sellswor@muddcs.Claremont.EDU (Scott Ellsworth) (12/18/88)
Sorry, we the students are not guilty. Look at all of the
possible factors that could influence the price of a textbook. The only
one I can think of that the students directly control is the actual purchase
decision. Do I or do I not buy the REQUIRED text for this class. That is
the only choice I have. You might want to consider this before assigning
two or three texts for a class, each of which costs approximately eight to
ten hours at student wages. Nothing is free at a college bookstore.
Now, lets examine the idea of time. An engineer friend of mine was
recently told by a project coordinator that engineering students nowadays
are lazy. They have not memorized enough tables. (integrals, transforms,
properties, etc.) My friend asked this person what should be dropped to
give the time for a two or three unit class in memorizing things which can
be looked up in tables. The person's response was that nobody can earn an
engineering degree in four years. Perhaps he is right. I do know that I
am out of cash to pay for any more schooling, so if they want more out of
me, they are going to have give it to me first. I am hardly unique, and
thus a program requiring an extra several years for idiot work falls flat
on its face.
Lets take on on last concept. Why is it that a student may run out of
time, or may study to a course? Look at it from a student's point of view.
I only have 24 hours in a day, of which I need to slkeep about 8. If I sleep
less than this, I am a zombie, so please don't bother suggesting it. Now,
in the remaining sixteen hours, I have to learn whatever I need to get that
day, attend appropriate classes, and perform whatever actions are needed for
my own mental, emotional, and physical survival. This means I operate under
a time constraint.
If a professor tells me that I must know the following material <insert
course syllabus here>, then I will learn that set of concepts as best I
can. The other things? They are ignored. Why? Because the professor
has told me what is important. He or she has used a much larger (I hope)
store of knowledge than mine to tell me what parts of this are critical,
what parts are merely useful, and what parts the textbook author could
have left out.
Enter the purist who claims that all of <subject> is important. Perhaps
this person is correct. Remember that any given student will learn a
certain amount of merterial in a semester. Of need, if you add a new
topic, I must slight another, perhaps in another class, to learn this
new subject. Now, the purist has just told me, the student, that I must
learn all of a subject, that it is all equally important. By doing this,
the purist has forced me to guess at what is important, and what I shall
concentrate on. As much as some professors would like to believe otherwise,
the students have a limited amount of time, energy, and attention. Thus,
the time I spend trying to understand enough of the subject to know what I
need to know is effectively wasted. It is not put to good use in learning
a part of the subject, and the general ideas I learn are not specific enough
to teach me anything. I do not posess the general knowledge of the field
needed to integrate these disjointed pieces.
Thus, we end up with a student who gets a poor grade, because the professor
has refused to reveal what _arbitrary and subjective_ standard will be used
for grading, and the student failed to outguess the professor. The student
also does not learn the material in a way that will be conducive to learning
more (although possibly, the subject is so disorganized that there is no such
thing as a good preparation, and no topic is important enough to be more
important than another. If I thought that this was true for physics, then
I would be a different major. I don't like wasting my time with trivia.
To date, physics has rarely been composed of such) If it is true that there
is more material than can be learned in one semester, then break the course
up. If you can't do it, then blame your administration, your culture, or a
society that feels that education and work must be kept seprate; blame a
culture without the wit to realize that _every_ field grows, and that
continuing education is a route to qualified people.
I remain..
