I can see where you're coming from, but I think your view of training might be a bit cynical ;-) While I don't deny training could be like that, it doesn't need to be. I see it more as giving a head-start on some of the answers - which does mean it can be a little prescriptive, but it needn't prevent thought.
Perhaps what's being taught can affect that too - some topics will be more rigid than others.
It's hard to say whether X is A or B when we don't necessarily agree on the definitions of A and B to start with. So indeed it's a good thing to ponder those definitions and whether A and B are definitely separate entities.
Current 5-14 guidelines seem to about enabling lifelong learning as well as abilities/knowledge. Some of it's a bit scary and jargonistic for me but you might want to look here.
Oh yes, I recognise that jargon. :) The textbook through which I'm making my merry way is full of it.
There's still a big difference between secondary and tertiary education. In schools there is more responsibility on the teacher to make sure that the kids learn. At university there is none of this - if the student doesn't want to bother turning up to classes then who cares?
Enabling lifelong learning is a great idea, in my view - not just for making sure that they are educatable when they get into work, but also that they are educatable at university too. Getting the right mindset, that sort of thing.
You are absolutely correct in saying that university teaching must combine the two approaches to education. The differences in universities arise in part from where the institutional focus is set. In the current climate, where there is a massive push to get many more people to university - far more than are perhaps suited to learning in a 'classical' university environment - I believe that it has become an economic necessity for many universities to move their focus towards more task-focussed teaching (where the 'task' is defined by businesses as produce graduates who we can employ without having to send them on a dozen industry-specific training courses but who can still think for themselves when necessaryThe challenge then become to use teaching/training techniques that will encourage the weaker students to develop the reflection and synthesis capabilities of the more 'academic' students. The recommended solution seems to be to use a more active training approach than the traditional 'chalk and talk' style of lecturing
( ... )
Comments 8
Reply
Perhaps what's being taught can affect that too - some topics will be more rigid than others.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Current 5-14 guidelines seem to about enabling lifelong learning as well as abilities/knowledge. Some of it's a bit scary and jargonistic for me but you might want to look here.
Reply
There's still a big difference between secondary and tertiary education. In schools there is more responsibility on the teacher to make sure that the kids learn. At university there is none of this - if the student doesn't want to bother turning up to classes then who cares?
Enabling lifelong learning is a great idea, in my view - not just for making sure that they are educatable when they get into work, but also that they are educatable at university too. Getting the right mindset, that sort of thing.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment