I bet for some of these students, the goal of those classes is not to learn, it's to get enough information to pass tests so the students can check a box off on a prerequisites list so they can get their piece of paper. A student can review a recording of a lecture a month later to cram for a test. I imagine an "active learning" session is more difficult to record and review down the road. I think you have to reckon with the disparity in motivation between the teacher and the student in this situation. I imagine many of the students there don't really care about physics. They want to receive their information in as passive a way as possible so they can zone out during lectures. I think the article touches on that but reaches the wrong conclusion, relating it to an incorrect perception of the efficacy of the lesson instead of relating it to the students simply not wanting to put in the effort for something they probably don't care about.
That's my take on it as a former college student, anyway.
> I imagine many of the students there don't really care about physics.
This has been my experience, time and time again. If the student is interested in the subject matter, almost any educational method works tremendously well, because the failings are compensated for by the student.
If the student is just there to get past the class because of a requirement, it's quite hard for any method to work tremendously well. However, some methods (say small seminar vs large lecture) can be more conductive to triggering that interest "for its own sake".
But I well know I went through seminar-style classes of 15 or so students in subjects I didn't care about and didn't want to care about, and I performed as necessary to get through without repeating.
This study would seem to contradict that sentiment, unless you suggest that interest in specifically statics or fluids (the two subjects taught on the days studied) was narrowly triggered over an interest in mechanics in general.
> I imagine many of the students there don't really care about physics.
It might be, but AFAICS the study was conducted at Harvard and I believe students at prestige universities have much more will to study. If they chose physics, they are likely interested in it
Anecdata: I am 33 and have 0 kids. I make good money but, due to poor financial literacy at a young age, I am shackled with a hefty amount of student loan debt well into my 30s. My 20s were financially precarious and it would've been irresponsible to bring a child into the mix. Would've been nice, but it just wasn't going to happen.
I don't think that my specific situation applies to everyone, but I also don't expect I'm alone on this one.
Decided to watch Farscape on a whim after watching Ben Browder and Claudia Black in Stargate. What a great show! It starts off on an awkward foot, like most sci-fi shows do. But it eventually comes around to a really amazing show with great performances both by human actors and by puppets. Scorpius is such a great villain for John Crichton. Pilot is one of my favorite characters ever, and sometimes he feels more human than the humans do (yes, I know only John is technically human but I mean the human actors that play some of the aliens).
Out of curiosity did you notice who the voice actor for Pilot was? When it was pointed out to me, I had a 'no way' type of reaction. It goes to show that some people really know how to give a performance that goes beyond who they are as a person and results in giving a spark of life to the character itself.
I didn't notice before being exposed to that information (I'm one of those "imdb in my hand at all times" kind of watchers). It's way more noticeable in the movie because I guess they lost the voice modification toolset they were using and had to try to make it up again from scratch.
I loved my windows phones so much. lumia 900 and 920. I totally bought in to the microsoft ecosystem because I wanted to keep using that phone OS and those phones. but the ecosystem sucked ass. none of microsoft's google/apple equivalents were up to par. one night when xbox music said I didn't have license to play any of my music on a long car ride home was the last straw. I bought a galaxy note 3 that evening when I got home.
Is it just me or is Windows phone looked back on with really heavy nostalgia? I never found it to be revolutionary or beautiful, and while I would welcome more players in the mobile space, I think Microsoft's behavior in every other part of its business makes me glad that their foray into mobile never took off.
Windows Phone and Zune are looked back with nostalgia. As someone that had both (including a Zune HD), I don't get it either. I wish I could go tell my teenage self to get over my short-lived "anti-Apple" phase and just ask for an iPod Touch in 2009.
I used 8.1 until 2020 and 10 until a few months ago, so no nostalgic distortion. 8.1 was the pinnacle of the platform, clean, snappy, no-nonsense. 10 already was much more bloated, apps looked crammed, and if it would still be in active development today, it would probably suck as much as the desktop pendant.
I think the team behind 8 had just a lot of freedom and could work on their vision, but then with 10 everyone had to leave their mark somewhere because they knew how to "fix" it and get it to succeed.
I wonder if part of it was that they filled a gap that was sort of broken.
Low-end Android phones used to suck. Hell, even high-end ones. There was a lot of jank, battery life was mediocre, software looked and felt patched together.
Windows Phone delivered a really good experience even on the bottom-of-the-line hardware, Things were smooth, and most stuff (because it was either first-party or from committed devs) was built to fit the design language.
Yeah I find it hard to take articles like this seriously. "Be cautious of intensely focusing on something for long, uninterrupted periods. Reduce distractions from notifications where possible. Stand up and take a walk every once in a while."
like this is just generic health advice with a catchy name and trendy, vague connotations with tech overuse.
It's a slot machine in aesthetics only. A klondike solitaire game is as much of a slot machine as this game - you shuffle the deck and hope that the order of the cards is just right that you're able to complete all of the foundations. You make occasional decisions along the way but it's ultimately just luck of the draw.
I would argue that this game has more agency and skill involved than your average klondike game, actually. Banning shit purely based on the aesthetics is really dumb, particularly when other games get away with having similar aesthetics in their games _including the one that is a direct rip-off of this one!_
