube.com/user/khanacademy, MIT OpenCourseWare http://www.youtube.com/user/mit?blend=1&ob=4.

Lastly I would just say suppose a number of students prefer to learn at their own pace by video and computer and another number of students preferred to learn in the traditional format with a lecture given by a lecturer. What would be the best thing to do? I believe that those who prefer to learn by video can learn the same curriculum by video alongside those who prefer a teacher to teach them. Providing such a choice gives the greatest amount of satisfaction for the greatest number of people.

Any other thoughts and views on this topic are welcome here too. What do you think?

Find more posts tagged with

computer

technology

video

education

Quick Links

Comments

Cavehill Red

To respond to your point on your other thread:

finbak wrote: »

This is arguable. A system I suggest would still allow a supervising teacher to be accessible when necessary for any questions that may arise. "Realtime" interactions usually occur when the presentation of information could have been made more clear in the place by a better lecture.

Nonsense. Students will want clarification on points that may lead to interesting educational points of departure, a format that videos cannot possibly accommodate.
I note that the MIT Open Source project acknowledges that their video material is in no way to be considered a substitute for learning on-campus among one's peers and in the company of one's educators.

finbak wrote: »

Additionally suppose it provides a standard that is equal in quality to live lecture.

An impossible supposition. See above.

finbak wrote: »

Then you get the quality, but now you can save the money that is being spent on teachers to teach the same material year in year out, and have them contribute to other productive things. Thus getting a better output from the system.

And this is what it's about - bottom line job cuts.

finbak

Cavehill Red wrote: »

To respond to your point on your other thread:

Nonsense. Students will want clarification on points that may lead to interesting educational points of departure, a format that videos cannot possibly accommodate.

Sure video can accomodate that. A student can watch a video on say Physics which uses ideas from say Differential Equations, and then the video provides a link to say: to learn more on this topic Differential Equations see such and such video <link> for clarification. And you can have a whole network of linked videos related by topic. This almost exists on Youtube now anyway. Also show me how you rewind and fast forward live lectures?

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I note that the MIT Open Source project acknowledges that their video material is in no way to be considered a substitute for learning on-campus among one's peers and in the company of one's educators.

Yes I agree somewhat which is why if you read my ideas on the thread carefully I talk about how students could still come to class in the presence of other students and a knowledgeable lecturer for interaction if neccessary.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

And this is what it's about - bottom line job cuts.

The bottom line is about how students want to learn, and that is whether they can understand the material given to them and whether they can fulfil their career goals. Besides I suggest an alternative system that still uses teachers in a supervisory role. Teachers / Lecturers should be more qualified than most to be able to find employment if necessary anyway.
See here for more clarification on my position to this point:
https://sites.google.com/site/practice123now/education#TOC-What-about-the-existing-workforce-o

Cavehill Red

finbak wrote: »

Sure video can accomodate that. A student can watch a video on say Physics which uses ideas from say Differential Equations, and then the video provides a link to say: to learn more on this topic Differential Equations see such and such video <link> for clarification. And you can have a whole network of linked videos related by topic. This almost exists on Youtube now anyway. Also show me how you rewind and fast forward live lectures?

You don't. They're realtime experiences, the ones that all top educational establishments prioritise because they progress organically, responding to the needs of students in realtime.
No amount of video data can emulate that, because student response to material is not predictable.

finbak wrote: »

Yes I agree somewhat which is why if you read my ideas on the thread carefully I talk about how students could still come to class in the presence of other students and a knowledgeable lecturer for interaction if neccessary.

Necessary? It's fundamental! It appears to me that you don't have a passing interest in this topic. I suspect you have a financial interest in proposing this model. Do you care to reveal your vested interest?

finbak wrote: »

The bottom line is about how students want to learn, and that is whether they can understand the material given to them and whether they can fulfil their career goals.

I disagree. The bottom line is NOT how students want to learn, but how WELL they learn. I repeat, until the day I see Eton and Harvard replacing classes with videos, this will remain in my mind a yellowpack attempt to downgrade education by saving on educator wages.

finbak

Cavehill Red wrote: »

You don't. They're realtime experiences, the ones that all top educational establishments prioritise because they progress organically, responding to the needs of students in realtime.
No amount of video data can emulate that, because student response to material is not predictable.

Maybe not 100% predictable, but it pretty close and calculable within a manageable range. I bet lots of experienced teachers could recall; "oh a student asks me that same question every year"...So we decide to pay the teacher to repeat the same answer every year?

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Necessary? It's fundamental! It appears to me that you don't have a passing interest in this topic. I suspect you have a financial interest in proposing this model. Do you care to reveal your vested interest?

This is an accusation going beyond the scope of the topic. I have no direct financial interest, only a non-profit concern in this very fundamental area of society. I am concerned about the billions of debt this country and many other countries are left with. I am concerned about the system being efficient for both students, teachers and taxpayers. The only way that this debt is going to be paid off is with a more intelligent and skillful population in creating smarter economies around the world.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I disagree. The bottom line is NOT how students want to learn, but how WELL they learn. I repeat, until the day I see Eton and Harvard replacing classes with videos, this will remain in my mind a yellowpack attempt to downgrade education by saving on educator wages.

We don't have to wait for Eton or Harvard to innovate, we can do this ourselves.

Take a look at the Khan academy with millions of views and subscribers, students are choosing this because it allows them to learn well if the traditional system and their classes were perfect would they use this?

As of the current time and date the poll is about 50/50, if the system I proposed was implemented then 100% of people would be happy with the free choice system. So 50% of people are forced to participate in a system which is their second preference.

Remember I respect there are those who may prefer to learn by live lecture which is why I am only proposing that students be given a choice in which way they learn, both models can be supported with a little imagination.

Cavehill Red

finbak wrote: »

Maybe not 100% predictable, but it pretty close and calculable within a manageable range. I bet lots of experienced teachers could recall; "oh a student asks me that same question every year"...So we decide to pay the teacher to repeat the same answer every year?

No, we pay the teacher to teach. Teaching is an organic artform, and classes, from the ages of toddlers up to postgraduate level, are organic processes that I promise you no databank of videos can hope to emulate.
The format was initiated in the symposia of Socrates and Plato, and like the wheel, it was an instant classic, because the nature of education is TWO-WAY interaction. Learning cannot be downloaded. We are not machines.

finbak wrote: »

This is an accusation going beyond the scope of the topic. I have no direct financial interest, only a non-profit concern in this very fundamental area of society.

It's not an accusation. It's a request for clarification. Obviously you have an interest, and I'm asking you to come clean about what it is so that people reading this thread can consider your proposal in the context of your vested interest.

finbak wrote: »

We don't have to wait for Eton or Harvard to innovate, we can do this ourselves.

The question is rather, why are the top academic establishments on the planet NOT doing this if indeed it is the best way forward? The obvious conclusion is because it is not remotely the best way forward.

finbak wrote: »

Take a look at the Khan academy with millions of views and subscribers, students are choosing this because it allows them to learn well if the traditional system and their classes were perfect would they use this?

Because it's free and because it does not replace conventional educational models. Students are seeking an edge, and this, or Chemguy, or grinds, all offer potential opportunities to gain extra understanding BEYOND their existing formal education.
Nowhere is it suggested that this is in any way to be considered an alternative model of education. To do so would be preposterous.

finbak wrote: »

As of the current time and date the poll is about 50/50, if the system I proposed was implemented then 100% of people would be happy with the free choice system. So 50% of people are forced to participate in a system in which which is their second preference.

I think perhaps you should try out some of those online lectures on statistics, paying special attention to issues of self-selecting cohorts and microscopically low samples.

finbak wrote: »

Remember I respect there are those who may prefer to learn by live lecture which is why I am only proposing that students be given a choice in which way they learn, both models can be supported with a little imagination.

