NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/misc/educatio/4449

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-21 | 1.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!spool.mu.edu!agate!rsoft!mindlink!a710
From: [e-mail] (Crawford Kilian)
Newsgroups: misc.education
Subject: Re: Proof that small classes=better education?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Nov 92 04:09:24 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet)
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Lines: 27

Brian Wood brings up some good points about class size. In general,
post-secondary classes need a "critical mass"--too small and you don't get
enough variety of views, or a sense of intellectual energy. Below 10 or 12,
you'd better be teaching a graduate seminar. But (especially for
lower-division courses), a class over 25 or so will belong to the teacher and
one or two loudmouths.

One odd aspect of class size: when students come into a class, they seem to
do a headcount and assign themselves a proportionate responsibility. "We have
25 people here, so I'm responsible for 4% of the material." So attention
wanes, and it's not so much fun. But if you have a one-on-one session with
just such a student, the retention rate suddenly soars toward 100%.

In some cases, huge lecture audiences can work if the lecturer has a good
sense of theatre. I can still recall Leon Lederman 30 years ago, knocking us
dead in our hundreds in first-year physics at Columbia. It was good showbiz
and good teaching. But too many profs are mighty dull in that context though
they may shine in smaller classes or seminars.

Ideally, the pupil-teacher ratio is 1:1; anything larger is a compromise
between pedagogy and funding levels.

--
Crawford Kilian   Communications Department   Capilano College
North Vancouver BC Canada V7J 3H5
Usenet: [e-mail]
Internet: [e-mail]