From: Dogan Goecmen (Dogangoecmen@AOL.COM)
Date: Fri Nov 17 2006 - 12:53:02 EST
In einer eMail vom 17.11.2006 15:06:06 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM: I don't. I have lecture notes for my classes but I don't plan my lectures step by step before putting them into practice. To begin with, I like to have a certain flexibility in the classroom. Often my (incomplete) plan is changed to accommodate the interests of students and the unpredictable dynamic of discussion in the classroom. I don't expect that the class will proceed in an entirely planned and predictable manner. I don't think that the implementation of a lecture plan in a step-by-step sequence is a particularly progressive forms of learning either. Furthermore, it doesn't take into account the 'learning by doing' process whereby one learns about teaching through the praxis of teaching and the interaction with students. One has to also recognize that contemporary events outside of the classroom can change the 'lesson plan'. Too much planning of lectures and -- worse yet -- a rigid application of the lecture plan makes for dull classes, imo. Unplanned 'digressions' can also enliven a classroom: e.g. if students are having a good time, engaged, and laughing then they are much more likely to be attentive and learn. Jerry, I agree with you that to much planing can prove to be unproductive. Plans are there to be changed permanently while putting into practice. But the fact that you have some lecture notes shows that you have some rough idea or a frame frameworke of your lecture that your are going to deliver. How much planing is needed depends on the nature of the work in question. If you are going to make a public speach, say, on the Iraque war before the white house you can hardly do that just by taking some notes. Or take a pilot preparing a flight. Can he/she say I have some rough idea of my destination and leave the rest to chance or has he/she to prepare everything very accurately? I guess I must be non-systematically dialectical. The dialectic approach, as it is applied to theory, must take into account some contradictory realities associated with presenting theory. To begin with, regardless of the conception that one has about how it all fits together, the actual process of writing and exposition often leads to a modification of the original theoretical conception. Also, the process of research is an ongoing process and this affects the presentation of theory. For instance, when one is writing one learns about more sources and empirical data and this can lead one to alter the final 'architecture' of the theoretical 'house'. But before you started doing a research you had some rough idea of what you want to research. I know one finds his/her way trough often in the process of research. But if you want to read, say, on the debate about global justice would you go out and spend hours and hours on reading, say, about the surface of a planent or something like that? Thank you for your comments Dogan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 30 2006 - 00:00:06 EST