Academia

1128 readers

12 users here now

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

Emily Goligoski, researcher: ‘I have a policy for the use of devices in class. How can I compete against dopamine while teaching some theory?’ (english.elpais.com)

submitted 2 months ago by Kwerl@lemmy.world to c/academia@mander.xyz

10 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 10 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

At the university level, I would think that most of the kids who are going into debt to be there would have strong incentive to pay attention and learn. I know that some of them are there on their parents dime, and don't GAF.

I suppose at the higher levels, where most of the kids come from rich families, they pay attention even less? They know their safety net is gold-plated steel, and they'll have life handed to them regardless of how they perform, as long as the diploma is paid for. Trying to teach responsibly at that level must be draining.

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Very few students care. Most feel like college is a burden/obligation not a privilege. They'd rather be having fun than studying or paying attention in class. They don't want to learn, they are simple forced to do it by the job market and for most education is a means to an end.

And then giving a fuck has zero to do with whether their parents are paying or not. I taught for three years before smart phones, and most students were zoned out most of the time, only about 10-15% were active participants in their own education. The vast majority just want to be spoonfed and get upset if you ask them to think or do anything outside of rote repetitive exercises.

and 20% back then actively cheated and the university doesn't really give an F about it because it's too much work to report them and the cheaters are the ones who are paying full freight and the uni wants their dollars. I'm sure it's closer to 40% now.

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I wonder how many students are in her class because it’s a required prerequisite by the university, and not because it has any thing to do with their major?

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

that depends on the class. a english 101 class? it's like 99%

that said everyone benefits from basic writing skills, and a vast majority of incoming students have write at like a 4th grade level. but they just chatgpt their papers now rather than attempt to learn.

learning is hard. most people avoid hard things at all costs and want to do things as easy and effortlessly as possible so they can get back to doom scrolling or other entertainment.

it's a human being thing. people hate learning, it's painful. Most won't do it until they are forced to do so and have no other option. most people prefer to do the same thing over and over and over the same way and never change, because it's easier.

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

My point being that the university is making people take courses they don’t need and aren’t interested in— so it’s not surprising that some of the students don’t care/act bored/don’t put in the effort in every class.

Someone else mentioned “students wasting their money” but universities frequently make students waste their money and time. Many students are already swamped with coursework they actually do care about and are already tired from working a job to put themselves through school.

A lot of degree paths force the student to take a physical ed class, or foreign language course. While those are admirable goals, they aren’t necessary for something like computer science. It’s a disservice to both the student and the teacher.

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

students don't know what they need or what the should be interested in. that's why they are students. they have to learn what they need and what interests them. they also don't need what skills they might need in their future career.

i love the 'students are wasting their time unless they are learning only things for their future job'. and then people also whine that civics, critical thinking, etc skills aren't mandatory part of education, and how so many engineers have shit communication and people skills. well yeah, because refuse to learn them because they thought it was 'stupid and a waste of time'.

not everyone sees education as a job factory that should teach minimal job skills. the old model is to create a well rounded individual. and in that regard, esp int he USA where we are fat as fuck, a phys ed class should be a requirement. the students who care would actually learn maybe how to take care of themselves and not become another person who is a burden on the healthcare system because they refuse to accept responsibility for their own health.

our secondary school system no longer teaches students basic reading or math skills, they don't get that until they are years 1 and 2 at university. but by your logic reading and math should be taught because they aren't necessary for a nursing degree. gee, i really want to be taken care of a by nurse who can't read or do proper dosages.

[–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Fewer care than you would expect.

[–] U7826391786239@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 months ago

why spend time and energy doing literally anything when i can post selfies complain about how boring this class is and get likes right now?

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Maybe the "sit down and listen" model of education is spent?

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

hands on learning is even more resource intense. most schools with voc programs want to get rid of them because they cost too much and benefit too few students. sit down and listen is more cost effective.

and 'pay a ton of money to watch videos on the internet' is even more effective in terms cost. but it's also a horrible way to learn.