Meiner Meinung nach kommt es zu 99% auf die Lehrerperson an. Die Schüler werden bei jemandem, den sie mögen und der es schafft seinen Stoff authentisch zu vermitteln, aber dies nur frontal macht, mehr lernen als bei jedem den sie nicht mögen, der aber dafür der Methoden-Kompetenz-Gott ist!
Frontaluntericht=Erfolg (vor allem für die Schwächeren)
-
-
Die FAZ hat es wohl auch etwas arg verkürzt zusammengefasst...
ZitatAlles anzeigenWhile the richness of the TIMSS data enables us to control for an unusually large set of teacher characteristics, our results could still be biased if teachers with different effectiveness levels are more likely to choose different teaching styles. For example, if more-effective teachers tend to spend more time lecturing because they are good at it and enjoy it, then our results could show a positive effect of lecture-style presentations, even if those teachers would have been even more effective had they devoted more time on problem-solving activities. Given the pedagogical emphasis on the use of problem-solving activities, it seems unlikely that the very best teachers would be using the less-effective teaching style (the only alternative explanation for our finding).
Still, it is important to keep in mind that our results are limited to student achievement as measured by the 2003 TIMSS test scores in 8th-grade math and science in the United States. Different results might be found for different subjects, grades, or tests. Depending on the teacher, the students, the content taught, or other factors, problem-solving activities could turn out to be the more effective style. Even though lecture-style teaching seems to be a more effective method in middle-school math and science, that does not mean it would be the preferable approach to elementary-school reading.
Also, our findings are based on student performance on the TIMSS math and science exams, which are designed to measure mastery of factual knowledge of the curricula that schools expect students to learn. Other tests intended to measure problem-solving ability and the competence to apply mathematical and scientific concepts in real-world settings (such as the Programme for International Student Assessment [PISA] administered by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development) might yield different results. Unfortunately, we are unable to ascertain whether this might be the case, as PISA did not ask teachers about their pedagogical approach.
Finally, our information on teaching practices, which is based on in-class time use reported by teachers, does not allow us to distinguish between different implementations of teaching practices. In other words, a certain teaching technique may be very effective if implemented in the optimal way. But the strength of our approach is that it examines which teaching style turns out to be effective, on average, for teachers in general. Optimal teaching methods that cannot be executed by teachers in general may do more harm than good. http://educationnext.org/sage-on-the-stage/
-
Also, die ziehen da irgendwie eine andere Schlussfolgerung als die FAZ:
ZitatConclusion
Given the limitations of the data, our finding that spending increased time on lecture-style teaching improves student test scores results should not be translated into a call for more lecture-style teaching in general.
und mal davon ab handelt es sich hier ausschließlich um Mathe/NaWi in der Mittelstufe, nicht alle Fächer oder alle Jahrgänge! Sprachen lernt man bekanntlich anders als mathematische Fakten ....
ZitatStill, it important to keep in mind that our results are limited to student achievement as measured by the 2003 TIMSS test scores in 8th-grade math and science in the United States. Different results might be found for different subjects, grades, or tests.