NationStates Jolt Archive

Lectures started again yestersay for me.

Fortunately I only had one, at 3:00pm. However I digress. It was the introduction lecture to my US Politics and Government module. Wherein my lecturer told us that he would be telling one intentional lie each lecture. A relatively minor one (ie one that will not screw up the module for us, but be noticable in essays). the idea being that we will thus be encouraged to actually do the preliminary reading for the lecture rather then take everything on trust.

I found this an interesting teaching method, and although my first thought was "bollocks, work is anathema to me, for I am a student" however on reflection I quite like it.

Just wondering what the netizens of NS thought about it.

maybe he was lying

I planned my college days around the 'Need a "C" to Graduate' method. And I did graduate with just that... a "C". Sounds like this guy is playing games... I'm sure he thinks it's a good idea. My advice would be just take the "D" if you have a "B" to average it out and go get plastered. Then again you might be one of those folks who must have an "A". I got a few of them types working for me.

I know it's not the best advice. Hell... it's not even the right advice, but this idiot playing games with your education (lieing to you) when you're paying him good money to actually TEACH you something just doesn't make me feel all warm and fuzzy, bordering on pissing me off.

Wow. A prof makes you think instead of just spoon-feeding. Nice.

My first instinct was to like the idea, then I realised that your teacher is purposly teaching you something wrong so I don't like it unless in the next lecture he corrects himself.

Gotta love the irony of telling lies in a course on US policy.

I think if I was the prof, I would say I was doing that, but in the end not, just to see if my students were paying attention to both the book and the lectures. keep them on the toes, but it also keeps false knowledge from passing to one, and then doing the gossip game and getting all sorts of fooked up knowledge out there.

I planned my college days around the 'Need a "C" to Graduate' method. And I did graduate with just that... a "C". Sounds like this guy is playing games... I'm sure he thinks it's a good idea. My advice would be just take the "D" if you have a "B" to average it out and go get plastered. Then again you might be one of those folks who must have an "A". I got a few of them types working for me.

Well I don't need that much to get a [very poor] grade, so I won't be going for the lowest possible degree (I mean I want a decent one). And I seem to have enough time to get plastered anyway :D

I know it's not the best advice. Hell... it's not even the right advice, but this idiot playing games with your education (lieing to you) when you're paying him good money to actually TEACH you something just doesn't make me feel all warm and fuzzy, bordering on pissing me off.

Well he warned us, and he said they were inconsequential so I won't say he is playing games. And he is teaching us, he is encouraging us to actually read the stuff we have to rather then haveing to go over all of it every week (a lecture only has a finite time after all).

However I'll post back after the next lecture to give you an example of the lie.

I think if I was the prof, I would say I was doing that, but in the end not, just to see if my students were paying attention to both the book and the lectures. keep them on the toes, but it also keeps false knowledge from passing to one, and then doing the gossip game and getting all sorts of fooked up knowledge out there.
Well, that has crossed our minds.

However I'll post back after the next lecture to give you an example of the lie.
Ooh!
Teh coolness!
Thanks AC!

I should add, another reason I like this is because the marking structure is different to other modules I am taking. Instead of it being a mixture of one essay and an exam, we are given weekly essays. I think might actually make me read the stuff rather then simply leave to the next to last minute (I am a terrible procrastinator).

::EDIT:: I'll also add that, I'm not saying that he is a good teacher (never had him before), nor that I particuarly like him (in fact I actually dislike him). I just find this method of teaching interesting.

I think it's a good idea. As said above, this way you'll actually do something :)
You know how, in a way, you're at uni because you chose to (and you can say all you want in the end it comes back to it being your choice) and you supposedly study what you're interested in most. Well, if you forgot about this and complain about all the classes you have and how you don't want to do your work...well, this teacher forces you to do the work you'd automatically want to do if all of what I said above were true :D
wow. it's still too early for me. I hope this just kind of made sense.

Bad idea. College is about personal responsibility; no one there should be "making" you do anything. If someone isn't reading the book, then they're probably going to do worse in the class anyway. Why punish them twice for the same mistake? And if a student can succeed without reading the text, why is this a bad thing? If this lecturer is so concerned about his pupils reading the text, then he should quiz them on it periodically to make sure they're doing the reading.

That, and I could never really trust someone who lied to me, even if they admitted it.

Bad idea. College is about personal responsibility; no one there should be "making" you do anything. If someone isn't reading the book, then they're probably going to do worse in the class anyway. Why punish them twice for the same mistake? And if a student can succeed without reading the text, why is this a bad thing? If this lecturer is so concerned about his pupils reading the text, then he should quiz them on it periodically to make sure they're doing the reading.

That, and I could never really trust someone who lied to me, even if they admitted it.
But you're saying that all that matters is the grade you get in the end. To me it's not about passing or failing (because that doesn't tell you a thing about whether you really followed the lecture/understood anything) but about 'personal benefits', as lame as that sounds.

