wbralick@afit-ab.arpa (William A. Bralick) (12/15/88)
For a possible solution to these problems, I suggest Adler's
Paideia proposal. However, be prepared for some extensive
complaints from people (students) who believe that they should
be allowed to have electives during K-12. The notion that
students know what they should be taught, how they should be
taught, or what the standards should be is, of course, ludicrous.
Of course another problem is the ubiquitous living-room
monoculoid (couch-potato generator (you know, tee-vee)).
Our tee-vee is on a wheeled cart (with the vee-cee-argh)
in a closet. When we become aware that, say, the Nutcracker
ballet is scheduled, we wheel out the ol' boob toob and
enjoy the performance. When the performance is finished,
we wheel the thing back into the closet. Since instituting
our monoculoid storage policy, my family and I enjoy evenings
of games, music, conversation, reading, etc.
Bob Heinlein believed that tee-vee is more harmful than all
other drugs in this society. I think I agree. Members of the
A.S.P.P.B.D. (the American Society for the Prevention of
Premature Brain Death) "just say no" to tee vee!
--
Will Bralick : wbralick@afit-ab.arpa | If we desire to defeat the enemy,
Air Force Institute of Technology, | we must proportion our efforts to
| his powers of resistance.
with disclaimer; use disclaimer; | - Carl von Clauswitzdykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg) (12/15/88)
In article <776@afit-ab.arpa> wbralick@blackbird.afit.af.mil (William A. Bralick) writes: >For a possible solution to these problems, I suggest Adler's >Paideia proposal. However, be prepared for some extensive >complaints from people (students) who believe that they should >be allowed to have electives during K-12. The notion that >students know what they should be taught, how they should be >taught, or what the standards should be is, of course, ludicrous. I'm not familiar with "Adler's Paideia proposal," but I find your last statement completely insupportable. I had originally written a much longer response, but let me just paraphrase myself by saying that the attitude displayed above disgusts me. I counter your snide remark about K-12 students with my own equally unsupported claim: a curriculum that is blind to the needs and wants of the students is blind to everything education is about. I have no data to support this, but I have no doubt that if I'd been taught under your ideal school system, I'd be loading trucks or something instead of filling out grad school applications. A good curriculum should adapt to the students, and part of that involves teaching what the students want to learn and how they want it to be taught, at least some of the time. As a former K-12 student (inclusive), I feel justified in saying that your attitude toward students disgusts me. I might also add that due to the incompetence of certain individuals at certain schools I have attended (most notably high school), most of what I learned was outside of the classroom. And due to the more competent teaching I'm experiencing now, the trend is reversed. And I should note that the students are not remarkably different, nor the class size. But now all my classes are elective, and most of them are seminars or similarly structured. And more anecdotal pseudo-evidence - my most memorable pre-5th grade memory of school involved an activity which I engaged in during unstructured time, and which has by all surface measures had a tremendous effect on my current interests and skills. It was not part of any standard curriculum. That was by far one of my best years in terms of personal development. -Dan p.s. i'm hoping someone else will take on your remarks about television
mrk@wuphys.UUCP (Mark R. Kaufmann) (12/16/88)
In article <4893@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg) writes: >I might also add that due to the incompetence of certain individuals at certain >schools I have attended (most notably high school), most of what I learned >was outside of the classroom. And due to the more competent teaching >I'm experiencing now, the trend is reversed. And I should note that the >students are not remarkably different, nor the class size. But now all my >classes are elective, and most of them are seminars or similarly structured. > -Dan >p.s. i'm hoping someone else will take on your remarks about television I don't know which kind of high school or college you attended; I attended public schools in K-12 and a private university from then on. My experience is that the students were VERY different in the two cases. The major difference I see between these is that in the first case there was a lot of, for lack of a better phrase, "dead weight." That is, there were many students for whom school literally was a day care center, and who simply refused to advance their minds in any way whatsoever, and not only that, insisted on repeatedly disrupting the classroom so that even those who wanted to learn were sometimes hindered. The way I see it, a teacher simply cannot conduct a course when there are both "geniuses" and "dead weight" in the same classroom. What is called for, in my opinion, is segregation of students from day one according to their ability AND WILLINGNESS (VERY important) to learn. The latter seems much easier to guage than the former, though. Those who are able, willing, and ready to learn should not have to be dragged down by those who simply need a babysitter during the day. My classes were segregated in grades 1-3 (somehow--I didn't pay much attention to the methods used at the time!). But teaching children who were able and willing to learn in separate classrooms and at a faster speed than those who were either unable or unwilling (or both) then became unfashionable and "elitist," and from then on, except for _ADVANCED_ elective classes in high school, there was almost always "dead weight" in my classes--and of course, the rate of learning was determined by the slowest student(s) in the classroom. Comments/criticisms? ======================================= Mark R. Kaufmann UUCP: ...!uunet!wucs1!wucfua!wuphys!mrk wuphys!mrk@uunet.uu.net Internet: mrk@wuphys.wustl.edu =======================================
elg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Eric Green) (12/16/88)
in article <4893@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg) says: > Xref: killer comp.edu:1766 sci.math:5138 sci.physics:5354 > In article <776@afit-ab.arpa> wbralick@blackbird.afit.af.mil (William A. Bralick) writes: >>For a possible solution to these problems, I suggest Adler's >>Paideia proposal. However, be prepared for some extensive >>complaints from people (students) who believe that they should >>be allowed to have electives during K-12. The notion that >>students know what they should be taught, how they should be >>taught, or what the standards should be is, of course, ludicrous. > disgusts me. I counter your snide remark about K-12 students with my own > equally unsupported claim: a curriculum that is blind to the needs and wants > of the students is blind to everything education is about. In general, in K-12, the "wants" of the students are totally opposite the "needs" of the student. I don't know about your school, but at ordinary public schools like the ones I attended, most kids were there because they had to be, not because they wanted to be... if they had their "wants", they wouldn't be there at ALL. > school applications. A good curriculum should adapt to the students, and part > of that involves teaching what the students want to learn and how they want it > to be taught, at least some of the time. As a former K-12 student (inclusive), > I feel justified in saying that your attitude toward students > disgusts me. A good curriculum should adapt to the students, in that if a student wants to do/learn things beyond the minimum requirements, he/she should be encouraged in such ventures. But most of them DON'T want to be taught, and DON'T want to learn! You obviously attended very exceptional schools, if your classmates didn't, for the most part, feel that way. I remember, painfully, my immature years in my early teens, and some of the things I did in those days. If I'd had total charge of my life and education, I'd have screwed up even worse than I did. Childhood and adolescence, by definition, mean that you don't have adequate information to make an informed decision. Believe it or not, a substantial portion of the population isn't the sort of self-directed high achiever that you proclaim yourself to be. For many kids today, the parents come in at 6pm, say "hi, kid", flop exhaustedly into the couch in front of the tee-vee, and don't say another word till the 10 o'clock news (at which time they say, "g'night, kid"). Is that any way to impart the importance of education? What kind of education does it take to be a recliner rutabaga? How are the kids going to have enough information to make an informed decision about their education? > p.s. i'm hoping someone else will take on your remarks about television I just did. Makes it harder for the parents to come home from an exhausting day at work and turn off their brain, if there's no television around. Heck, they might even notice that their kids are alive, for a change. I run a computer bulletin board for a local computer club, of which about 50% of the users are kids under 17. These are mostly bright, fairly intelligent youngsters, some of whom are better conversationalists than the average USENETter. I get the distinct impression, from various conversations I've had, that for the most part their parents growled "Here, get out of my hair", threw money at them, and that's how they got their computer and modem. Their kids are a nuisance, excess baggage, something that clutters the house and occasionally interrupts their TV viewing while they're winding down from a long day at work and can't the ingrate bastard kids stay in their room or go out to play and just LEAVE US ALONE..... And we're not just talking poor kids in ghettos, here. We're talking about, e.g., wife a nurse, father a middle manager, large $100,000 house (down here, a standard 3-bedroom 2-bath sells for $40,000), bought his kid a Fiero for his 16'th birthday, bought her kid $5,000 worth of Amiga 2000 and accessories..... and I've been over to his house fairly often, and even when they're home, they rarely talk to him! No, television isn't solely responsible for the destruction of the family (and thus the cause of many of our educational problems... "why should I care what I do in school, if my parents don't?")... but as a mass Novocain to numb the mind, it certainly doesn't help. I shudder to think of what would have happened to the last kid above, if he hadn't been bit by the computer bug and convinced (by me) that the only way he could take it to the logical conclusion was to do well in math and study CS in college (he just finished his first semester at the University of New Orleans). -- Eric Lee Green ..!{ames,decwrl,mit-eddie,osu-cis}!killer!elg Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509 >> In Hell they run VMS. > No. In Hell, they run MS-DOS. And you only get 256k.
dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg) (12/16/88)
In article <608@wuphys.UUCP> mrk@wuphys.UUCP (Mark R. Kaufmann) writes: >... >The major difference I see between these is that in the first case >there was a lot of, for lack of a better phrase, "dead weight." [description of what dead weight is] >The way I see it, a teacher simply cannot conduct a course when >there are both "geniuses" and "dead weight" in the same classroom. >What is called for, in my opinion, is segregation of students from day one >according to their ability AND WILLINGNESS (VERY important) to learn. >The latter seems much easier to guage than the former, though. >Those who are able, willing, and ready to learn should not have to be >dragged down by those who simply need a babysitter during the day. >My classes were segregated in grades 1-3 (somehow--I didn't pay much >attention to the methods used at the time!). >But teaching children who were able and willing to learn in separate classrooms >and at a faster speed than those who were either unable or unwilling (or both) >then became unfashionable and "elitist," and from then on, except for >_ADVANCED_ elective classes in high school, there was almost always >"dead weight" in my classes--and of course, the rate of learning >was determined by the slowest student(s) in the classroom. Comments/criticisms? I agree with the spirit of your message, and some of the specifics. I do think, though, that it's not as simple as apptitude and willingness-to-learn scales - there are also individual differences. Someone who seems to be dead weight might actually be better characterized among the geniuses, but is violently in disaccord with the educational strategy. People can't only be taught according to their level, but should also be taught in the way that's best suited to them. Much easier said than done! I've spent a lot of time held back by dead weight, and I find it extremely frustrating that people would find the idea of separate tracks unfashionable and/or elitist. These are the sorts of people who know nothing about education but are running huge educational systems. Or are senators. Or whatever. On the one hand, there are tons of reasons why the ideal system is unattainable and why wholesale changes would be logistically impossible. But people are unwilling even to make the small changes that would help alleviate the problem. I don't think I should start to go into this right now. It's just too tangled an issue. But I think that to even approximate a reasonable educational system, as opposed to what's in place in the united states right now, the entire thing would have to be gutted and rebuilt. As things stand, almost no one is getting the education they deserve, except for that tiny percentage of the population just above the average (I think this is the sector that most teachers teach to, but I might be mistaken). -Dan
yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) (12/17/88)
In article <6435@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> elg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Eric Green) writes: >in article <4893@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg) says: >> Xref: killer comp.edu:1766 sci.math:5138 sci.physics:5354 >> In article <776@afit-ab.arpa> wbralick@blackbird.afit.af.mil (William A. Bralick) writes: >>>For a possible solution to these problems, I suggest Adler's >>>Paideia proposal. However, be prepared for some extensive >>>complaints from people (students) who believe that they should >>>be allowed to have electives during K-12. Allowed to have electives??? I think the best solution would be 100% electives. >>>The notion that students know what they should be taught, how they should be >>>taught, or what the standards should be is, of course, ludicrous. The notion that public school teachers know what students should be taught, how they should be taught, or what the standards should be is, of course, even more ludicrous. >In general, in K-12, the "wants" of the students are totally opposite >the "needs" of the student. I don't know about your school, but at >ordinary public schools like the ones I attended, most kids were there >because they had to be, not because they wanted to be... if they had >their "wants", they wouldn't be there at ALL. >But most of them DON'T want to >be taught, and DON'T want to learn! You're right. But the reason why many students hate school is because they are being held against their will for 7 (or more) hours a day, 9 (or more) months a year, being forcefed material toward which they feel absolutely no interest. Imagine that the government decided that there was a desperate shortage of accountants and decided to draft *you* to spend to the next 13 years of your life studying accounting 7 hours a day, 9 months a year, with homework due every day. (If you like accounting, then substitute something that bores you to tears.) On the other hand, it is obvious that very young children have an intense desire to learn (as well as to play). They are always asking questions, "Why is the sky blue?", "What is thunder?", "What makes the car go?", etc. The solution is to tap this natural curiousity and allow the child to pursue these interests wherever they take him or her. Of course, many older children have already been ruined by the educational system, and it may be more difficult, if not impossible, to show them that learning is something that can be done for pleasure and not just to please teachers/parents or in order to get a job. >I shudder >to think of what would have happened to the last kid above, if he >hadn't been bit by the computer bug and convinced (by me) that the >only way he could take it to the logical conclusion was to do well in >math and study CS in college (he just finished his first semester at >the University of New Orleans). This is *exactly* my point. What captured this kid's imagination was not the material he was forced to learn in school, but the discovery that there was some field (computers) that he *enjoyed* and wanted to pursue for his *own* reasons. >Eric Lee Green ..!{ames,decwrl,mit-eddie,osu-cis}!killer!elg > Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509 > >> In Hell they run VMS. > > No. In Hell, they run MS-DOS. And you only get 256k. _______________________________________________________________________________ Brian Yamauchi University of Rochester yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu Computer Science Department _______________________________________________________________________________
c60a-2by@web-2a.berkeley.edu (Oliver Juang) (12/17/88)
In article <608@wuphys.UUCP> mrk@wuphys.UUCP (Mark R. Kaufmann) writes: >I don't know which kind of high school or college you attended; I >attended public schools in K-12 and a private university from then on. >My experience is that the students were VERY different in the two cases. >The major difference I see between these is that in the first case >there was a lot of, for lack of a better phrase, "dead weight." >That is, there were many students for whom school literally >was a day care center, and who simply refused to advance their minds >in any way whatsoever, and not only that, insisted on repeatedly disrupting >the classroom so that even those who wanted to learn were sometimes hindered. >The way I see it, a teacher simply cannot conduct a course when >there are both "geniuses" and "dead weight" in the same classroom. >What is called for, in my opinion, is segregation of students from day one >according to their ability AND WILLINGNESS (VERY important) to learn. >The latter seems much easier to guage than the former, though. >Those who are able, willing, and ready to learn should not have to be >dragged down by those who simply need a babysitter during the day. >My classes were segregated in grades 1-3 (somehow--I didn't pay much >attention to the methods used at the time!). >But teaching children who were able and willing to learn in separate classrooms >and at a faster speed than those who were either unable or unwilling (or both) >then became unfashionable and "elitist," and from then on, except for >_ADVANCED_ elective classes in high school, there was almost always >"dead weight" in my classes--and of course, the rate of learning >was determined by the slowest student(s) in the classroom. Comments/criticisms? >======================================= >Mark R. Kaufmann >UUCP: ...!uunet!wucs1!wucfua!wuphys!mrk > wuphys!mrk@uunet.uu.net >Internet: mrk@wuphys.wustl.edu >======================================= Unfortunately, although I agree with the idea of segregating the "dead weight" from the "geniuses", there are quite a few problems with making this happen effectively in real life. Especially with regards as to which people are "dead weight", or "geniuses". How do you propose to distinguish them? Their grades? (what if a previous teacher graded unfairly) IQ tests? (I'm sure IQ test have been discussed before on this newsgroup, but I'm new to it) Finances of parents? Nationality? The letter their name begins with? Also, what happens when you have someone who would be considered a "genius", except that he/she is "learning disabled (or whatever the popular term is now)", or can't read English, or was sick the day of the evaluation, etc. I should perhaps note that I went to a public schools system where K-5 was students mixed at random and in 6th they started "honors" courses. In high school they had different "tracks" or some such word in which they recommended (did I spell that right? Shows my education, I guess) different courses. It also had "competency" tests which you had to pass to graduate. (questions like "which way do you cut with a knife" "a. left" "b. right" "c. towards you" "d. away from you"). Well, anyway this is getting long so I'll end it here. Flame me if you wish, but send e-mail as I figure people want to read only follow-ups with something to say to everyone. Oh, perhaps a disclaimer: My views do not represent the University of California at Berkeley. The posters on my wall have an entirely different subject matter. Address: c60a-2by@web.berkeley.edu <-- this is arpanet, I think, but I'm new to this stuff.
dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg) (12/17/88)
[I've done some editing to keep the below short] In article <6435@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> elg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Eric Green) writes: >in article <4893@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg) says: >> In article <776@afit-ab.arpa> wbralick@blackbird.afit.af.mil (William A. Bralick) writes: >>>Paideia proposal. However, be prepared for some extensive >>>complaints from people (students) who believe that they should >>>be allowed to have electives during K-12. The notion that >>>students know what they should be taught, how they should be >>>taught, or what the standards should be is, of course, ludicrous. >> disgusts me. I counter your snide remark about K-12 students with my own >> equally unsupported claim: a curriculum that is blind to the needs and wants >> of the students is blind to everything education is about. >In general, in K-12, the "wants" of the students are totally opposite >the "needs" of the student. I don't know about your school, but at >ordinary public schools like the ones I attended, most kids were there >because they had to be, not because they wanted to be... if they had >their "wants", they wouldn't be there at ALL. Granted, but the original poster wasn't talking about what the students want in general, he was writing about curriculum and teaching methods, specifically referring to a proposal which apparently would eliminate electives. As far as I'm concerned, if some students want to take extra math/science, and some want to take extra humanities, they should be allowed to do so. This doesn't rule out the possibility of a core curriculum. >>school applications. A good curriculum should adapt to the students, and part >>of that involves teaching what the students want to learn and how they want it >>to be taught, at least some of the time. >A good curriculum should adapt to the students, in that if a student >wants to do/learn things beyond the minimum requirements, he/she >should be encouraged in such ventures. But most of them DON'T want to >be taught, and DON'T want to learn! You obviously attended very >exceptional schools, if your classmates didn't, for the most part, >feel that way. As it happens, I did attend unusual schools, but that's besides the point. I don't see why only exceptional students should be allowed to choose between electives. I think it's important to do some custom fitting for all students. Just because, as you say, some students don't want to learn, it doesn't mean that they should have a fixed curriculum jammed down their throats. >I remember, painfully, my immature years in my early teens, and some >of the things I did in those days. If I'd had total charge of my life >and education, I'd have screwed up even worse than I did. Childhood >and adolescence, by definition, mean that you don't have adequate >information to make an informed decision. Believe it or not, a >substantial portion of the population isn't the sort of self-directed >high achiever that you proclaim yourself to be. >...How are the kids going to have enough >information to make an informed decision about their education? Wait, who's talking about total charge of education? I just think that students should have *SOME* control over, at the very least, the curriculum. And, to respond to the broad comments made by the original poster, I think that high achievers should have control over how they are taught, too, since they actually care. Besides, I don't think that administrators are making any better decisions right now than even the least intelligent student would make if the system were shifted so that students had more control over curriculum. In other words, I think they're at worse than chance. Which means they aren't just doing a bad job, they're being actively stupid. >[description of tv abuse] While I agree that many people in a sense abuse television (i.e. use it as a drug), I think that what was objectionable in the original posting was the idea that the television was the cause of the problem. I don't think that's the case. I think it just makes it easier for the problem to develop. I have a television, and I don't have to lock it in the closet to prevent myself from turning into a vegetable. In addition, the original poster made strong suggestions that the only acceptable use of television was for traditional and conventionally accepted cultural spectacles. The example was the nutcracker, but I assume it generalizes (to taste) to things like operas, documentaries about the holocaust (not mini-series), and on rare occasions political events. -Dan
w-colinp@microsoft.UUCP (Colin Plumb) (12/17/88)
In article <1988Dec16.153701.8316@cs.rochester.edu> yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes: >On the other hand, it is obvious that very young children have an >intense desire to learn (as well as to play). They are always asking >questions, "Why is the sky blue?", "What is thunder?", "What makes the >car go?", etc. The solution is to tap this natural curiousity and >allow the child to pursue these interests wherever they take him or >her. I try to make a point of answering these questions. I remember one time my.. lessee now... stepfather's brother's daughter's son asked me how a T.V. worked. A bit over three hours later, we'd covered rods & cones, additive & subtractive colours (although I really wish I had samples of vyan and magenta), wave theory of light, a bit about flickering and motion blur, and touched on a host of other topics. I found it fun, and I'm told John asked when I'd be around many times the next day. It can be difficult to express it in terms they already understand, but if you're only trying to teach one person, it's pretty easy. >Of course, many older children have already been ruined by the >educational system, and it may be more difficult, if not impossible, >to show them that learning is something that can be done for pleasure >and not just to please teachers/parents or in order to get a job. Learning, I've found, frequently != classes. Certainly, I've learned a good deal, some of it (e.g. French) even useful, but even more just by talking to people and reading whatever came my way. I didn't learn how to parse from my langauge theory course. Consider that you learn an average of 8 words a day (how many words do you know? A thousand days is 3 years) through your teens. Would you attribute this to a class? -- -Colin (uunet!microsof!w-colinp)
pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) (12/19/88)
In article <97@microsoft.UUCP> w-colinp@microsoft.UUCP (Colin Plumb) writes:
=Learning, I've found, frequently != classes.
Dear me! Who ever said that ALL learning takes place through classes?
Certainly, no reputable educator did. There are certain things that
people will need to know (whether they can understand the need at the
time or not), and some of those things are most efficiently learned in a
formal setting. There's no question that bright people can learn lots
of things by themselves. However, most people find that their time is
spent more effectively in the company of a person who understands how to
teach them what they are to learn.
