I am still arguing that better schools don't necessarily require more
teachers. From my experience in teaching, I don't think that video
taped presentations will work very well. With a live lecturer, you
can not procrastinate on when you are going to spend time learning.
With video taped presentations there would be a lot of pressure from
the students to have the tape available for viewing at their
convenience. And I don't think that would work.

I taught a course at an extension college and told the students that
if they did the homework and did well it would count for their grade.
If they did not do the homework and got a good grade on the exam, they
would get the exam grade.
Probably more than half the class did not spend much time doing the
homework.
The same students (?) did not do well on the exam. They may have also
flunked if I had told them that they had to do the homework. But I
think they would have spent more time trying to learn or quit the
class sooner.


If you gave mass presentations, then had the students review the
presented material on a computer. Having questions to determine if
the student grasped a particular point and then hypertext to present
more info to help the student get the point. Then you could schedule
groups that had the same level of comprehension and use the personal
interface as a reward to motivate the students.

Just going to small groups means the bright kids are bored out of
their skull.
Been there, done that, got the tee shirt.

Dan


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message news:saK1c.6308$

It sounds like you're coming around to the value of the "small groups." How
about a videotaped mass presentation, and then small classes?

Certainly you can divide material into things that can be delivered as a
mass lecture and things that are best taught interactively, a few students
at a time. The point is, it's the small groups that make the difference.
That's what the research shows.

Ed Huntress