PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 16481604

Too much teaching, not enough learning: what is the solution?

Abstract

The curriculum is packed with so much content that teachers resort to telling students what they know and students simply commit facts to memory. The packed curriculum leaves little time for students to acquire a deep understanding of the subject or to develop life-long skills such as critical thinking, problem solving, and communication. However, learning is not committing a set of facts to memory, but the ability to use resources to find, evaluate, and apply information. This paper addresses these concerns by discussing "how we learn" and reviewing the literature on what works to improve learning. It is clear that active processing of information, not passive reception of information, leads to learning. That is, students must construct their own understanding of concepts, relationships, and procedures. Teachers can encourage this process by carefully considering the type and organization of information as well as instructional strategies. Specifically, teachers should reduce the total amount of factual information students are expected to memorize, reduce our use of the passive lecture format, and devote much more effort to helping students become active, independent learners and problem solvers. Collaborative learning activities, interactive models, educational games, and establishing a culture of inquiry/scholarship are critical for achieving these goals.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Heidi L Lujan, Stephen E DiCarlo. 2006. Too much teaching, not enough learning: what is the solution?. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00061.2005

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Phonological typicality and sentence processing.

In studies of language, it is widely accepted that the form of a word is independent of its meaning and syntactic category. Thus, the relationship between phonological form and grammatical class would not be expected to affect reading time. However, Farmer et al. have now shown that the phonological typicality of a noun or verb influences how rapidly it is read. This finding has implications for both sentence processing and the interpretation of fixation patterns in reading.

Comprehension↗

Minimization of dependency length in written English.

Gibson's Dependency Locality Theory (DLT) [Gibson, E. 1998. Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1-76; Gibson, E. 2000. The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In A. Marantz, Y. Miyashita, & W. O'Neil (Eds.), Image, Language, Brain (pp. 95-126). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.] proposes that the processing complexity of a sentence is related to the length of its syntactic dependencies: longer dependencies are more difficult to process. The DLT is supported by a variety of phenomena in language comprehension. This raises the question: Does language production reflect a preference for shorter dependencies as well? I examine this question in a corpus study of written English, using the Wall Street Journal portion of the Penn Treebank. The DLT makes a number of predictions regarding the length of constituents in different contexts; these predictions were tested in a series of statistical tests. A number of findings support the theory: the greater length of subject noun phrases in inverted versus uninverted quotation constructions, the greater length of direct-object versus subject NPs, the greater length of postmodifying versus premodifying adverbial clauses, the greater length of relative-clause subjects within direct-object NPs versus subject NPs, the tendency towards "short-long" ordering of postmodifying adjuncts and coordinated conjuncts, and the shorter length of subject NPs (but not direct-object NPs) in clauses with premodifying adjuncts versus those without.

Comprehension↗