Pretty interesting. If it wasn't a small lie it'd be easy to catch him at it. Now you have to read the stuff carefully. I'd probably hate that, because I tend to quickly skim my reading material.

Bad idea. College is about personal responsibility; no one there should be "making" you do anything.

He isn't 'making' us do anything. Just encouraging us. Like I said they are minor details, nothing that would on its own fail an essay. But hey, at least he is telling us to be prepared, you rarely see news outlets doing anything similar ;)

And this is about personal responsibility.

If someone isn't reading the book, then they're probably going to do worse in the class anyway. Why punish them twice for the same mistake? And if a student can succeed without reading the text, why is this a bad thing? If this lecturer is so concerned about his pupils reading the text, then he should quiz them on it periodically to make sure they're doing the reading.

Like I said, time restrictions. That and we have to hand in frequent essays anyway.

That, and I could never really trust someone who lied to me, even if they admitted it.
Well neighter could I, I could probably kick him further.

But you're saying that all that matters is the grade you get in the end. To me it's not about passing or failing (because that doesn't tell you a thing about whether you really followed the lecture/understood anything) but about 'personal benefits', as lame as that sounds.I despise grading. I hate everything that goes with it. I hated those bratty little grade-grubbers in high school and college, telling me how important their goddamned GPA was. It makes me sick that, when I become a teacher, I'm going to have to grade my students.

But you just reinforced my point. Education should be about personal growth. You're their voluntarily, you do the work voluntarily. A teacher shouldn't make you do the work if you don't want to do it. What if I want a class just to hear the lectures? All of a sudden this teacher is telling me lies, and now I have to read a book I had no desire to read in the first place to discover the truth about something that may or may not be inconsequential (to me). Doesn't work for me.

I am obviously very passionate about education.

He isn't 'making' us do anything. Just encouraging us. Like I said they are minor details, nothing that would on its own fail an essay. But hey, at least he is telling us to be prepared, you rarely see news outlets doing anything similar ;)

And this is about personal responsibility.Exactly. He's punishing those who don't read with false information. They're already being punished by not possessing whatever knowledge the book holds. Thus, twice the punishment. One brought on by themselves, one enacted by the teacher. Personal responsibility.

I despise grading. I hate everything that goes with it. I hated those bratty little grade-grubbers in high school and college, telling me how important their goddamned GPA was. It makes me sick that, when I become a teacher, I'm going to have to grade my students.

But you just reinforced my point. Education should be about personal growth. You're their voluntarily, you do the work voluntarily. A teacher shouldn't make you do the work if you don't want to do it. What if I want a class just to hear the lectures? All of a sudden this teacher is telling me lies, and now I have to read a book I had no desire to read in the first place to discover the truth about something that may or may not be inconsequential (to me). Doesn't work for me.

I am obviously very passionate about education.
I know what you mean, but I think your opinion of the average student is too high. At least at my university, everybody still thinks they have to go to class, and they're not motivated at all most of the time. Therefore they don't want to do any work for class and they can't follow the prof during lectures. And since they don't do any reading what they get out of the course is very limited.
In my opinion it would be best if nobody had to do any reading/exams/work in general, but if they wanted to. But since this isn't the case, and will never be as long as such a high percentage of high school students end up at university (mind y.,ou, over here it's about 10% that go to uni, if I remember correctly).
This is why I can understand a teacher 'forcing' his students to pay attention along the way and not just study in the very last minute only to forget everything again right after the exam.
Besides, this is a good way to encourage students to think critically...a gift not many posess ;)

I know what you mean, but I think your opinion of the average student is too high. At least at my university, everybody still thinks they have to go to class, and they're not motivated at all most of the time. Therefore they don't want to do any work for class and they can't follow the prof during lectures. And since they don't do any reading what they get out of the course is very limited.
In my opinion it would be best if nobody had to do any reading/exams/work in general, but if they wanted to. But since this isn't the case, and will never be as long as such a high percentage of high school students end up at university (mind y.,ou, over here it's about 10% that go to uni, if I remember correctly).
This is why I can understand a teacher 'forcing' his students to pay attention along the way and not just study in the very last minute only to forget everything again right after the exam.
Besides, this is a good way to encourage students to think critically...a gift not many posess ;)Believe me, I know what students can be like. I was one of the laziest students at my universtity. I'm the classic underachiever, and I'm damn proud of it!

I understand what you mean. It just seems like a gimmick to me. There has got to be a way to motivate your students that doesn't involve doing the opposite of teaching.

And I always thought papers were supposed to teach everyone how to critically think. ;) (Keep in mind, this is coming from someone who consistently bombed tests, but consistently rocked papers and essays.)