--
Pete Holsberg UUCP: {...!rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh
Mercer College CompuServe: 70240,334
1200 Old Trenton Road GEnie: PJHOLSBERG
Trenton, NJ 08690 Voice: 1-609-586-4800bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) (12/19/88)
>>The way I see it, a teacher simply cannot conduct a course when >>there are both "geniuses" and "dead weight" in the same classroom. Without getting too deeply into the current discussion, I think I must object to the label "dead weight". They AREN'T "dead weight", they're the ones who learn the most slowly. They're the ones who need the *best* teaching. The "geniuses" may benefit more from good teaching, but they don't need it -- they'll learn without being taught, they'll learn even in the face of active opposition. The academically weak students may grow up to be societal "dead weight". Society needs to teach them as well as possible, as young as possible, precisely to avoid this -- so that they grow up to be useful, contributing members of society, not written-off "dead weight".
jejones@mcrware.UUCP (James Jones) (12/20/88)
I'm sorry, but I can't agree. By that reasoning, the master flute class that I once saw Jean-Pierre Rampal teach should have had me on stage--I can't play the flute worth a hoot--instead of the cream of the crop that was up there with him. Geniuses, after all, can take care of themselves, right? I grew up in schools that seemed to share that notion, and the main thing I learned was how not to study. College was a definite awakening. I hope that schools disabuse themselves of the notion that they don't have to do anything special for the gifted, or can just ignore them in favor of trying to teach the least able. James Jones
elg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Eric Green) (12/20/88)
in article <15895@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>, bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) says: >>>The way I see it, a teacher simply cannot conduct a course when >>>there are both "geniuses" and "dead weight" in the same classroom. > the ones who learn the most slowly. They're the ones who need the > *best* teaching. The "geniuses" may benefit more from good teaching, > but they don't need it -- they'll learn without being taught, they'll > learn even in the face of active opposition. BULLSH*T. The more intelligent students may be capable of learning on their own, but they very much still need to be taught. The content of teaching however, can be much different when you have intelligent motivated students. Such students are capable of learning the details on their own; they need FRAMEWORK, a "overview" if you will, of where a topic fits in the subject, its relative importance, things of those sort. Whereas with people who are not motivated, or who have difficulty learning, the teacher MUST spend time going over the details, making sure that they understand everything necessary to go on to the next level. The end result is that in a class where the two are mixed, either concepts pass over the head of the poorer students, or the better ones are bored and frustrated. As for the "they'll learn without being taught, they'll learn even in the face of active opposition", then why haven't we had a black Nobel Prize winner in Physics? Are you saying it's because blacks are inherently stupid? I think it's obvious, myself -- blacks traditionally have faced active opposition to education, and have been taught very poorly or not at all. Bright students, average students, and poor achievers all have different needs, and all require different teaching styles. Putting all three together in the same classroom is a recipe for disaster. -- Eric Lee Green ..!{ames,decwrl,mit-eddie,osu-cis}!killer!elg Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509 Netter A: In Hell they run VMS. Netter B: No. In Hell, they run MS-DOS. And you only get 256k.
reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) (12/20/88)
In article <15895@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> bobmon@iuvax.UUCP (RAMontante) writes: >>>The way I see it, a teacher simply cannot conduct a course when >>>there are both "geniuses" and "dead weight" in the same classroom. >Without getting too deeply into the current discussion, I think I must >object to the label "dead weight". They AREN'T "dead weight", they're >the ones who learn the most slowly. They're the ones who need the >*best* teaching. The "geniuses" may benefit more from good teaching, >but they don't need it -- they'll learn without being taught, they'll >learn even in the face of active opposition. I agree completely! Bright students are a pleasure to teach. They generally are interested in the course and ask challenging questions. They do not just sit there and stare at you, waiting for words of wisdom. But it is the not so bright students who are the real challenge of teaching. If you can reach them and show them the path to improvement, then and only then are you *really* a teacher. -- George W. Leach Paradyne Corporation ..!uunet!pdn!reggie Mail stop LG-129 Phone: (813) 530-2376 P.O. Box 2826 Largo, FL USA 34649-2826
nevin1@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Liber) (12/21/88)
[followups to comp.edu] In article <502@mccc.UUCP> pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) writes: >However, most people find that their time is >spent more effectively in the company of a person who understands how to >teach them what they are to learn. Yes, but the intersection of those people and my college professors yields a very small set indeed! Professors are not usually hired based on their teaching ability; they are hired on their research ability. Assuming that their job is *teaching*, what is their degree in? Usually in the field that they are going to teach. It is like hiring a mechanic to design an auto factory, or a librarian as a head publisher (this is not intended as a put-down of mechanics or librarians; I'm just trying to point out that the job is mismatched.). Seems absurd, doesn't it? It is not even a necessary condition, let alone a sufficient condition, to know the material in order to teach it. If you look at professional videotapes made for teaching, you will notice that most of the good ones have actors, not professors, doing the teaching (you can usually tell the difference on technical terms). -- NEVIN ":-)" LIBER AT&T Bell Laboratories nevin1@ihlpb.ATT.COM (312) 979-4751
bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) (12/21/88)
It appears I overstated my feelings, and (so far) two people have picked up on the throwaway and ignored my real thesis. I certainly do not advocate ignoring bright children. By all means give them the best teaching possible. (I can even speak from experience; I had both extremes in grade school and high school, and I like the good teaching a lot more.) But the not-so-bright child IS _NOT_ DEAD WOOD!!!!! Quite aside from the ethical implications of branding somebody at such an early stage, what I was trying to say was that we harm ourselves, as a (technological) society, by ignoring and trashing these people with such an attitude. I heartily agree that different kinds of teaching are required for different kinds of students. But when you call someone "deadwood" you imply that the appropriate teaching for this student is nothing more than daycare. When such a student is treated this way, you end up with an adult that will always need daycare. U.S. industry isn't suffering because its scientists are second-rate -- it's in trouble because its blue-collar workers can't keep up with the technology they should be using. -- -- bob, mon (bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu) -- RAMontante, Computer Science Dept., Indiana University, Bloomington -- "In this position, the skier is flying in a complete stall..."
dc@gcm (Dave Caswell) (12/22/88)
> the ones who learn the most slowly. They're the ones who need the > *best* teaching. The "geniuses" may benefit more from good teaching, > but they don't need it -- they'll learn without being taught, they'll > learn even in the face of active opposition. That is an interesting comment. Personally I haven't noticed any great correlation between intelligence and motivation. Some of the smartest students haven't accomplished a thing and wouldn't study if you forced them. On the other hand, people who have just average intelligence sometimes study and do very well. -- Dave Caswell Greenwich Capital Markets uunet!philabs!gcm!dc
elg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Eric Green) (12/22/88)
in article <15954@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>, bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) says: > U.S. industry isn't suffering because its scientists are second-rate -- > it's in trouble because its blue-collar workers can't keep up with the > technology they should be using. I tend to disagree. Blue-collar workers in, say, Taiwan, recieve little more training than our average U.S. high school graduate, academic-wise. They're tested in the 7th grade or so for entry into the upper level, and if they don't pass, they're placed in a technical school to teach them a skill instead of placed on the high track. You might draw the conclusion that the U.S. needs a better system of technical schools for teaching blue-collar skills, but that's another issue altogether. U.S. industry is more likely in trouble because of management short-sightedness, and modern takeover wizards who turn investment in modernization into debt on leverage buyouts. Not to mention business and engineering schools which fail to mention that businesses are in business to BUILD things, not just to "manage personel" or "create moby hacks"... good production engineering, commonplace in Japan, is a rarity here. True, U.S. industry isn't suffering because its scientists are second-rate. But that's just because it imports its scientists from overseas, just like its VCRs and color TVs. -- Eric Lee Green ..!{ames,decwrl,mit-eddie,osu-cis}!killer!elg Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509 Netter A: In Hell they run VMS. Netter B: No. In Hell, they run MS-DOS. And you only get 256k.
brianm@sco.COM (Brian Moffet) (12/23/88)
In article <6498@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> elg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Eric Green) writes:
-in article <15895@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>, bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) says:
->>>The way I see it, a teacher simply cannot conduct a course when
->>>there are both "geniuses" and "dead weight" in the same classroom.
-
-level. The end result is that in a class where the two are mixed,
-either concepts pass over the head of the poorer students, or the
-better ones are bored and frustrated.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is very important. Many really intelligent people
have a common learning disability of "short attention span"
because they were bored. Until these people find something
they are really interested in, they have a hard time learning
it (if it is not trivial).
brian moffet
--
Brian Moffet {uunet,decvax!microsoft,ucscc}!sco!brianm
-or- ...sco!alar!brian
"Evil Geniuses for a better tomorrow!" My fish and company have policies.
