Search Results

This chapter examines the context underlying the different teaching styles of professors in law schools. One of the most fascinating aspects of law school classroom discourse uncovered by this study is the combination of underlying structural similarities with, on the surface, a remarkable array of diverse teaching styles. At one end of the spectrum, one can find the most highly stylized classroom that uses the Socratic method dominated by heavily structured dialogue. More common are mixed formats of various kinds, such as a combination of dialogue, lecture, and conversation. For example, in modified Socratic classrooms, professors loosen the ongoing questioning, provide some answers, and do some lecturing. There are also a number of classrooms in which an almost conversational give-and-take is occasionally allowed, although question- answer sequences controlled by the professor nonetheless provide a strong structural backbone even in these settings.

This chapter deals with the divergent teaching styles found in law schools. It looks at the variety of ways that a similar message about legal language is conveyed in today's law school classroom, ranging from a class dominated by lecturing to a modified Socratic method of teaching to a style characterized by shorter student-professor exchanges. This provides an opportunity to examine the nuances of discourse structure across different classes. Although surface features of classroom discourse differ among these classrooms, some interesting resonances are evident in other structural features of classroom language. These resonances provide subtle structural support for the underlying message about legal epistemology (and accompanying metalinguistic orientations) that is being conveyed to students.

This chapter examines the teaching styles of Arbor Town teachers. It describes a typical day in the classrooms of two teachers: Theresa, a modern traditionalist and Patricia, an old-fashioned progressivist. The chapter also discusses the features of a teaching style that is relevant to students participating in the Canford Program.

While there may be born teachers with superb potential, no one is born a teacher ready simply to walk into a classroom and shine. They are born as persons who become teachers shaped by life, which influences the style they bring to the classroom to empower students. It makes sense as well to ensure that students learn in ways that are relevant to their preferred learning styles. It ensures learning that is meaningful, exciting, and challenging. No two people learn in the same way. No two people teach or practice the same way. Research on personality, left/right brain functioning, and on learning suggest that learning and teaching is a uniquely personal process. Each of you has a different speed, rhythm, and attention span. While we possess a variety of common characteristics as learners and as teachers, you also have discrete differences. These individual patterns are referred to as styles. Style is a pattern of preferences displayed for associating information with other stored experiences. Each of you as well as each of your students has a uniquely personal style. Style refers to how learning occurs, rather than how well it occurs. How do these styles intersect? Can they be matched? We know that when an alien speed, rhythm, or attention span is imposed on us, little or no learning occurs. Resistance and fatigue result. Teaching style consists of your personal conduct and preferences for the content and the way you transmit it. It depends as well on your conception of education. People learn in different ways, and your own style makes demands on learners and influences your use of materials and structure. Stretching your style and using different methods, observing and discussing students styles, and becoming acquainted with techniques that appeal to both right and left brain functions intensify learning. Aligning these factors places considerable demands on you. Teachers well-versed in their disciplines are naturally concerned about covering the topics in syllabi. Too often, however, they over-rely on packaged lectures to do so.

This concluding chapter emphasizes the importance of the examination of the experiences of students participating in the Cranford Program. It argues that friendships, social connections, cultural bridges and barriers, teaching styles, student strengths and needs, and learning opportunities are all pertinent in illuminating the educational experience of these children. The chapter also discusses some of the conclusions and implications drawn from this work.

This chapter provides advice on how to teach applied regression and multilevel models to students from a broad set of fields, especially the social sciences. These students typically want to fit and understand models beyond what they get from computer output. They tend to be highly motivated because they are trying to solve real problems in their applied fields. The course has little mathematics, and instead employs the computer to fit and simulate models. The chapter provides a step-by-step plan of the first two weeks of classroom activities in this applied regression course.

Whether or not the structure of De beneficiis fitted into a pre-existing tradition of composition for ethical treatises, there can be no doubt of its relation to Seneca's own conception of philosophical education. The shape of the work as a whole reflects the way in which Seneca sees the relationship of the praeceptiva pars of philosophy — the translation he offers for the Greek parainetikē — to the dogmatic. This chapter discusses teaching by praecepta; the evolution of teaching styles; and the progress of Aebutius Liberalis.