bobgian@psuvax.UUCP (01/01/84)
A couple of notes about how the course went. Interest was high, but the main problem I found is that Penn State students are VERY strongly conditioned to work for grades and little else. Most teachers bore them, expect them to memorize lectures and regurgitate on exams, and students then get drunk (over 50 frats here) and promptly forget all. Initially I tried to teach, but I soon realized that PEOPLE CAN LEARN (if they really want to) BUT NOBODY CAN TEACH (students who don't want to learn). As the course evolved my role became less "information courier" and more "imagination provoker". I designed exams NOT to measure learning but to provoke thinking (and thereby learning). The first exam (on semantic nets) was given just BEFORE covering that topic in lecture -- students had a hell of a hard time on the exam, but they sure sat up and paid attention to the next week's lectures! For the second exam I announced that TWO exams were being given: an easy one (if they sat on one side of the room) and a hard one (on other side). Actually the exams were identical. (This explains the first question.) The winning question submitted from the audience related to the chapter in GODEL, ESCHER, BACH on the MU system: I gave a few axioms and inference rules and then asked whether a given wff was a theorem. The third exam was intended ENTIRELY to provoke discussion and NOT AT ALL to measure anything. It started with deadly seriousness, then (about 20 minutes into the exam) a few "audience plants" started acting out a prearranged script which included discussing some of the questions and writing some answers on the blackboard. The attempt was to puncture the "exam mentality" and generate some hot-blooded debate (you'll see what I mean when you see the questions). Even the Teaching Assistants were kept in the dark about this "script"! Overall, the attempt failed, but many people did at least tell me that taking the exams was the most fun part of the course! With this lead-in, you probably have a clearer picture of some of the motivations behind the spring term course. To put it bluntly: I CANNOT TEACH AI. I CAN ONLY HOPE TO INSPIRE INTERESTED STUDENTS TO WANT TO LEARN AI. I'LL DO ANYTHING I CAN THINK OF WHICH INCREASES THAT INSPIRATION. The motivational factors also explain my somewhat unusual grading system. I graded on creativity, imagination, inspiration, desire, energy, enthusiasm, and gusto. These were partly measured by the exams, partly by the energy expended on several optional projects (and term paper topics), and partly by my seat-of-the-pants estimate of how determined a student was to DO real AI. This school prefers strict objective measures of student performance. Tough. This may all be of absolutely no relevance to others teaching AI. Maybe I'm just weird. I try to cultivate that image, for it seems to attract the best and brightest students! -- Spoken: Bob Giansiracusa Bell: 814-865-9507 Bitnet: bobgian@PSUVAX1.BITNET Arpa: bobgian%psuvax1.bitnet@Berkeley CSnet: bobgian@penn-state.csnet UUCP: allegra!psuvax!bobgian USnail: Dept of Comp Sci, Penn State Univ, University Park, PA 16802