I have opinions.pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) (12/23/88)
In article <5186@pdn.UUCP> reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) writes: =In article <15895@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> bobmon@iuvax.UUCP (RAMontante) writes: =>>>The way I see it, a teacher simply cannot conduct a course when =>>>there are both "geniuses" and "dead weight" in the same classroom. = =>Without getting too deeply into the current discussion, I think I must =>object to the label "dead weight". They AREN'T "dead weight", they're =>the ones who learn the most slowly. They're the ones who need the =>*best* teaching. = [some stuff omitted] =But it is the not so bright students who are the real challenge of teaching. =If you can reach them and show them the path to improvement, then and only =then are you *really* a teacher. Forgive me for injecting my favorite personal anecdote about teaching and learning, but having been a practitioner for 30 years and a seeker for even more, I have a view on teaching and learning that I want to share with you. When I was a graduate student at (large eastern state university), I was required to pass a reading exam in each of two foreign languages. French was a snap (after all, I had a year of French in high school!), but when it came to German, I decided to sign up for the grad student reading course. After about 6 weeks, I was so confused that I could no longer identify nouns! So I dropped it. About a year later, my dissertation adviser started to make noises about the German exam, so I signed up for the same course with the same instructor, fearing a repeat of the previous year's debacle. Well, I was finished after 6 weeks but this time it was with a paper that said "distinguished translation!!". I have no idea ho wthe transistion from "dummy" to "genius" took place, but it did. Since that time, I've discussed this with a number of psychologists, and the concensus is "readiness": if Johnny is "ready" to learn, Johnny will learn. And the converse is true. The first course I ever taught (I was a GTA at the time) was called "Holsberg's mystery hour" by the students. Ten years later, my course ratings were so high as to embarrass me. A fellow from an exclusive provate school called me "the best he's ever seen". But, I have always wondered if my students actually learned any better with me than with someone else. I doubt if I ruined the careers of those sophs who took EM Theory with me, and I doubt if the guy with the praise knows a lot more about analog computers than someone in another instructor's course. So, here's my philosophy of teaching: 1. Don't get in the way. Let learners learn; don't turn them off; don't put obstacles -- physical or psychological -- in their way. 2. Help those who want help, but don't get discouraged if it doesn't take. 3. Try to get those who are having trouble but who don't want help to get motivated. But remember that they are probably just not ready. Sorry to take up so much space. I hope someone gets something from this posting. Happy holidays, Pete -- Pete Holsberg UUCP: {...!rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh Mercer College CompuServe: 70240,334 1200 Old Trenton Road GEnie: PJHOLSBERG Trenton, NJ 08690 Voice: 1-609-586-4800
mrk@wuphys.UUCP (Mark R. Kaufmann) (12/23/88)
In article <15895@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> bobmon@iuvax.UUCP (RAMontante) writes: >In article <somewhere, sometime> I write: >>The way I see it, a teacher simply cannot conduct a course when >>there are both "geniuses" and "dead weight" in the same classroom. > >Without getting too deeply into the current discussion, I think I must >object to the label "dead weight". They AREN'T "dead weight", they're >the ones who learn the most slowly. They're the ones who need the >*best* teaching. I must insist that there were many children (I shouldn't use the word "students"--I would be insulting anyone who has ever been interested in learning anything) in all of the required "core" classes and almost all of the introductory-level elective classes at my "modern, high-quality" suburban public high "school" (and elementary "school") which were indeed nothing more than dead weight in the classroom. I am not speaking of children who are willing to learn but are not particularly able, but rather of children who, for whatever reasons, are NOT WILLING to learn, regardless of whether or not they are able. In my experience, their ONLY contributions to the classroom were negative, in the form of disrupting it with their behavior. Only at the level of ADVANCED elective courses were the true students actually schooled in a reasonably effective manner, because there was no longer any dead weight to hold the class back. >The "geniuses" may benefit more from good teaching, >but they don't need it -- they'll learn without being taught, they'll >learn even in the face of active opposition. Here is where I disagree most strongly. It is just one more case of the deserving paying penalties for the non-deserving, while the non-deserving are treated to a country club, thereby reinforcing their behavior. If I'm not mistaken, you are essentially stating that an intelligent child whose parents do not possess the wealth to send him or her to a finer private school should not enjoy the privilege (or is it a right?) of being educated at anything approaching his or her own level. The bright students should be dumped into the gutter and forgotten while our tax-supported schools try to resurrect children who are already YEARS behind in their studies and make worthwhile, contributing individuals (maybe even Nobel laureates :-) ) out of them. Horseshit. The "geniuses" may not be the ones who NEED teaching the most, but clearly they are the ones who DESERVE it the most, and clearly they will be the ones who will CONTRIBUTE the most if they are ever allowed to receive it! >The academically weak students may grow up to be societal "dead weight".... To clarify again, my biggest concern is not academically weak students, but rather totally incorrigible individuals who refuse to be taught anything, anytime. Of COURSE any student who is willing to learn should have all the help it is possible to give, within realistic constraints. The best way to do that, as I see it, is to group the children according to their ability to learn, as perceived in kindergarten or first grade. In the public elementary school I attended, there were enough students to fill four classrooms, and there were four levels from brightest to slowest. Sure, even then, not every student gets the attention he should receive in an IDEAL situation, but it sure seems better than lumping all children together without any regard to their abilities or willingnesses to learn (much as one's stomach churns up its contents without regard to their characteristics). If some errors are made in placement, then some students may be short-changed. Should avoiding this possibility be so important that no bright students are educated at a speed reasonably close to their level? (No!) And of course, such placements should be flexible--a child could move up or down as the individual circumstances warranted. Someone mentioned the fact that he experienced peer pressures NOT to do well in school. Whew, was that ever the case during most of my public school education! I was looked upon as some kind of undesirable freak, not only by peers, but also by some "teachers"! With bright students separated out, I think this problem would disappear. As far as the absolutely incorrigible individuals who positively refuse to behave in such a manner as to facilitate any learning at all (or don't you believe that such a person can exist?), I think they should literally be placed into a playroom, and not one additional dollar of public resources should be wasted on them. (For that matter, contracting out to a commercial day-care center may actually be cheaper than the present attempts to teach them something.) >Society needs to teach them as well as possible, as young as possible, >precisely to avoid this--so that they grow up to be useful, >contributing members of society, not written-off "dead weight". Well, if you substitute the word "Individuals" for the word "Society" then I agree 100%. ("Society" can never do anything to anyone. Only individuals can. I'm being picky, I guess.) Just segregate from them the students who can and will learn faster. My whole point is, it seems ludicrous to allow children who are unwilling to learn to hinder or actually drag down those who are willing to learn (and worse, those who are both able and willing to learn quickly); yet, it seems to be the standard procedure! And then some people wonder why even brighter students aren't motivated, aren't prepared for college, etc.! Sorry this has been so long. It didn't start out that way. NOTE the "followup-to" line (comp.edu only)! ======================================= Mark R. Kaufmann UUCP: ...!uunet!wucs1!wucfua!wuphys!mrk wuphys!mrk@uunet.uu.net Internet: mrk@wuphys.wustl.edu =======================================
cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) (12/23/88)
In article <9238@ihlpb.ATT.COM>, nevin1@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Liber) writes: > In article <502@mccc.UUCP> pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) writes: > > >However, most people find that their time is > >spent more effectively in the company of a person who understands how to > >teach them what they are to learn. > > Yes, but the intersection of those people and my college professors > yields a very small set indeed! Professors are not usually hired based > on their teaching ability; they are hired on their research ability. Teaching should be done by those who UNDERSTAND the subject. Generally researchers have such understanding, else they would not be able to do research. It is possible to have scholars who are not very good at research who have such understanding. Unfortunately, it is rare. Teaching means presenting the WHY, not the HOW. It is very difficult to teach the why to students who are not research caliber who already know the how. It is harder than if they had not been taught the mechanics. At least this is the situation in mathematics and statistics, and from my student days, in other fields as well. ...................... > It is not even a necessary condition, let alone a sufficient condition, > to know the material in order to teach it. If you look at professional > videotapes made for teaching, you will notice that most of the good > ones have actors, not professors, doing the teaching (you can usually > tell the difference on technical terms). Baloney. It is not sufficient, agreed. But an actor can only present what the professor explicitly includes. A lecture is one of the worst ways of teaching; many give the same lectures time after time. If that is what they do, videotape it the first time and replay it; and an actor can do it better. A lecture has been defined as material going from the lecturer's notes to the auditors' notes, without passing through the minds of either. I once made the mistake of asking a question with such a lecturer. He could not teach, he could only present. Too many students want such garbage. We should not oblige them. -- Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907 Phone: (317)494-6054 hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet, UUCP)
marek@ucrmath.EDU (Marek Chrobak) (12/26/88)
In article <1077@l.cc.purdue.edu> cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: > >Teaching means presenting the WHY, not the HOW. It is very difficult to teach >the why to students who are not research caliber who already know the how. >A lecture has been defined as material going from the lecturer's notes to >the auditors' notes, without passing through the minds of either. I once >made the mistake of asking a question with such a lecturer. He could not >teach, he could only present. Too many students want such garbage. We >should not oblige them. >-- >Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907 How true and how sad. I have once tried to do something with this habit of "xeroxing" a lecture, by following very closely a textbook, so that the students do not have to take too much notes, and may have more time to think in class. Once they noted that I follow the book, half of them stopped to come to class at all. In the other half this xeroxing habit was yet stronger than I thought, they were still copying every word I said. What I find quite irritiating, is when the students at the beginning of a course, ask whether I will do proofs. I remember the first time it happened to me, I simply did not understand the question. How can one teach math without proofs at all? Mathematics is more in proofs than theorems. But what the math education here seems to accomplish is to reverse this completely. Math is taught as a set of magic rules, which have to be followed with precision and veneration. Of course, this is all "true", because the professors say so. And it's in the book, anyway. They would not lie in print would they? The students know that the proofs, these scary complicated things, exist somewhere but they are just some technical and messy explanations of what everybody knows anyway, so why to bother at all. They not just don't understand the proofs, they do not even feel the NEED of a proof. In Herman's terms, the question WHY does not cross their mind. They just want to know HOW. It would be silly to blame the students for this. This is the way they have been taught in school, it's no wonder this is what they expect from college. My daughter is in the second grade now. All math she has been taught so far is addition and subtraction, for numbers smaller than 100 of course. This is already a year and a half of addition and subtraction. She is studying also from second-grade textbooks we received from Poland. At her age children there have already some understanding of elementary notions in set theory: sets and operations on sets. In the second grade, they are already taugth solving linear equations. Arithmetic is taught on a way, it's derived, in a way, from sets, and is regarded rather as a necessary tool, not the goal. Every exercise in a book is a real pearl, requires a little bit of thinking, just enough for a kid, but also enough to live a trace and teach something. And still, this is all entertaining enough, so that even if it's not really fun, it's surely less boring that hundreds of additions and subtractions. I wonder what will they cover in her school later this year, will they teach numbers greater than 100, or start multiplication? Marek
dph@faline.bellcore.com (Daniel P. Heyman) (12/29/88)
In article <605@ucrmath.EDU>, marek@ucrmath.EDU (Marek Chrobak) writes: > In article <1077@l.cc.purdue.edu> cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: > > > >Teaching means presenting the WHY, not the HOW. It is very difficult to teach > >the why to students who are not research caliber who already know the how. > > > How true and how sad. I have once tried to do something with > this habit of "xeroxing" a lecture, by following very closely > a textbook, so that the students do not have to take too > much notes, and may have more time to think in class. Once they > noted that I follow the book, half of them stopped to come to > class at all. In the other half this xeroxing habit was yet > stronger than I thought, they were still copying every word > I said. > My advisor in graduate school tried handing out lecture notes prior to giving the lecture. He told the students they had notes of everything we was going to write on the board, so they should concentrate on the why and not the how, and to stop him if they didn't understand the why of a step. After a few classes he became completley frustrated when he looked up and saw everyone ( I was not in this class) copying from the board. He gave up before the term was over. I tried the same thing with preprints of a book I was writing. The results were about the same. My theory is that students got used to taking notes, got good grades by doing so, and won't change something they don't regard as broke. Another aspect is: copying is easy, thinking about what's going on is hard, and one takes the path of least resistance. My way of taking notes was to write down the theorem and key steps in the proof, with comments on the why of certain steps. For homework I would fill in the manipulations; I usually felt that I understood the proof because I did it myself with hints from class. Dan Heyman ...!bellcore!dph
elg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Eric Green) (12/29/88)
in article <605@ucrmath.EDU>, marek@ucrmath.EDU (Marek Chrobak) says: > Xref: killer comp.edu:1858 sci.math:5231 sci.physics:5475 > a proof. In Herman's terms, the question WHY does not cross > their mind. They just want to know HOW. > > It would be silly to blame the students for this. This is the > way they have been taught in school, it's no wonder this is > what they expect from college. [ describes Polish elementary school math curriculum, where they start at the bottom, with sets, and go on up from there] Sounds like you're blaming the teachers. You shouldn't. They're doing the best they can, with what little knowledge they have. Blame college curriculums which do not include any "Basics of Mathematics" courses, only tons of courses in equation manipulation (Algebra, Trig, and sometimes Calculus if they're preparing for a career in science education). I have always been uncomfortable with "black boxes", the kind of kid who tore apart alarm clocks and lawnmower engines to see how they worked, but whenever I asked my elementary teachers "why", all they could do is shrug and say "because the book says so." > this is all entertaining enough, so that even if it's > not really fun, it's surely less boring that hundreds of additions > and subtractions. I wonder what will they cover in her school later > this year, will they teach numbers greater than 100, or start > multiplication? They should start teaching her basic multiplication at the end of the 2nd grade, if her curriculum is anywhere near the one I endured. Then, during the 3rd grade, they'll make her memorize the multiplication table, and work yet more arithmetic problems. In the fourth grade they'll introduce division, and "fractions".... Is it any wonder why your typical bright and impatient student hates "math"? It's BORING! -- Eric Lee Green ..!{ames,decwrl,mit-eddie,osu-cis}!killer!elg Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509 Netter A: In Hell they run VMS. Netter B: No. In Hell, they run MS-DOS. And you only get 256k.
reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) (12/29/88)
In article <2141@faline.bellcore.com> dph@faline.bellcore.com (Daniel P. Heyman) writes: [several examples of attempts to end "xeroxing" a lecture by students in their notes deleted] >The results were about the same. My theory is that students got >used to taking notes, got good grades by doing so, and won't change >something they don't regard as broke. Another aspect is: copying is >easy, thinking about what's going on is hard, and one takes the path >of least resistance. Good point! Many of the study habits and methods of learning are established by the time a student reaches the collegiate level. Unfortunately, I doubt there are very many secondary and elementary schools where why is stressed over how or the study of facts. I can recall my first semester of freshman calculous, where the instructor would spend 45 minutes in the lecture doing nothing but writing on the board and the class would do nothing but copy that information down on their notebooks. The guy never once turned around and faced the class to discuss something. He never let up with the chalk, filling one blackboard after another. The joke going around was that the TA sitting in the back of the room should have been following him along the black boards that covered the wall with an eraser, so that we could "learn" more in less time! I only recall experiencing extreme pain in my hand after that lecture every time. Fortunately, the person we had in the smaller group sessions tried hard to explain things. I think that the only way to discourage straight "xeroxing" of information is to try to encourage discussion and questions in the class. Just don't lecture, but try to establish a dialogue with the class. This is much more difficult for an instructor who can look bad if a question can not be answered. Somehow, the students must start to think. -- George W. Leach Paradyne Corporation ..!uunet!pdn!reggie Mail stop LG-129 Phone: (813) 530-2376 P.O. Box 2826 Largo, FL USA 34649-2826
matloff@bizet.Berkeley.EDU (Norman Matloff) (12/30/88)
In article <2141@faline.bellcore.com> dph@faline.bellcore.com (Daniel P. Heyman) writes: >In article <605@ucrmath.EDU>, marek@ucrmath.EDU (Marek Chrobak) writes: >> In article <1077@l.cc.purdue.edu> cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: *> How true and how sad. I have once tried to do something with *> this habit of "xeroxing" a lecture, by following very closely *> a textbook, so that the students do not have to take too *> much notes, and may have more time to think in class. Once they *> noted that I follow the book, half of them stopped to come to *> class at all. In the other half this xeroxing habit was yet *> stronger than I thought, they were still copying every word *> I said. >My advisor in graduate school tried handing out lecture notes >prior to giving the lecture. He told the students they had notes >of everything we was going to write on the board, so they should >concentrate on the why and not the how, and to stop him if they >didn't understand the why of a step. After a few classes he became >completley frustrated when he looked up and saw everyone ( I was >not in this class) copying from the board. He gave up before >the term was over. I'm surprised that both of you said this. I've been doing this for several years, and the students really like it. In several of the courses I teach, I keep the lecture notes in troff files. [Maybe you guys just Xeroxed **handwritten** stuff? That might explain the problem. :-) ] I print them and sell them as a "textbook" for the course through the bookstore. I have the students bring the printed notes to class, and I "lecture" by going through the notes, not word-by-word (and certainly NOT copying the pages to the blackboard), but rather by discussing the notes in a very informal, conversational manner. I rarely write anything on the blackboard, so there is nothing to copy down. So the students are free to concentrate on listening to what I'm saying, and to think about it and ask questions. They do NOT spend their class time writing, though they do occasionally annotate the margins of their printed notes with additional clarifications, remarks, etc. The students DO like this approach. They automatically get an accurate copy of the notes, and they are more free to think about what I'm saying and ask questions. True, *some* students will use this as an opportunity to skip class, but so what? They are the losers, because they miss the extra, spur-of-the-moment comments I make, the answers to questions raised during the lectures, etc. And of course, from my point of view, it is a tremendous time-saver. I don't have to prepare lectures! I do make minor modifications to the notes each time I teach the course, but it's a lot easier to slightly modify a file than to write out entire lectures by hand. "Try it, you'll like it!" :-) Norm
dph@faline.bellcore.com (Daniel P. Heyman) (12/30/88)
In article <5237@pdn.UUCP>, reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) writes: > > I think that the only way to discourage straight "xeroxing" of > information is to try to encourage discussion and questions in the class. > Just don't lecture, but try to establish a dialogue with the class. This > is much more difficult for an instructor who can look bad if a question > can not be answered. Somehow, the students must start to think. > From an instructors point of view, a class is most interesting when the students get involved. Nothing is more boring than standing in front of a class and lecturing to a bunch of scribes. This is "negative feedback" in the sense that when your best efforts to excite the class go unrewarded, you tend to put less effort into preparing lectures. An instructor need not look bad if he can't answer a question. Some questions require a lot of thought or additional research to answer. I found it exciting when a student asked about something I hadn't considered. This would force me to think about it, and then we both learned something. I even observed a student ask a question that lead to a joint paper with the professor. This is "positive feedback" that benefits everyone. Dan Heyman
nevin1@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Liber) (12/31/88)
[followups to comp.edu ONLY. Note: I know that this probably belongs in soc.college, but I feel that trying to move the discussion there now would only create more net traffic. If this discussion fragments, the subtopics should be directed to their appropriate newsgroup (note the singular); otherwise, it is probably best to let the discussion die out here.] In article <1077@l.cc.purdue.edu> cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: >Teaching should be done by those who UNDERSTAND the subject. I disagree (in part, anyway). Teaching should be done by those who can CONVEY the material to others. I have had professors who I am sure understood the subject they were trying to teach, but they could not convey that understanding to others. (I felt sorry for some of my professors with this problem; the result was that the students would sit in other sections of the class to learn the material. But when it comes to my own education, I tend to be selfish.) -- NEVIN ":-)" LIBER AT&T Bell Laboratories nevin1@ihlpb.ATT.COM (312) 979-4751
danielg@earl.med.unc.edu (Daniel Gene Sinclair) (12/31/88)
Xeroxed notes are quite helpful if they are used correctly ; here are two
instances of *incorrect* use:
1. They contain ALL of the class material
If the prof goes through the information verbatim, so
that the student needs only to bring the notes and his trusty
hi-liter, you can expect absenteeism, as well as a boring lecture.
I have been to lectures where the prof literally read the notes
aloud, stopping to ask for questions occaisonally - :-(. This
shows an obvious lack of zeal for the profession.
One person posted that he 'conversationally' covered the notes so
that the students could spend time trying to understand the notes
instead of merely being sure to 'get it all down.' IMHO this is a
highly commendable method, but perhaps not the best - the 'losers'
who decide to cut (let's blow it off, he's not going to cover
anything outside of the notes) need to be considered: what
incentive can we give them to come, while maintaining the
effective method of xeoroxed notes plus discussion? I mean, it's
easy to just blow them off as jerks, but the sad fact is that most
young men and women come to college with little self-discipline
and character. Do we want them to make it, or would we rather not
bother? I'll address this later.
2. They contain HALF of the class material
This is not as bad as the first, but worthy of brief mention. It
is a pain to have to juggle xeroxed notes and handwritten notes,
trying to figure out which notes go with which - I usually just
recopied everything into one set of notes and put the others
aside. Xeroxed notes ought to be supplementary (a small % of the
total or optional) or the large portion of the class material.
While attending NCSU in Raleigh, I had what I consider to be my best
instructor (though not my favorite material, invertebrate zo.) He used
prefab notes in the following way:
The notes included almost all of the written material, but little or
none of the necessary diagrams. During class, he would *very* quickly
rewrite the wriiten notes on an overhead (with a long sheet of that
plastic stuff which he contiually rolled - pens in one hand, roller in
the other) and then he would draw in the diagrams in color. We had
color pens (you know, the fat bic pens with red, orange, green, blue,
black :-) ) and followed along (we used color to tell the mesoderms
from the ectoderms, etc.) There was plenty of space for our diagrams
to be drawn in, and if we had any extra written stuff, that could be
inlcuded.
This may not work for a class like history (OK, here's Henry VIII's
large belly) but it could surely be implemented in courses such as
chemistry, botany, biolgy, genetics (leave room for them to draw Punet
squares, do calculations), etc. This approach also lends impetus to
those who would rather sleep in.
I would like to further emphasize this method by listing it's
advantages (at the risk of repeating myself :-) )
1. it allows the prof and student to cover more material without
having to wait for the students to 'catch up'
2. it allows the students to try to understand the material in
prof is not around to answer questions (will this be on the
test?).
3. it gives the late sleeper motivation to go to class, since he
might miss something important. I think that this is good
since most students are not used to consistent, hard work (ie.
no character - keep the flames to yourself ! ). College ought
to be a place where leaders are wrought, not just brought (made
that up myself! :-) Of course, colleges ought to be a place
where our future leaders are taught proper morals and motives
(what a drag to be motivated by selfish ambition), but we'll
have to take that one up with the ACLU ;-).
OK, you got my $0.02.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- USENET : danielg@med.unc.edu Daniel G. Sinclair
BITNET : danielg@unc.bitnet Rsch. Tech. II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) (01/03/89)
A fairly popular scheme based on handing out lecture notes is called
"partial notes". The instructor prepares lecture notes as usual but
then deletes about 50% of what's there, leaving empty space. This permits the
student to take some notes but not all, and encourages preparation so
that the student will know what's in the notes. Pretty useful in a wide
variety of courses.
--
Pete Holsberg UUCP: {...!rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh
Mercer College CompuServe: 70240,334
1200 Old Trenton Road GEnie: PJHOLSBERG
Trenton, NJ 08690 Voice: 1-609-586-4800verma@mahimahi.cs.ucla.edu (Rodent of Darkness) (01/04/89)
In article <6578@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> elg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Eric Green) writes: >table, and work yet more arithmetic problems. In the fourth grade >they'll introduce division, and "fractions".... Speaking of division and "fractions" once had a teacher who said that division and fractions had nothing to do with each other. To this day I have no idea as to why she said this. ---TS
bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) (01/04/89)
In article <541@mccc.UUCP> pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) writes: > >A fairly popular scheme based on handing out lecture notes is called >"partial notes". The instructor prepares lecture notes as usual but >then deletes about 50% of what's there, leaving empty space. This >permits the student to take some notes but not all, and encourages >preparation so that the student will know what's in the notes. Pretty >useful in a wide variety of courses. A more popular scheme is called "partial lectures." The instructor prepares copious and confusing notes, then gives a lecture that only manages to cover half of what is in the notes. However, the student is responsible at exam-time for "all of the material," and so spends valuable time reading what is no doubt not understandable without comment from the professor. Manic students (I spent a semester and a summer as one, so I know) will add library time investigating the mysteries of the notes. The professor, of course, expects all students in _his_ course to be of the manic type. This has happened in more courses than I can name. --Blair "Although Bioelectromechanics oozes to mind..."
devlin@csli.STANFORD.EDU (Keith Devlin) (01/04/89)
In article <19252@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> verma@mahimahi.cs.ucla.edu (Rodent of Darkness) writes: [stuff deleted] > > Speaking of division and "fractions" once had a teacher who > said that division and fractions had nothing to do with each > other. To this day I have no idea as to why she said this. > > ---TS Presumably to distinguish between x/y written to denote division from x/y written to denote a certain rational number. The point being that you cannot formally define rational numbers as the result of dividing one integer by another - there has to BE an appropriate rational number to provide the "answer". It boils down to a question of what arithmetic operations can be carried out in various number systems, and how a richer system can be defined from a simpler one. Saying that division and fractions have "nothing" to do with each other is thus a bit overstretched, but the point intended (presumably) seems valid enough.
