3 significant potential drawbacks:

  1.6  Start-up time and effort
  • Must prepare readings and laboratory materials for each day
    • likely 45-50 readings, labs for full approach
    • likely 35 readings, labs for alternate approach
  • Readings from textbooks often possible, but
  • Some documentation likely needed for local environment
  • Labs likely need to provide extensive guidance to introductory student
  • Since traditional labs rely upon textbook and lectures, usually cannot simply edit lightly the traditional labs
  • If writing 1 lab requires 4 hours, full preparation may require 200 hours for the first course offering
Time and effort are quite manageable after first offering

0.7  Rethinking role of instructor
  • Students become responsible for preparation, performance
  • Instructor becomes facilitator, mentor
  • During class session, students, not instructor, are in control
  • Instructor cannot anticipate what questions might arise
  • Instructor cannot prepare mini-lectures on areas of common difficulty; not clear what those areas will be
0.7  Considering how preparation time counts for faculty in local college/university
  • Initial preparation takes extensive time, on order of writing a textbook
  • To what extent is preparation considered part of regular teaching?
  • Can materials development count as scholarship? (e.g., Boyer's Scholarship of Teaching, Scholarship of Integration, Scholarship of Application, Scholarship of Discovery)
  • If materials publicly available and widely used, can this count somehow as peer-reviewed?

created 31 March 2011
last revised 3 April 2011
Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS! previous   next