Believe me, I know what students can be like. I was one of the laziest students at my universtity. I'm the classic underachiever, and I'm damn proud of it!

I understand what you mean. It just seems like a gimmick to me. There has got to be a way to motivate your students that doesn't involve doing the opposite of teaching.

And I always thought papers were supposed to teach everyone how to critically think. ;) (Keep in mind, this is coming from someone who consistently bombed tests, but consistently rocked papers and essays.)
I'm not saying I'm any better in any way ;) I try to find some motivation to go to uni (other than: 'yay, it's still snowing. it looks so pretty...') but studying social anthropology really doesn't help it ;)
You're right, it seems weird that teachers actually have to motivate students to study. But to change that one would have to change the whole school system. It's a fact that not everyone is made for university. But if everyone has to go there to get a decent job, of course they're going to lack motivation. So. Make university a priviledge and not a forced choice and the ones who go there will be very motivated. My 2¢.

I'm not saying I'm any better in any way ;) I try to find some motivation to go to uni (other than: 'yay, it's still snowing. it looks so pretty...') but studying social anthropology really doesn't help it ;)
You're right, it seems weird that teachers actually have to motivate students to study. But to change that one would have to change the whole school system. It's a fact that not everyone is made for university. But if everyone has to go there to get a decent job, of course they're going to lack motivation. So. Make university a priviledge and not a forced choice and the ones who go there will be very motivated. My 2¢.Hooray for common sense! Booooo for the modern university/employment system! This is one of the few things Japan does right with education. You don't go to university unless your future profession absolutely requires it. I don't need my bank teller to have a master's.

Hooray for common sense! Booooo for the modern university/employment system! This is one of the few things Japan does right with education. You don't go to university unless your future profession absolutely requires it. I don't need my bank teller to have a master's.
Exactly. What's so wrong about apprenticeships? You learn on-the-job. I quite like the idea (and not just because you get paid). :)

I know it's not the best advice. Hell... it's not even the right advice, but this idiot playing games with your education (lieing to you) when you're paying him good money to actually TEACH you something just doesn't make me feel all warm and fuzzy, bordering on pissing me off.

Teaching is an attempt to get you to learn something. This can be done in more ways (and plenty of better ways) than spoon feeding you answers and forcing you to memorize them. By not only intentionally giving you a falsehood, but warning you about it, he is encouraging you to learn the material, and recheck everything he says. This both increases the likelyhood that you will come to your own conclusions AND that you will remember the answer the book's/teacher's question wants because you had to doublecheck everything.

This is exactly why I would like to go to a socratic method. Education should be an attempt to give everyone the tools to learn and grow as individuals, not spit facts at them and demand they repeat them.

I know it's not the best advice. Hell... it's not even the right advice, but this idiot playing games with your education (lieing to you) when you're paying him good money to actually TEACH you something just doesn't make me feel all warm and fuzzy, bordering on pissing me off.
I hate to break it to you, but plenty of profs lie to you and are much less honest about it.

My first instinct was to like the idea, then I realised that your teacher is purposly teaching you something wrong so I don't like it unless in the next lecture he corrects himself.
No...the onus has been put on the student, where it should be. It means you actually have to pay attention...I'm assuming from the original post that the lie should be easy to spot if you actually do the required reading. What better way to cull the lazy from the truly involved? If you pay that much money to sit and 'soak up' knowledge rather than developing real thinking skills, then your marks should reflect that.

However I'll post back after the next lecture to give you an example of the lie.
I AM interested on what kind of lie he is going to be telling...and from who's perspective is it a lie? For an extreme example, some people believe the Holocaust is a lie...

Bad idea. College is about personal responsibility; no one there should be "making" you do anything. If someone isn't reading the book, then they're probably going to do worse in the class anyway. Why punish them twice for the same mistake? And if a student can succeed without reading the text, why is this a bad thing? If this lecturer is so concerned about his pupils reading the text, then he should quiz them on it periodically to make sure they're doing the reading.

That, and I could never really trust someone who lied to me, even if they admitted it.
You're not being punished twice for the same thing. Personal responsibility, as you say, means reading the material. If you don't, you do poorly. Natural consequence. If you don't DO the work, believe the lie, and take it as truth, you are not developing the critical thinking skills schools all over North America insist must be factored into the curriculum. How better to assess those skills than present a student with a falsehood? Do you blindly believe everything you are told, whether the prof admits she or he is lying or not? Plenty of people lie to you and don't admit it...how can you tell their lying if you don't check up on what they say?

I despise grading. I hate everything that goes with it. I hated those bratty little grade-grubbers in high school and college, telling me how important their goddamned GPA was. It makes me sick that, when I become a teacher, I'm going to have to grade my students.

