Now we’re shifting into a new ‘future’, recognized by the micro-chip. We have a new type of factor that is occurring in this new method. But no one has responded to the query of whether this method is capable of assisting us in executing long-term intellectual work. I value most these long-form open-ended concerns that allow us to query concepts and each other person’s terms over a prolonged time interval. The issue is that the method is mainly developed on a way of diversion. It’s made with plenty of factors occurring all at once; it’s a very low bar for people to reply to any twitch of fascination that happens at one. Moreover to this display, there is any number of other windows. There’s e-mail. This is what this method does well.
The factors I value most in the humanities might not endure in this new method. All of this is depending on the assumption is that what exactly is occurring in the regular face-to-face class has been changed, in the ‘flipped classroom’. This is a euphemism, but what we’re really doing is getting the live session and tossing it into the dustbin. But I do not believe the fact that the live session is damaged and needs to be thrown out. The live session is like the play, as opposed to TV system. But we need to look at our lessons more seriously. Are they any good?
The custom as it’s passed down says that 50 minutes is the most ideal interval of your efforts and energy and time to do what we’re doing in the humanities. But now we’re asking it, which is good, but only because we have a new orthodoxy, which says that the concept time is 12 minutes or 8 minutes. But that is what matches the method, not actually what results in a more vivid chance to learn.