Scott Ellsworth
uunet!muddcs!sellswor
sellswor@muddcs.claremont.edu
sellswor@jarthur.claremonet.edu
bitnet:SELLSWORTH@HMCVAX
STANDARD DISCLAIMER, ETC. ETC. ETC.cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) (12/19/88)
In article <1544@muddcs.Claremont.EDU>, sellswor@muddcs.Claremont.EDU (Scott Ellsworth) writes: ........... Do I or do I not buy the REQUIRED text for this class. ...... If you were taking a course from me, I don't care. My concern is that you can use the material in an intelligent way N years later. ....... An engineer friend of mine was > recently told by a project coordinator that engineering students nowadays > are lazy. They have not memorized enough tables. (integrals, transforms, > properties, etc.) ................ This was not even that necessary BC (before computers). It is a convenience to remember details, and someone who uses them enough probably will. But 99% of memorization is just a waste of time. I am not saying that memorization should be prevented. But the calculus student who memorizes derivatives and integrals is likely to be in a worse shape to understand the concepts than before taking the course. > Lets take on on last concept. Why is it that a student may run out of > time, or may study to a course? Look at it from a student's point of view. > I only have 24 hours in a day, of which I need to slkeep about 8. If I sleep > less than this, I am a zombie, so please don't bother suggesting it. Now, > in the remaining sixteen hours, I have to learn whatever I need to get that > day, attend appropriate classes, and perform whatever actions are needed for > my own mental, emotional, and physical survival. This means I operate under > a time constraint. > If a professor tells me that I must know the following material <insert > course syllabus here>, then I will learn that set of concepts as best I > can. The other things? They are ignored. Why? Because the professor > has told me what is important. He or she has used a much larger (I hope) > store of knowledge than mine to tell me what parts of this are critical, > what parts are merely useful, and what parts the textbook author could > have left out. What do you mean by knowing the material? If you mean you have memorized the facts and methods, those can be looked up at any time. The important part of the course is the understanding; the WHY, not the HOW; the ideas behind the methods; the formulation of problems is more important than the solution. VERY FEW of the textbooks give more than lip-service to this. Now how does this get put into the syllabus? There are many types of students in various courses. Not all courses have all types of students. The main type of student is the one who is going to apply the material, especially in other fields. Now the most important thing for such a student is to formulate problems. If a problem is important enough, and a solution method is known, a well-formulated problem can be quickly solved. However, it is frequently the case that someone who knows solution techniques will formulate a problem incorrectly in such a way that he knows a solution technique for it. The next type is the algorithm applier. This person must understand the solution techniques and their costs. He must also understand that not all well-formulated problems have known solutions, and that in that case a guru should be consulted. Another type is the prospective teacher. Here the understanding of the concepts is crucial, or what is taught will be the details, to be memorized and regurgitated without understanding, and forgotten the day after the final. Last, but not least, is the creative individual. This person needs to understand the concepts and how they may be incomplete, as well as to be able to use the techniques. He must also be aware of the extent of not only his ignorance, but that of the professor, the textbook writer, and all of humanity. > Enter the purist who claims that all of <subject> is important. Perhaps > this person is correct. Remember that any given student will learn a > certain amount of merterial in a semester. Of need, if you add a new > topic, I must slight another, perhaps in another class, to learn this > new subject. Now, the purist has just told me, the student, that I must > learn all of a subject, that it is all equally important. By doing this, > the purist has forced me to guess at what is important, and what I shall > concentrate on. As much as some professors would like to believe otherwise, > the students have a limited amount of time, energy, and attention. Thus, > the time I spend trying to understand enough of the subject to know what I > need to know is effectively wasted. It is not put to good use in learning > a part of the subject, and the general ideas I learn are not specific enough > to teach me anything. I do not posess the general knowledge of the field > needed to integrate these disjointed pieces. What you call the general knowledge is the important part, and can be conveyed in elementary courses if the teacher understands the concepts. Most of the students rebel against this, and ask for memorization and regurgitation. Unfortunately, many teachers also cannot see the forest for the trees. I do not approve of requiring a student to take a given numerical amount of material in a given time. > Thus, we end up with a student who gets a poor grade, because the professor > has refused to reveal what _arbitrary and subjective_ standard will be used > for grading, and the student failed to outguess the professor. I disagree with the use of the word _arbitrary_. Objective standards do not exist, so a subjective one must be used. A student who understands the concepts will not feel that guessing occurs, but a regurgitation-type student is very likely to. Also, this emphasis on grades is one of the things that is killing education. Someone who gives so many points for homework, so many for quizzes, so many for each midterm, so many for the final, and uses a linear combination of these is grading poorly. No one can possibly grade well, as the true test of the student, namely, how well he can use the material, cannot be done at course time. Personally, I would like to give a meaningful final, and grade solely on it. As this is impossible, I do the best I can. > The student > also does not learn the material in a way that will be conducive to learning > more (although possibly, the subject is so disorganized that there is no such > thing as a good preparation, and no topic is important enough to be more > important than another. If I thought that this was true for physics, then > I would be a different major. I don't like wasting my time with trivia. ........................... -- Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907 Phone: (317)494-6054 hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet, UUCP)