But you just reinforced my point. Education should be about personal growth. You're their voluntarily, you do the work voluntarily. A teacher shouldn't make you do the work if you don't want to do it. What if I want a class just to hear the lectures? All of a sudden this teacher is telling me lies, and now I have to read a book I had no desire to read in the first place to discover the truth about something that may or may not be inconsequential (to me). Doesn't work for me.

I am obviously very passionate about education.
Yes, passionate about passive education, where a teacher tells and the students believe....that kind of contradicts your issues with assessment. You're right...grades are poor indicators of learning...which is why I like (in this particular context) the idea of ensuring active learning. Learning is a process and grading only deals with the RESULTS, not the process itself. Standardized tests are similar to checking your oil halfway through a trip....why are you checking your oil? Does it tell you how your trip has been so far? Or is it telling you how well your oil is performing?
I wouldn't advocate this approach in elementary, or even secondary school...but in post secondary, it seems appropriate.

You also have to factor in that post-secondary education is meant to give you more 'value'. The higher your education (theoretically), the more job opportunities you have (except for everyone taking an underwater basket-weaving degree). If you allow students to all coast through and get equal grades, despite inequalities in effort, you undermine the value of the education. This is a purely capitalist view, one which I do not support. I agree that people should have the opportunity to participate as they please, but I also can not imagine not wanting to be an active participant in that process! That being said, I imagine how I would feel if this happened in a class I was less interested in...let's say a Mathematics course...if the teacher said they were going to give us an incorrect formula each lecture, and it was up to us to spot it, I wouldn't be too thrilled. So, I can understand those that wouldn't enjoy the same happening in a political course (especially if it is a requirement, and not an option).

I hate the bell curve too...it is just as limiting...a certain amount of students have to score poorly while a limited amount can get high marks....this assumes all classes are created equal with underachievers, overachievers and the great middle ground achievers:) Some classes may be all low or high or middle...why not let the marks reflect the reality?

I would suggest that when you write your reports/essays/exams etc, you put on the front page that you have delibrately inserted a lie somewhere.
That way, if you have slipped up, it's the lie. And if you haven't, the prof will go crazy checking your work trying to find it.

Gotta love the irony of telling lies in a course on US policy.
Yeah, perhaps the prof should have instead said he was going to insert a small truth somewhere in the lecture.

And would it be too much to ask that profs actually have to train in how to teach, instead of only being 'experts' in their field? Geez...that would be like having ministers who have a background in their ministry....UNTHINKABLE!

On a similar note, has anyone else seen the new gimmick in the Weekly World News? Spot the fake story, win $200.

Anyway, in a class, this is not a good idea.

Erm...

Many times, a history teacher will "disagree with the book" and insist that they are correct even when you specifically point to the cite. If he's lying on one thing each day, on top of the half-dozen things that he's genuinely getting wrong, how do you know where you're supposed to go with the teacher and where you're supposed to go with the book?

Erm...

Many times, a history teacher will "disagree with the book" and insist that they are correct even when you specifically point to the cite. If he's lying on one thing each day, on top of the half-dozen things that he's genuinely getting wrong, how do you know where you're supposed to go with the teacher and where you're supposed to go with the book?
That's what I wonder too...I like the theory, but very little about history doesn't have a particular 'spin' to it...much like current events.

Erm...

Many times, a history teacher will "disagree with the book" and insist that they are correct even when you specifically point to the cite. If he's lying on one thing each day, on top of the half-dozen things that he's genuinely getting wrong, how do you know where you're supposed to go with the teacher and where you're supposed to go with the book?

Yeah. Adding one "lie" grounds all other aspects of the course in "truth." Every discipline out there, policy and politics included, is about jockeying and argument between folks in the field. Theory is advanced, theory is debated, theory stands or theory is discredited. Adding a single "lie" in effect bounds what the students should or should not challenge when, at university level, nothing should be off limits.

Interesting "smoking gun" technique. I would ask your professor to see an example of the essays written by prior students who were exposed to this methodology of his. Ask him what the grading scale is for his clever semi deceptions, as far as not being able to detect it because he really was being too clever. Tell him, you are happy to play along and learn/ deduece in this manner, but that, at the end of the lecture, a clue of the fallacy would be nice. Otherwise, later down the line, although your critical thinking skills will be indubitably sharpened, your wires may stilly be fuzzily crossed, due to him toying with the material. But in the end, I think it's a great "keep you on your toes" format. Truly, it will just make you better at dealing with the real world, once you leave the confines of uni. ;-)

I AM interested on what kind of lie he is going to be telling...and from who's perspective is it a lie? For an extreme example, some people believe the Holocaust is a lie...

Well since I wasn't able to do the reading for today (second day back, only got the reading list yesterday afternoon...) it may be I might get this wrong. However there were a few things which whilst not lies exactly, were more like giant simplfications.

When I type up me lecture notes I paste them here. See what you think of it