In the career of anthropology there was a change in the curriculum in our generation, we are like "laboratory rats" with new or "innovated" subjects, however, there are a number of problems that were not in the old curriculum (which also had serious problems), and now we do.
The most serious thing is that we do not have methodology subjects. All teachers require us to apply knowledge that we do not have, on ethnography, archeology or others. Therefore in all subjects we have been learning a bit of method, due to the current curriculum flaw.
Other problems that we have, is that the notion of "credit" has been incorporated, which gives a value to each subject depending on the number of hours it requires (teaching and non-teaching hours). However, this is also not included within real parameters. There are too demanding subjects, that we allocate a lot of time and that does not fit with the amount of credit that gives us.
For the rest, we do not have much approach to technology in the sense that it is used in anthropology or archeology, at least some notions of Excel for database management and management. But in general, our study has been quite "analogical" and with the tools that each one has (cell phone, notebook, audio recorder, video camera, etc.)
Finally, the teaching methods are the typical class of a teacher in front of 100 students, without really caring what they think. Classes are usually not very dynamic and the tests always the same: Reading and application of texts and contents in a couple of questions.
The curricular change did not incorporate a change in the teaching methods or in the incorporation of new technologies that the University has. But the most serious thing is that we are taught without knowing anything about methodology
:(
The most serious thing is that we do not have methodology subjects. All teachers require us to apply knowledge that we do not have, on ethnography, archeology or others. Therefore in all subjects we have been learning a bit of method, due to the current curriculum flaw.
Other problems that we have, is that the notion of "credit" has been incorporated, which gives a value to each subject depending on the number of hours it requires (teaching and non-teaching hours). However, this is also not included within real parameters. There are too demanding subjects, that we allocate a lot of time and that does not fit with the amount of credit that gives us.
For the rest, we do not have much approach to technology in the sense that it is used in anthropology or archeology, at least some notions of Excel for database management and management. But in general, our study has been quite "analogical" and with the tools that each one has (cell phone, notebook, audio recorder, video camera, etc.)
Finally, the teaching methods are the typical class of a teacher in front of 100 students, without really caring what they think. Classes are usually not very dynamic and the tests always the same: Reading and application of texts and contents in a couple of questions.
The curricular change did not incorporate a change in the teaching methods or in the incorporation of new technologies that the University has. But the most serious thing is that we are taught without knowing anything about methodology
:(
Comments
Post a Comment