>Is that the kind of interaction that is most condusive to learning? What >if no one raises there hand?
What if, during cooperative learning, all group members don't talk to one another and just sit? Any method can be shown to be bad if the participants do not participate!
>In general, when you lecture do you find that >students will disagree with what you are saying? Will they tell you their >own opinions?
>I didn't say that lecturing was a bad method. In the right context, >lecturing can be an excellent way to get facts out quickly. Is it the best >method to use even 50% of the time? I would strongly disagree there. The >reason is that if you want students to truely think on there own and have >*real* learning take place then they have to be at the very core of the >learning. The focus should always be the student and what they are >thinking.
I don't really see how a good lecture with ample give and take would necesarily mean the focus of learning is off the student. Perhaps you and I agree in concept, but only differ in the percentage? 50% may not be best....but perhaps it is? I tend to like that ratio of lecture versus non-lecture.
>Are they really thinking along with you? How do you know? Leacturing >really limits your ability to know what the student is thinking.
Again, in a good give and take lecture, I usually can tell when the kids are understanding the concept at hand. I would say that I know what the quiet kid is thinking during a lecture as well as when he's being quiet during cooperative learning.
Just a few replies to your concerns....take care...Harv Becker