johng@cavs.syd.dwt.oz (John Gardner) (01/06/89)
In article <541@mccc.UUCP> pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) writes: > >A fairly popular scheme based on handing out lecture notes is called >"partial notes". The instructor prepares lecture notes as usual but >then deletes about 50% of what's there, leaving empty space. This permits the >student to take some notes but not all, and encourages preparation so >that the student will know what's in the notes. Pretty useful in a wide >variety of courses. You have got to be kidding. The one course at uni that did that was the greatest nightmare for me. You'd be sitting there waiting for the keyword, be distracted for a second and miss, it waste more time till you realise you missed the keyword, waste more time trying to cath up, and all in for each time you slipped you could 5-6 keywords and end up with very incomplete notes. You can't prepare off them as they are missing the keywords, it makes no sense until you fill in the blanks. My experience is that this system served to discourage any interest in the course. My favourite course gave out complete notes, allowing me to prepare ect. As a final note that year was the first and last time they gave out incomplete notes, and had a failure rate of over 55%! Thank god I got a restricted pass. /*****************************************************************************/ Division Of Wool Technology - Where the programmers have something better to do than think up funny lines. PHONE : (02) 436 3438 ACSnet : johng@cavs.dwt.oz JARNET : johng%cavs.dwt.oz@uk.ac.ukc EARN : johng%cavs.dwt.oz@uk.ac.rl.earn ARPA : johng%cavs.dwt.oz@uunet.UU.NET UUCP : ..!uunet!munnari!cavs.dwt.oz.au!johng What's a disclaimer ? /*****************************************************************************/
firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) (01/07/89)
In article <541@mccc.UUCP> pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) writes: >A fairly popular scheme based on handing out lecture notes is called >"partial notes". The instructor prepares lecture notes as usual but >then deletes about 50% of what's there, leaving empty space. This permits the >student to take some notes but not all, and encourages preparation so >that the student will know what's in the notes. Pretty useful in a wide >variety of courses. Maybe I'm totally confused, but I cannot see any good purpose to this at all. Having prepared lecture notes, why not hand them out? If 50% notes will help the student, surely 100% will help more, and why ever would a teacher NOT want to help the pupils? Likewise, if the student feels attending the lecture will help, she'll attend. If just reading the notes is as good, why force her to waste time in the lecture - students typically are VERY pressed for time. Moreover, by giving out as much prepared information as possible, you encourage the students selectively to come to you only when they NEED direct personal help, either in a lecture or tutorial - and that is surely one of the things a teacher should encourage, teachers also typically being pressed for time.
pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) (01/08/89)
In article <8125@aw.sei.cmu.edu> firth@bd.sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:
=Maybe I'm totally confused, but I cannot see any good purpose to this
The idea is to relieve the student of the need to take complete notes on
the lecture but to encourage him/her to write certain "important"
things. Come from the old Chinese proverb: I hear and I forget; I see
and I remeber; I do and I understand. In my experience, it's "I write
and I remember."
=Likewise, if the student feels attending the lecture will help, she'll
=attend.
Never understood why a student wouldn't come to class. A class meeting
has as its goal making learning easier.
--
Pete Holsberg UUCP: {...!rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh
Mercer College CompuServe: 70240,334
1200 Old Trenton Road GEnie: PJHOLSBERG
Trenton, NJ 08690 Voice: 1-609-586-4800m87_jan_c@tdb.uu.se (Jan Carlsson) (01/09/89)
In article <589@cavs.syd.dwt.oz>, johng@cavs.syd.dwt.oz (John Gardner) writes: > >In article <541@mccc.UUCP> pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) writes: >> >>A fairly popular scheme based on handing out lecture notes is called >>"partial notes". The instructor prepares lecture notes as usual but >>then deletes about 50% of what's there, leaving empty space. This permits the >>student to take some notes but not all, and encourages preparation so >>that the student will know what's in the notes. Pretty useful in a wide >>variety of courses. > >You have got to be kidding. The one course at uni that did that was the >greatest nightmare for me. Excuse me,but you arn't kidding both of you,are you ? I find it hard to belive that adults are supposed to do something like that ,("uni" means university,dosen't it ?). But I have no experience of the US education system so I may have got something wrong ?
kathryn@arcturus.UUCP (Kathryn Fielding) (01/10/89)
In article <558@mccc.UUCP>, pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) writes: > Never understood why a student wouldn't come to class. A class meeting > has as its goal making learning easier. Well, off the top of my head, I can think of a few reasons why students might feel that it is not worthwhile going to class: 1) A professor who reads the text verbatim and only works examples in the book, even when asked to do others by the students. 2) An instructor who fails to answer questions. If I spend several hours trying to solve a problem, and approach the instructor for guidance, I expect something a little more enlightening than "It's intuitively obvious" or "I'll get back to you" and when asked again, repeats the response. 3) An instructor who's English communication skills are so poor that the class (including the TA) is unable to understand him. These example are all drawn from personal experience, and involve instructors from three different universities. Kathryn Fielding kathryn@arcturus.UUCP ..!sun!sunkist!arcturus!kathryn ..!hplabs!felix!arcturus!kathryn My opinions are exclusively mine!
del@hou2d.UUCP (D.LEASURE) (01/11/89)
In article <8125@aw.sei.cmu.edu>, firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes: > Having prepared lecture notes, why not hand them out? If 50% > notes will help the student, surely 100% will help more, and why ever > would a teacher NOT want to help the pupils? Dr. J. McNaughton of Expert Knowledge Systems does an exercise in his knowledge acquisition class to show the ineffectiveness of note taking. He has the students take notes from a tape of an actual interview with an expert. His experience is that only 20% of the topics listed by the expert are accurately identified and that only 30% of the details recorded for each topic are correct, giving an overall correctness rating of 6% for notetaking. The knowledge acquisition atmosphere is generally more hostile to the interviewer than the classroom environment to the student, since professors are supposed to prepare the material for teachability, but the lesson is still that there just isn't time to pay attention and take notes in most situations, especially when individual interaction is not allowed. By all means, supply the notes. Do it ahead of time so that the students have a chance to come to class prepared to ask questions on the notes and to better anticipate the flow of the lecture. Most students don't attend classes to be held in suspense, they do it to learn what's being taught. > Likewise, if the student feels attending the lecture will help, she'll > attend. If just reading the notes is as good, why force her to waste > time in the lecture - students typically are VERY pressed for time. The notes give the opportunity to interact at the lecture. Always go to class, the notes are never as good. Give feedback to the lecturer if the lectures don't surpass the value of the notes. -- David E. Leasure - AT&T Bell Laboratories - (201) 615-4169 hou2d!del del@hou2d.att.com leasure@paul.rutgers.edu
matloff@bizet.Berkeley.EDU (Norman Matloff) (01/11/89)
In article <3350@arcturus> kathryn@arcturus.UUCP (Kathryn Fielding) writes: >3) An instructor who's English communication skills are so poor that the > class (including the TA) is unable to understand him. In my experience, the problem is not really with the person's ENGLISH as it is with his/her GENERAL communication skills. In other words, I think that most foreigners who are poor teachers in English would also be poor teachers in their native language. I do have some direct confirmation of this. For example, we had a TA from China whose student evaluations quite consistently gave him very low ratings, and they blamed his poor English for his teaching problems. Yet his English in fact was fairly good; even our secretaries were surprised to hear that the students felt that the TA's English was bad enough to impair his teaching. So I visited a couple of his class sessions, and found that he was making the classical mistakes of a poor teacher -- talking into the board, being poorly prepared, pitching his explanations at a level much higher than that of the students, not pausing for questions from the students, etc. -- all things that had nothing to do with his English. I pointed these things out to him, and the next quarter, his student teaching evaluations were very good -- and NO ONE complained about his English, even though of course his English had not changed at all. Norm
reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) (01/11/89)
In article <18958@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> matloff@iris.ucdavis.edu (Norm Matloff) writes: >In my experience, the problem is not really with the person's ENGLISH >as it is with his/her GENERAL communication skills. In other words, >I think that most foreigners who are poor teachers in English would >also be poor teachers in their native language. [description of problem and solution deleted] Another factor may the cultural differences between students and the instructor. In many countries the instructor lectures and the students hang on every word, paying maximum attention. However, I think that the American students are more likely to stop an instructor and ask questions that may put them on the spot or require them to try another explaination. For some instructors this is a difficult thing to get used to. None the less, there are too many foreign instructors out there who *do* have very poor english skills. In fact, there are many foreign students who enter US universities without adequate english skills as well. I know that some universities are really pressed for help, but something needs to be done to get these people to a level of english that does not inhibit others or themselves. -- George W. Leach Paradyne Corporation ..!uunet!pdn!reggie Mail stop LG-129 Phone: (813) 530-2376 P.O. Box 2826 Largo, FL USA 34649-2826
pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) (01/11/89)
In article <3350@arcturus> kathryn@arcturus.UUCP (Kathryn Fielding) writes: =In article <558@mccc.UUCP>, pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) writes: => Never understood why a student wouldn't come to class. A class meeting => has as its goal making learning easier. = =Well, off the top of my head, I can think of a few reasons why students =might feel that it is not worthwhile going to class: = =1) A professor who reads the text verbatim and only works examples in the = book, even when asked to do others by the students. = =2) An instructor who fails to answer questions. If I spend several hours trying = to solve a problem, and approach the instructor for guidance, I expect = something a little more enlightening than "It's intuitively obvious" or = "I'll get back to you" and when asked again, repeats the response. = =3) An instructor who's English communication skills are so poor that the = class (including the TA) is unable to understand him. = =These example are all drawn from personal experience, and involve instructors =from three different universities. Good points, KF! I guess I forget that there are *bad* instructors out there. -- Pete Holsberg UUCP: {...!rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh Mercer College CompuServe: 70240,334 1200 Old Trenton Road GEnie: PJHOLSBERG Trenton, NJ 08690 Voice: 1-609-586-4800
dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg) (01/12/89)
In article <2334@hou2d.UUCP> del@hou2d.UUCP (D.LEASURE) writes: >Dr. J. McNaughton of Expert Knowledge Systems does an exercise in >his knowledge acquisition class to show the ineffectiveness of note >taking. He has the students take notes from a tape of an actual >interview with an expert. His experience is that only 20% of the >topics listed by the expert are accurately identified and that only >30% of the details recorded for each topic are correct, giving an >overall correctness rating of 6% for notetaking. I don't get the point of this. Were they supposed to be recording the information? Or taking notes? It would seem to me that 6% is a reasonable amount of a lecture to have faithfully recorded, depending on the lecture (or interview, whatever), and depending on the student's interest. Maybe it's a little high. -Dan
gordon@eecea.eece.ksu.edu (Dwight Gordon) (01/12/89)
In article <8125@aw.sei.cmu.edu>, firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes: > Having prepared lecture notes, why not hand them out? If 50% > notes will help the student, surely 100% will help more, and why ever > would a teacher NOT want to help the pupils? Question 1 - Is it really helping them prepare for their jobs of the future? Who will summarize for them on the job in this fashion? (No sarcasm is intended here. I'm very seriously considering posting my notes for one of my courses. My reservation is that I may be defeating part of the purpose of the course. Former students suggested posting my notes - I really don't care either way. I just would like to do the best I can for my students.) Comments please. More fundamentally - Question 2 - Are we (as educators) attempting to teach the students the information itself, or how to learn (or, perhaps, how to teach themselves)? Comments please. One of my courses has no text. There is no one book that covers the material sufficiently well to warrant my requiring the students to purchase it. Their notes are their lifeline. One of the best things I heard from the students with regard to their preparation for my hourly examinations is that several went to the library in search of some books in order to find some additional references. (This is especially gratifying considering that we have an awful library. :-) Dwight W. Gordon | 913-532-5600 | gordon@eecea.eece.ksu.edu Electrical & Computer Engineering Department | dwgordon@ksuvm.bitnet Kansas State University - Durland Hall | rutgers!ksuvax1!eecea!gordon Manhattan, KS 66506 | {pyramid,ucsd}!ncr-sd!ncrwic!ksuvax1!eecea!gordon
lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) (01/12/89)