It's nothing to do with choice. Your use of that word is utterly disingenuous. You overtly espouse replacing teachers with videos over a 3 year period. The only net effect of that is to save wages. The effect on educational quality would be a profound drop.

finbak

Yeah sure I appreciate good teaching. The artform can find expression through technology just like many other art forms have equally done so.; Music, Acting, Dancing etc.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

The question is rather, why are the top academic establishments on the planet NOT doing this if indeed it is the best way forward? The obvious conclusion is because it is not remotely the best way forward.

Maybe because if they can convince students to come to their colleges and go to their live lectures they can get thousands of dollars /euro in fees which is a major source of funding for third level institutes in USA.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Because it's free and because it does not replace conventional educational models. Students are seeking an edge, and this, or Chemguy, or grinds, all offer potential opportunities to gain extra understanding BEYOND their existing formal education.
Nowhere is it suggested that this is in any way to be considered an alternative model of education. To do so would be preposterous.

Not every case is the "extra understanding" if you were to read many of the comments on those videos ...e.g. "Wow now I understand, my lecturer couldn't teach that AT ALL TO ME" or "I have just learned in ten minutes what it has taken my lecturer a whole semester to communicate".

I am not the only one to suggest this.
Watch this video particulary at 30:15 mins in - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1C7FH7El35w&feature=fvw
This guy has about 3 degrees from the world's top universities and he thinks its a good idea. I think you need to reconsider the merits of video.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I think perhaps you should try out some of those online lectures on statistics, paying special attention to issues of self-selecting cohorts and microscopically low samples.

Yes I am familar with statistics. Look I was trying to create a thread on After Hours Forum here to get a wider opinion but it was locked. If a minority of the population is unable to get into a building by foot does that mean we just cater for those who can? I am interested in making education formats accessible in whichever way is best for people to excel, even if that number of people is small, though I suspect it is much larger.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

It's nothing to do with choice. Your use of that word is utterly disingenuous. You overtly espouse replacing teachers with videos over a 3 year period. The only net effect of that is to save wages. The effect on educational quality would be a profound drop.

Nowhere did I say that?
I said at my website:
"Teachers who can take up more supervisory and assisting roles will still be required and employed for at least a transition period during implementation of a new system. There after it may be found that the number needed for this could be reduced as the system becomes more self sufficient. It would be recommended to guarantee those who are educators, employment positions for a least a certain period of time e.g. 3 years, to provide stability and allow educators preparation for any career changes they may have to make in the future."

So what I would guarantee is all teachers their position for at least 3 years ( hey this can be negotiated relax!, can be 5 -6 years whatever). Then only if it is found necessary and more efficient without loss of any quality would a select number of teachers (say 1/3) continue to maintain the system. A percentage of the rest of teachers who may longer be needed can be given roles researching at universities, improving education material etc. I am only estimating and calculating, it is too early to give exact and precise calculations for the best implementation path.

Remember that there is huge unemployment in this country and the only reason for that is a failure to innovate, be educated and skilled. So 20 years down the line I would estimate that in the end we would have a lower unemployment rate when all careers are taken into mind and higher GDP if such a education system were implemented a.s.a.p.

Since you questioned my own investment in the topic, maybe you would share with us whether you 'Cavehill Red' have an investment in this topic? Could you be a teacher? Is someone close to you a teacher?

Cavehill Red

I'm not a teacher, never have been a teacher, and am not related to any teachers.
There you go, full disclosure from me.
Now, when are you going to offer full disclosure about YOUR interest in this area?

finbak

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I'm not a teacher, never have been a teacher, and am not related to any teachers.
There you go, full disclosure from me.
Now, when are you going to offer full disclosure about YOUR interest in this area?

eh I did here:

finbak wrote: »

This is an accusation going beyond the scope of the topic. I have no direct financial interest, only a non-profit concern in this very fundamental area of society. I am concerned about the billions of debt this country and many other countries are left with. I am concerned about the system being efficient for both students, teachers and taxpayers. The only way that this debt is going to be paid off is with a more intelligent and skillful population in creating smarter economies around the world.

I think that is clear enough. Do you want my full life story too?

You have just proven something I have suspected: that you are reacting rashly without reading carefully what I have said. Listen before you speak.

