Lea atentamente el texto que aparece a continuación y responda las siguientes consignas EN ESPAÑOL:

1) Según el profesor Butin, ¿cómo se relaciona la investigación con la permanencia de la clase magistral como método
de enseñanza? ¿Qué otro factor influye en que esta metodología aún sea ampliamente utilizada?
2) Comente en qué consistió el giro radical que dio el profesor Wieman y a qué se debió.
3) Responda si la siguiente afirmación es verdadera o falsa y fundamente su respuesta: “El profesor Butin es muy
optimista con respecto al hecho de que la clase magistral quedará obsoleta en un futuro próximo.”
4) ¿Considera que el autor del artículo está a favor de las clases magistrales como metodología de enseñanza?
Fundamente su respuesta.
5) Elabore una síntesis del texto en un pequeño párrafo de no más de 3 oraciones que integre los conceptos más
importantes que se señalan, el propósito del autor y que posea una redacción clara y coherente.

Shouldn't lectures be obsolete by now?

By Matt Pickles - 23 November 2016

The lecture has survived despite claims that technology would make it redundant

Lectures remain by far the most common form of teaching in universities - right down to the way academics are called
"lecturers". But many predicted that digital technology would have killed off the lecture by now.

Why would you want to sit through someone telling you something, when so much more information is available at your
fingertips whenever you want it?

But when you look at some online courses, instead of revolutionising higher education, they have often simply transported the
classic lecture format to an internet audience.

So why has the lecture refused to go away? It's not because it's particularly effective. Research shows that students remember
as little as 10% of their lectures just days afterwards. And studies suggest other forms of teaching are much more effective in
improving exam results and attendance.

Professor Dan Butin, founding dean of the school of education and social policy at Merrimack College in Massachusetts, says
the lecture has survived because research, not teaching, determines the success of a university and its academics.

Academics are hired and promoted based on their research record, and research output plays a large role in universities'
rankings in global league tables.

So there is little incentive for academics to spend a lot of time rethinking the lecture.

"We put these brilliantly educated academics in charge of classrooms because of their tremendous research records, not
because they have any idea how to teach," says Prof Butin.

"But in fact, research and teaching are very different skills, and creating a good course is just as difficult as writing a good
book.

"Academics put thousands of hours of work into their books and much less time into thinking about the effectiveness of their
teaching style."
A leading campaigner against traditional lectures is Professor Carl Wieman, a winner of the Nobel Prize for physics.

He was converted more than a decade ago, when he was given a handheld electronic device for students to use in his lectures
to indicate 'yes' or 'no' to a question.

At the end of the lecture, he asked a question to which he had given the solution. To his dismay, only one in 10 students
remembered the answer.

He realised that talking at students and expecting them to absorb knowledge was not helping them to learn.

So he replaced traditional lectures with "active learning", where he sets out a problem at the beginning of a lecture, divides
students into small groups, and walks between them to listen to and guide their discussions.

It seems to work - a study by Professor Scott Freeman of the University of Washington found that students' rate of failure was
lower when they moved from lectures to active learning, and their exam results improved.

Another practical reason for the lecture's durability is that it is a relatively cheap way of giving students contact time with an
academic.

There are alternative approaches but they usually come at a higher cost. MIT spent $2.5m (£2m) on refitting two lecture halls
to allow students to sit around small tables with screens showing animated simulations to help them visualise concepts.

Harvard used a $40m (£32m) donation to experiment with new forms of teaching, including active learning.

But as the cost of tuition increases, more questions are being asked about whether lectures give students value for their money.

A Higher Education Policy Institute survey in 2014 showed a third of students in England considered their degree "poor" or
"very poor" value for money.

Research from the US Department of Education found there is no difference between how effectively students learn from a
lecture when it is delivered in a classroom or online.

With the rise of "massive open online courses" (Moocs) and digital technologies, universities are coming under more pressure
to offer students a learning experience that is not freely available online.

Prof Butin hopes this will encourage more universities to adopt active, project-based, peer-to-peer, and community learning
more widely.

But having worked with many universities on how to support lecturers to use more active learning strategies, he thinks this will
be a slow and difficult process.

"Most universities may talk about the quality of their teaching, but such changes are much easier said than done," he says.

"So for the foreseeable future, the lecture is here to stay."