In article <5314@pdn.UUCP> reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) writes: > None the less, there are too many foreign instructors out there who >*do* have very poor english skills. In fact, there are many foreign students >who enter US universities without adequate english skills as well. I know >that some universities are really pressed for help, but something needs to >be done to get these people to a level of english that does not inhibit >others or themselves. It is a state law in Ohio that teachers at a state university have to pass an English competency exam of some sort. This law came into being when a relative of a legislator complained that he or she could not understand their instructor. The exam might be limited to only non-citizens, I don't remember. That hardly seems fair to me, I've had American instructors with lousy English. Also, on the end of quarter teacher evaluations that students fill out, one of the questions is "Do you think the instructor has adequate skills in English" or something like that. I suppose if a lot of students complain, something is done about it. It's hard to say exactly what effect if any these measures have, but my guess is that it probably improves matters. -- Larry Cipriani, AT&T Network Systems, Columbus OH, Path: att!cbnews!lvc Domain: lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM
matloff@bizet.Berkeley.EDU (Norman Matloff) (01/13/89)
In article <5314@pdn.UUCP> reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) writes: >In article <18958@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> matloff@iris.ucdavis.edu (Norm Matloff) writes: >>In my experience, the problem is not really with the person's ENGLISH >>as it is with his/her GENERAL communication skills. In other words, >>I think that most foreigners who are poor teachers in English would >>also be poor teachers in their native language. * None the less, there are too many foreign instructors out there who **do* have very poor english skills. In fact, there are many foreign students *who enter US universities without adequate english skills as well. I know *that some universities are really pressed for help, but something needs to *be done to get these people to a level of english that does not inhibit *others or themselves. I think that by implication you were also referring to foreign-born engineers in U.S. companies, where they have even worse communication problems. I agree. But again, I feel that it is much more a matter of GENERAL communication skills than a matter of accent, grammar and vocabulary. Most foreign (East Asian) engineers do very much need to improve on the latter aspects, but they need EVEN MORE to improve non-language specific communication skills. Unfortunately, they tend to do neither. I once took a survey of Chinese students in my CS program, and found that during their school years in their own countries (Taiwan, Hong Kong, China), they didn't pay much attention to their language courses, even their CHINESE courses; they put most of their effort into their technical courses instead. I know that high schools in Hong Kong tend to have separate "majors" for "arts" students versus "science" students, and the latter usually don't place a high value on languages/communication. In light of the foreign students' immigration goal which I have mentioned, it is ironic that they don't place more emphasis on improving their English. Good English would certainly enhance their job/immigration prospects very strongly. Norm
kolb@handel.colostate.edu. (Denny Kolb) (01/13/89)
In article <533@eecea.eece.ksu.edu> gordon@eecea.UUCP (Dwight Gordon) writes: > >Question 1 - Is it really helping them prepare for their jobs of the >future? Who will summarize for them on the job in this fashion? >(No sarcasm is intended here. I'm very seriously considering posting my >notes for one of my courses. My reservation is that I may be defeating >part of the purpose of the course. Former students suggested posting my >notes - I really don't care either way. I just would like to do the best >I can for my students.) Comments please. Depends, corporations routinely offer in house classes for their employees to familiarize them with new topics; however, in a great many cases one is required to do the legwork one-self. A suggestion, at least for CS type classes, would be to at least publish the example programs that are used in class, with plenty of room around them for marginal comments. Instead of handing out the notes, how about including just a summary of what is covered? Additionally, include study questions, which would possibly get the students to think a little about the material, and not try for simple rote memorization. Hopefully, this would all be done in such a way that students would realize that they still need to listen in class to get all of the details. > >More fundamentally - >Question 2 - Are we (as educators) attempting to teach the students the >information itself, or how to learn (or, perhaps, how to teach themselves)? >Comments please. How to learn! People are seldom hired, especialy new college graduates, exclusively for what they DO know, but rather for what they CAN learn. The more the students are encouraged to learn for themselves, the more valuable they will be to any prospective employer, and the farther, and faster they will advance in their career. This is partly the reason why graduates with an MS are more valuable to prospective employers; the whole point to an MS degree, IMHO is to learn how to teach yourself. Regards, Denny
dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg) (01/13/89)
In article <978@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU> kolb@handel.colostate.edu..UUCP (Denny Kolb) writes: >[responding to: should students be taught facts, or how to learn?] > How to learn! People are seldom hired, especialy new college graduates, > exclusively for what they DO know, but rather for what they CAN learn. The > more the students are encouraged to learn for themselves, the more valuable > they will be to any prospective employer, and the farther, and faster they > will advance in their career. This is partly the reason why graduates with > an MS are more valuable to prospective employers; the whole point to an MS > degree, IMHO is to learn how to teach yourself. Well, depends on what level of work you're talking about. If you look at help wanted sections, at least in low tech areas, all they care about is what you know, and how long you've known it. (That's not the sort of jobs MS's get anyhow.) But besides that, I think the real issue isn't whether to teach facts or metacognition, it's how to strike a good balance. Without some fact-like material, there wouldn't be any reason for distinct subject areas. Without some teaching of how to learn, students would end up as large fact repositories, but there would be no opportunity for progress or discovery. I think the proper balance is to teach just facts, but to teach them in such a way that the students can't learn without developing their metacognitive skills. Incidentally, by facts I don't mean things like the value of pi, or how to integrate an arcsecant, or whatever. I mean concepts, things you can't look up in books, but are definitely knowable in some sense, even if they can't be clearly defined. I don't think things that can easily be looked up in books should be taught. -Dan
landman%hanami@Sun.COM (Howard A. Landman) (01/13/89)
In article <19252@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> verma@mahimahi.cs.ucla.edu (Rodent of Darkness) writes: > Speaking of division and "fractions" once had a teacher who > said that division and fractions had nothing to do with each > other. To this day I have no idea as to why she said this. My first grade teacher taught that there was no such thing as a negative number. It took me three years to figure out she was wrong, but when I did, I was furious for a month. I never COMPLETELY trusted a teacher after that. It made for some interesting exchanges in class when I thought that something wrong had been said or written (hey, MOST of the time I was right!). Howard A. Landman landman@hanami.sun.com
reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) (01/13/89)
In article <19035@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> matloff@iris.ucdavis.edu (Norm Matloff) writes: >In article <5314@pdn.UUCP> reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) writes: >* None the less, there are too many foreign instructors out there who >**do* have very poor english skills. In fact, there are many foreign students >*who enter US universities without adequate english skills as well. I know >*that some universities are really pressed for help, but something needs to >*be done to get these people to a level of english that does not inhibit >*others or themselves. >I think that by implication you were also referring to foreign-born >engineers in U.S. companies, where they have even worse communication >problems. Yes, that too. However, not everyone is guilty of this. There are foreign-born students, engineers, etc... who speak English better than you and I! >I agree. But again, I feel that it is much more a matter of GENERAL >communication skills than a matter of accent, grammar and vocabulary. >Most foreign (East Asian) engineers do very much need to improve on >the latter aspects, but they need EVEN MORE to improve non-language >specific communication skills. I'll agree with you on this. Some folks that I worked with at a former employer in New Jersey not only have verbal problems, but socially they did not seem to feel comfortable dealing with other people in English. >Unfortunately, they tend to do neither. I once took a survey of >Chinese students in my CS program, and found that during their school >years in their own countries (Taiwan, Hong Kong, China), they didn't >pay much attention to their language courses, even their CHINESE >courses; they put most of their effort into their technical courses >instead. I know that high schools in Hong Kong tend to have separate >"majors" for "arts" students versus "science" students, and the latter >usually don't place a high value on languages/communication. That is unfortunate. Years ago the same was true in this country. The science and math courses were everything and who cares if you can speak, read or write. However, communication skill play a very important part in a technical person's life and should not be ignored. >In light of the foreign students' immigration goal which I have mentioned, >it is ironic that they don't place more emphasis on improving their English. >Good English would certainly enhance their job/immigration prospects very >strongly. I agree! I would never even think about trying to either attent a university or land a job in France. My two years of high school French are not enough. Yet, I get the feeling that many enter this country will less preparation than that! Obviously, somehow they are hearing that it is not all that important to get into an American university or to get a job. I found out how one university screens applicants from foreign countries. Traveling to the US to visit the university is not always possible, so students must take some sort of English proficiency exam and have one of their instructors write a letter confirming their skills. Often this does not work because the filtering mechanism is in the hands of the offenders! I once had a student from Taiwan who after six weeks into the course, came to me complaining that he could not understand me. He could only read one page per hour in the book! After speaking to him, I realized that his English skills were not even at the level of a pre schooler! I immediately got him out of my course, after the withdrawal deadline, and got him in touch with a prof who was offering language skill courses for these people on the side. However, a few years later I saw he was working on his Senior Project, which means someone let him back into the course the next semester and passed him! -- George W. Leach Paradyne Corporation ..!uunet!pdn!reggie Mail stop LG-129 Phone: (813) 530-2376 P.O. Box 2826 Largo, FL USA 34649-2826
del@hou2d.UUCP (D.LEASURE) (01/14/89)
In article <533@eecea.eece.ksu.edu>, gordon@eecea.eece.ksu.edu (Dwight Gordon) writes: > Question 1 - Is it [handing out notes] really helping them > prepare for their jobs of the > future? Who will summarize for them on the job in this fashion? Having only worked for one large corporation, I can't speak for others, but it's customary for all oral communication to be backed up with written summaries/notes/visuals. The point is to communicate. Note taking will of course be important, but written material is standard in AT&T for business communication. -- David E. Leasure - AT&T Bell Laboratories - (201) 615-4169 hou2d!del del@hou2d.att.com leasure@paul.rutgers.edu
troly@redwood.math.ucla.edu (Bret Jolly) (01/14/89)
In article <85191@sun.uucp> landman@sun.UUCP (Howard A. Landman) writes: >My first grade teacher taught that there was no such thing as a negative >number. It took me three years to figure out she was wrong, but when I >did, I was furious for a month. My 3rd grade teacher said the same thing, but I didn't believe her. I tried to explain them, but that only served to enrage her. She pulled me up in front of the class and said, "All right smarty, show the class numbers less than zero on your fingers. See, you can't, so there aren't any! Nyaah!" I had just come to this country and the encounter left me wondering if Americans were just intellectually inferior. -Bret
jiii@visdc.UUCP (John E Van Deusen III) (01/15/89)
Thanks
elg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Eric Green) (01/15/89)
in article <5354@pdn.UUCP>, reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) says: > I found out how one university screens applicants from foreign > countries. Traveling to the US to visit the university is not always > possible, so students must take some sort of English proficiency exam > and have one of their instructors write a letter confirming their skills. > Often this does not work because the filtering mechanism is in the hands > of the offenders! I once had a student from Taiwan who after six weeks At the university I attend (University of SW Louisiana), there is a large percentage of foreign students (mostly East Asian now... was once a lot of Latin American and Middle Eastern students, but the economic troubles in those lands have curtailed that). In addition to the scores sent in with the application, each student, upon arrival in the U.S., is required to take the test over here. If the score either there or here is below a certain point, they are required to take remedial courses entitled "English for Speakers of Other Languages" (ESOL for short). I'm not up on the exact details (though I count many foreign students among my friends), but it seems like remedial efforts of this type are what is necessary if the U.S. is to continue to import the talent that it needs (just another example of something the U.S. no longer produces domestically and has to import -- engineering talent!). -- Eric Lee Green ..!{ames,decwrl,mit-eddie,osu-cis}!killer!elg Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509 Netter A: In Hell they run VMS. Netter B: No. In Hell, they run MS-DOS. And you only get 256k.