Cavehill Red

I have read what you wrote. Annoyingly, I'll never get that time back.
I don't think you have taken on board the criticisms levelled at your proposal. Rather, you have sought blindly to defend your proposal without attempting to address the fundamental errors exposed in it.
This is the bit I'd like you to clarify:

I have no direct financial interest, only a non-profit concern in this very fundamental area of society.

I repeat: what exactly is your vested interest in this area? To fail to disclose your interest is not only disingenuous and dishonest, but also possibly against the boards charter, if you are attempting to promote a model you are yourself involved in developing.

finbak

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I have read what you wrote. Annoyingly, I'll never get that time back.
I don't think you have taken on board the criticisms levelled at your proposal. Rather, you have sought blindly to defend your proposal without attempting to address the fundamental errors exposed in it.

I have thought about them and addressed every aspect of the situation that I can think of and anyone has suggested to me. I think any third party would support that.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

This is the bit I'd like you to clarify:

I repeat: what exactly is your vested interest in this area? To fail to disclose your interest is not only disingenuous and dishonest, but also possibly against the boards charter, if you are attempting to promote a model you are yourself involved in developing.

Well I made it clear that I have no interest in profiting and just an interest in trying to understand why we use the current education model and whether we can improve it. Yes I am involved in a model that I am developing alone. It is just something I am developing in my spare time, lots of posters have hobbies and topics of interest ( with potential solutions) which they discuss on boards. I wanted to get a sense of people's opinion of the area. I have no connection in this development with any others, not Khan Academy. Even though I admire their efforts. My actions would be similar to a poster coming on and saying
"Hey lads what do you think of the system of legislation passing in the government,
wouldn't you think this model of ....xyz..... would be a better alternative .... this is something I have been thinking about for a long time..."
Ok so my approach is more formal than the average boards post but I am just being careful and respect the many aspects to this topic which I have discussed and am willing to discuss further if necessary.

Overature

Im currently studying Engineering and i find it a lot easier to learn of videos, i could learn an equation and how to do it from a 5 minute video better than sitting in a lecture for 50 mins, the software would have to be good an proven for being able to learn. As long as the videos were clear, precise and to the point then i dont see why it would not work

Cavehill Red

finbak wrote: »

I have thought about them and addressed every aspect of the situation that I can think of and anyone has suggested to me. I think any third party would support that.

Your proposal is holed under the waterline because teaching cannot be replaced by videos. It can be supplemented by them, but not replaced by them.
Your whole model rests on a flawed premise - that teaching can be replaced by videos. Either you accept that, and amend your model to be a complimentary teaching aid system, or you stick your head in the sand and waste your time trying to convince people that you're right.
You may well find the occasional person prepared to listen, since there is an appeal to saving wage costs. But I can only repeat - the top educational establishments on Earth follow the exact opposite model with superlative results.
Until high-intensive, low teacher-pupil ratio, realtime organic teaching is replaced in places like Cambridge, Eton or Harvard, I will remain unconvinced of your proposal. To deviate from that model isn't innovation, because all of those institutions are well-funded and noted for innovation. It's instead a race to the bottom, towards yellowpack ersatz edyookayshun for the lowest cost.

finbak wrote: »

Well I made it clear that I have no interest in profiting and just an interest in trying to understand why we use the current education model and whether we can improve it. Yes I am involved in a model that I am developing alone. It is just something I am developing in my spare time, lots of posters have hobbies and topics of interest ( with potential solutions) which they discuss on boards. I wanted to get a sense of people's opinion of the area. I have no connection in this development with any others, not Khan Academy. Even though I admire their efforts.

Still not prepared to offer full disclosure, eh? Fair enough. I'll let others judge your proposal in light of that.

finbak

Ok I think you have made your opinion clear and I value your contribution to the discussion.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Still not prepared to offer full disclosure, eh? Fair enough. I'll let others judge your proposal in light of that.

I have given full disclosure as far I know what the definition means
http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/full-disclosure.htm
Do you want to provide a list of questions which I will happily answer?

I have told you everything I know. Do you think I am witholding information? I am only witholding personal and private details about my own life. At this stage you can either believe me or not.

