In my department (Biblical Studies) there used to be something called ‘cascade learning’, whereby students would teach students in the year below skills that they would need for that year. It ended because it was not maintained properly and the skills they were teaching (e.g. computer skills) were so commonly known to students already it was not worth it.
I have had a few conversations with staff members about getting this going again. The question is whether the benefit is worth the effort. There would be skills gained from both the ‘teachers’ and the students*, but would it just be too much work. To get really good results, involving a lot of IBL, it is going to be a lot of effort from everyone involved.
This post was originally going to be called, “Cascade Learning, IBL for all…?” with the question of who this task is actually going to benefit in an IBL sense. I suspect that the ‘teaching’ students will use a lot of IBL. While the ‘learning’ ones will just learn what they are told unless the teachers go the extra step and set inquiring tasks.
The department is really keen for it – as am I, and they have had good results in the past – which is exciting. I just wonder how it is going to progress when it expects so much from students.
This is a search for comments, have you got any to make? Do you have any suggestions of how the concept of students teaching each other skills could be done practically? Whether it is right to credit a degree with this type of thing? How should topics be chosen? And if it is not assessed, is it right to expect so much work from students, especially in their 3rd year?
* The ‘teaching’ students would learn to work in a group, refine what skills are useful, devise tasks for aid learning, time manage to make it effective and present information clearly. The ‘learning’ students would have to do tasks set by other students, rather than staff and of cause they would learn what they were being taught.
Source: jamesgould