Thanks for the post! Your experience about the frequent testing in your engineering course caught my attention. There is a recognized “testing effect” in the pedagogical literature (detailed in the book Make it Stick: The Science of Successful Learning) that if you want someone to remember something, you test them on it, a lot. This test can be a non-graded quiz or even just self-testing (so, the test does not have to hold a lot–or any–weight grade-wise), but forcing yourself to recall information in this manner strengthens the connection to that information in the brain, so it’s easier to bring up the next time. This practice can be unpopular because the idea of lots of tests sounds awful to the average student, and not all classes or subjects lend themselves to this format particularly well. But I think repeated testing can be really effective in some cases, if the tests are relatively low-stakes in nature and provide feedback from the instructor. So, I’m glad that you had a positive experience with this format!

I like how you make the distinction that tests themselves can be a helpful learning tool when the professor provides feedback and when grades on the test are not of paramount importance. If we can take away some of the anxiety associated with tests by making them more low-stakes (in reference to grades), like in your experience, I think some amount of testing in certain disciplines can improve learning.

Your post made me think of a New York Times op-ed I read last semester: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/18/opinion/sunday/lecture-me-really.html?_r=0
The author talks about how lectures can and should be an integral component of education. Now, there are lots of bad lectures and lecturers out there, so perhaps with the caveat of *good lectures* can and should be an integral component of education. Also, I don’t think that lectures should be the only, or maybe even the primary, mode of delivery. But the article brings up several good points. Namely, lectures force us to practice paying attention to and synthesizing information, which is just good practice for life. Whether it be a speech, state of the union address, or a church sermon, sometimes we have to be able to process information by way of people talking at us. Thanks for the post!

Thanks for this post! I really liked how you gave some historical context (very valid, in my opinion), and I am in total agreement with you. Obviously, I am very pleased about education being available to all, and I think our schools have lots of room for improvement. However, like you said, this is easier said than done.

Interesting post! So, I recently finished a book called Make it Stick: The Science of Successful Learning, and I was a huge fan of the book, which is evidenced by me already mentioning the book in another comment and in my post this week. Anyway, there is some discussion of learning styles, and, according to some studies the author cites, people do not tend to be strictly visual or auditory or kinesthetic learners as traditionally thought. Rather, the maximum benefit is from being exposed to information in multiple ways and several times. So, based on this logic, presenting the material with animations in addition to text or videos can be beneficial, because doing so provides another way for students to think about the subject matter. Sorry this was long, but that book might be a possible resource for your project!

Thanks for your post! I totally agree and wrote on a similar topic for my blog. I definitely see the benefits of blogging, mainly to practice writing/communicating and sharing research in an easy-going format. As you mention though, blogs are not necessarily for everyone. Blogging might come more naturally and be more successful (and fun) for some people. For others, blogs are a huge time-suck taking the place of more important (or fun) activities. I think that “connected learning” can take place by other mechanisms too, such as saving some electricity by turning off the laptop, opening the office door, and actually talking to people.

One part of your post reminded me of a book I read, Make It Stick, by Brown et al. I highly enjoyed the book and recommend it to anyone interested in teaching. Anyway, at one point, the authors talk about how research shows that (according to the studies they cite, I am personally no expert on the topic) there are not really visual or auditory or kinesthetic learners as traditionally taught. Rather, people may have a preference for one style over another, but the most benefit is gained by exposing learners to a variety of styles and presenting information in several different ways. When you teach a concept by including a visual component to the auditory lecture as well as a hands-on activity, for example, the students form more connections and a deeper understanding of the material. I know I latched on to a small detail but I wanted to drop a line for the book, thanks for the post!

I appreciate that you recognize “outcomes” are not necessarily a bad thing. I understand that “connected learning” seeks to create an education experience that extends beyond tests and check-sheets. However, setting objectives and goals to produce a certain outcome, such as a better understanding of the subject matter, is also an integral part of learning. As you discussed, learning outcomes do not need to be restrictive and should not boil down to exam statistics. I am totally on board with changing what those outcomes are and how we should reach them, but I do feel students should still work towards some form of accomplishment, or “outcome,” rather than simply an exploratory journey of the sights.