Naikon

Live lecture format. Plenty of lecturers are hopeless when it comes to the transfer of knowledge.

Tom Dunne

Full disclosure: I'm a third level lecturer with experience both in Ireland and abroad.

Finbak: I think it would be beneficial to the discussion if you would declare, in general terms as I have done above, what your association is, or at least what your profession is.

Back on topic: horses for courses. In my professional opinion, there is no substitute for the personal touch. A lot of people prefer the option of asking a question to a real person. Others fear speaking out in front of classmates. Some enjoy the bouncing of ideas from one student to another, some prefer the more solitary approach or reading in a library. While video can supplement a learning session, I don't ever think it can replace one.

finbak

Tom Dunne wrote: »

Finbak: I think it would be beneficial to the discussion if you would declare, in general terms as I have done above, what your association is, or at least what your profession is.

Ok in addition to what I have already said, I will add that currently I am a third level student who is in their second year of study in Ireland. I am speaking from the point of view of a student in the system who wants students to have a choice in how they learn. I want people to appreciate that some people can learn better through the control of video, where the student has more control as opposed to the teacher. I will answer any other non-private questions people want.

The points you raise are all addressed if you took the time to look at the details of what I propose.
To respond to some of your points:

Tom Dunne wrote: »

A lot of people prefer the option of asking a question to a real person.

This can still all be continued in a video / technology based system. A teacher would still be present in a supervisory role should a student have a question that arises from their study. The teacher could then learn what part of the video/ presentation could be made more clear and amend that.

Tom Dunne wrote: »

Some enjoy the bouncing of ideas from one student to another,

This too is possible and encouraged, as students will still attend a classroom with fellow students which allows discussion and interaction.

I appreciate your input Tom Dunne. Thanks

unreggd

I think a mix of both would be best

As was said, everyone learns differently

Someone said video would leave no room to deviate

This can also be a bad point, as in some of my classes the teachers will go on a tangent, one-to-one with a student

Also, some teachers arent note friendly

First off most wont allow recording, then some go way too fast [eg changing slides] for you to take notes down

And if you do get notes, which you followed, you can forget what they actually mean later on

Whereas an archive of videos would be perfect notes, and show you step by step how to do something

I do computer programming, and our teacher is the best of the best, yet his 'personal touch' is a major disadvantage. Most classes are like stand up comedy, storytelling, and he can be very condescending when he tells you you're wrong.

Sibylla

I think it varies depending on the lecturer. Some of mine are very good, provide excellent notes etc, others it feels like a waste of time. It would be interesting to see students given the choice.

Chris Martin

Know for a fact now that if I'd the option just to watch it on video,
I wouldn't do it..
Too distracted, at least if I was there in front of him/her,
I wouldnt have much of a choice but to listen and take something in..

Tom Dunne

finbak wrote: »

I am speaking from the point of view of a student in the system who wants students to have a choice in how they learn. I want people to appreciate that some people can learn better through the control of video, where the student has more control as opposed to the teacher.

But video isn't the only way students can take control of how they learn. The place I lecture in is moving away from traditional class/lecture based learning and more towards Problem Based Learning. The lecturer becomes more of a facilitator as opposed to a teacher.

But that is for a different thread.

I personally believe such inquiry based learning is the way forward, rather than static media such as video.

finbak

I agree that inquiry / problem-solving based education is ideal. Which is why I would promote a combined video and computer/software/internet approach. With interactive software you can challenge and track students progress and with moderated internet access a student can do their own research. Quality software requires good design and development which can take time. Video takes less time which makes it a more realistic starting point. Well designed and engaging video can allow a student to pause and stop a video at certain points and think how they would solve this problem / equation before seeing a possible solution. Even better designed video/software would lock a video at a certain point which the student can only pass once they have solved, attempted a problem, answered multiple choice questions or gotten approval from a teacher to move on etc.

This kind of rich educational experience takes time to develop which why I think a intermediate step to this could involve the use of video which can free up time for teachers to contribute to developing this high quality educational content.