dant@mrloog.LA.TEK.COM (Dan Tilque;1893;92-101;) (01/15/89)
George W. Leach writes: > > Another factor may the cultural differences between students and the >instructor. In many countries the instructor lectures and the students >hang on every word, paying maximum attention. Or, quite likely, taking dictation without understanding a word said. Richard Feynman in _Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman_ discussed his experiences in Brazil. He was giving a lecture on polarization and stopped to ask a simple question on something he'd just said. Not a single student understood the question. The problem was that he'd asked them to apply his lecture to a real world situation. The students could repeat back what he'd just said but didn't really comprehend a thing. Brazilian students evidently succeed by writing down everything the teacher says, memorizing it, and regurgitating it back on the final. No original, creative, synthetic or analytic thought is required. I have a feeling that Brazil is not unique in this kind of scholasticism. --- Dan Tilque -- dant@twaddl.LA.TEK.COM
bagpiper@oxy.edu (Michael Paul Hunter) (01/16/89)
In article <2334@hou2d.UUCP> del@hou2d.UUCP (D.LEASURE) writes: >In article <8125@aw.sei.cmu.edu>, firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes: >> Having prepared lecture notes, why not hand them out? If 50% >> notes will help the student, surely 100% will help more, and why ever >> would a teacher NOT want to help the pupils? > >Dr. J. McNaughton of Expert Knowledge Systems does an exercise in [edited].... >The notes give the opportunity to interact at the lecture. Always >go to class, the notes are never as good. Give feedback to the >lecturer if the lectures don't surpass the value of the notes. >-- >David E. Leasure - AT&T Bell Laboratories - (201) 615-4169 >hou2d!del del@hou2d.att.com leasure@paul.rutgers.edu Bravo!!! Even when notes are NOT handed out I find it more beneficial to try to interact with the lecture. I find it more educational to try and do the next line of the proof myself rather then passively accepting the data that is written on the board. Of course in classes where either a lot of the class material is not in a textbook or in classes where the textbook is poor, notetaking is crucial. Michael Hunter
piner@pur-phy (Richard Piner) (01/16/89)
In article <331@sunset.MATH.UCLA.EDU> troly@math.ucla.edu (Bret Jolly) writes: ->In article <85191@sun.uucp> landman@sun.UUCP (Howard A. Landman) writes: ->>My first grade teacher taught that there was no such thing as a negative ->>number. It took me three years to figure out she was wrong, but when I ->>did, I was furious for a month. -> -> My 3rd grade teacher said the same thing, but I didn't believe her. ->I tried to explain them, but that only served to enrage her. She ->pulled me up in front of the class and said, "All right smarty, show ->the class numbers less than zero on your fingers. See, you can't, so ->there aren't any! Nyaah!" I had just come to this country and the ->encounter left me wondering if Americans were just intellectually ->inferior. -> ->-Bret Oh wow, did you ever miss a chance to get tossed out of school. Here's how you could have answered your teacher. "Let these fingers represent positive numbers.", holding up three fingers. "Now, let these fingers represent negative numbers.", holding two fingers pointed down. (A side note, only a physicist would think of this, plus and minus spin and all of that. Don't you know?) "Now, if I ADD these two numbers, I get.....", holding up just one middle finger. Can you say expelled, I knew you could. Oh well, life is full of missed chances. R. Piner
hough@ldgo.columbia.edu (sue hough) (01/16/89)
> In article <331@sunset.MATH.UCLA.EDU> troly@math.ucla.edu (Bret Jolly) writes: > ->In article <85191@sun.uucp> landman@sun.UUCP (Howard A. Landman) writes: > ->>My first grade teacher taught that there was no such thing as a negative > ->>number. It took me three years to figure out she was wrong, but when I > ->>did, I was furious for a month. > -> > -> My 3rd grade teacher said the same thing, but I didn't believe her. > ->I tried to explain them, but that only served to enrage her. She > ->pulled me up in front of the class and said, "All right smarty, show > ->the class numbers less than zero on your fingers. See, you can't, so > ->there aren't any! Nyaah!" I had just come to this country and the > ->encounter left me wondering if Americans were just intellectually > ->inferior. > -> > ->-Bret Not all Americans are intellectually inferior. When I was first taught subtraction in school (second grade?) the teacher went through her spiel and ended with, "Now how many people think you can subtract 3 from 2?". I raised my hand, along with a handful of others. She went through her spiel again, demonstrating with apples. Then she asked her question again, and I was the only one with my hand up. When she asked me to explain, I said you'd get a negative number. She agreed on the existence of negative numbers (!), but explained that you couldn't have a negative number of apples. American education has this pie-eyed premise of equality: Every student can be a rocket scientist if he/she is taught right. Rather than ship the less promising students off to some sort of trade school (where they won't embarrass your national statistics), everybody gets the same classes up to at least eighth grade. Is anybody surprised that the country that gave you Wonder Bread and Budweiser also gives you least-common-denominator education? ------------------------------------------------------------------- I never respected anyone who could spell --Mark Twain :o) ----- Sue Hough ***if these are opinions, Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory they must be mine*** Columbia University Palisades N.Y. 10964 email:hough@lamont.ldgo.columbia.edu -------------------------------------------------------------------
bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) (01/17/89)
("Oh wow"? Ah, nostalgia.) It's pretty disturbing as well, that a
teacher should think of counting on fingers as a proof of anything. I
use it as an example of minimal arithmetic skills...
I thought of a safe way to convince brain-dead people that negative
numbers exist. Simply ask them how much money they have, after writing
a $250 rent check on a bank account with $197 in it. (Of course, most
grade schoolers aren't thinking along these lines, and the example will
seem unrealistic in the apartment markets of most big cities, but it
puts it in a realm that grade school TEACHERS should relate to.)matloff@bizet.Berkeley.EDU (Norman Matloff) (01/17/89)
In article <5354@pdn.UUCP> reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) writes: >In article <19035@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> matloff@iris.ucdavis.edu (Norm Matloff) writes: >>In article <5314@pdn.UUCP> reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) writes: >>* None the less, there are too many foreign instructors out there who >>**do* have very poor english skills. In fact, there are many foreign students >>*who enter US universities without adequate english skills as well. I know >>*that some universities are really pressed for help, but something needs to >>*be done to get these people to a level of english that does not inhibit >>*others or themselves. >>I think that by implication you were also referring to foreign-born >>engineers in U.S. companies, where they have even worse communication >>problems. > Yes, that too. However, not everyone is guilty of this. There >are foreign-born students, engineers, etc... who speak English better >than you and I! Of course, I was referring to the East Asians, especially the ones from Taiwan, Hong Kong, China, which form the largest groups. I agree that the ones from India tend to have MUCH better English than the majority of Americans, at least in the case of Indians from Indian Institute of Technology. >>I agree. But again, I feel that it is much more a matter of GENERAL >>communication skills than a matter of accent, grammar and vocabulary. >>Most foreign (East Asian) engineers do very much need to improve on >>the latter aspects, but they need EVEN MORE to improve non-language >>specific communication skills. > I'll agree with you on this. Some folks that I worked with at >a former employer in New Jersey not only have verbal problems, but >socially they did not seem to feel comfortable dealing with other >people in English. Yes, and there are lots of reasons for this, including an anticipated (whether real or perceived) lack of welcome from the native-born Americans. However, what I was saying was that many of them don't communicate well in their own langauges either. [See next quote.] >>Unfortunately, they tend to do neither. I once took a survey of >>Chinese students in my CS program, and found that during their school >>years in their own countries (Taiwan, Hong Kong, China), they didn't >>pay much attention to their language courses, even their CHINESE >>courses; they put most of their effort into their technical courses >>instead. I know that high schools in Hong Kong tend to have separate >>"majors" for "arts" students versus "science" students, and the latter >>usually don't place a high value on languages/communication. > That is unfortunate. Years ago the same was true in this country. >The science and math courses were everything and who cares if you can >speak, read or write. However, communication skill play a very important >part in a technical person's life and should not be ignored. Agreed. But do you really feel that things have improved in this respect in U.S. education? >>In light of the foreign students' immigration goal which I have mentioned, >>it is ironic that they don't place more emphasis on improving their English. >>Good English would certainly enhance their job/immigration prospects very >>strongly. > I agree! I would never even think about trying to either attent a >university or land a job in France. My two years of high school French >are not enough. Yet, I get the feeling that many enter this country will >less preparation than that! Obviously, somehow they are hearing that it ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >is not all that important to get into an American university or to get a job. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ It's not so much that they hear this explicitly, but they do hear all the success stories of others, and emulate them. Unfortunately, they do NOT hear that these people found it much harder to get their first job than it should have been, and that these people got jobs which were not quite up to their qualifications, and that these people had trouble getting promotions later on, all due at least in part to poor verbal skills. Moreover, I'm not sure that your example is directly comparable. There are so many Chinese immigrants working in the Silicon Valley that many of them don't have to speak English very much at work. My wife speaks Mandarin most of the time at work there. > I found out how one university screens applicants from foreign >countries. Traveling to the US to visit the university is not always >possible, so students must take some sort of English proficiency exam >and have one of their instructors write a letter confirming their skills. Actually, this has worked quite well for us for students from China. There are a lot of Americans teaching English in China now, and the letters from them have been pretty reliable (we've only had one disappointment). Norm
matloff@bizet.Berkeley.EDU (Norman Matloff) (01/17/89)
In article <4392@teklds.CAE.TEK.COM> dant@mrloog.LA.TEK.COM (Dan Tilque) writes: >George W. Leach writes: >> Another factor may the cultural differences between students and the >>instructor. In many countries the instructor lectures and the students >>hang on every word, paying maximum attention. *Or, quite likely, taking dictation without understanding a word said. *Richard Feynman in _Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman_ discussed his *experiences in Brazil. He was giving a lecture on polarization and *stopped to ask a simple question on something he'd just said. Not a *single student understood the question. The problem was that he'd *asked them to apply his lecture to a real world situation. The *students could repeat back what he'd just said but didn't really *comprehend a thing. *Brazilian students evidently succeed by writing down everything the *teacher says, memorizing it, and regurgitating it back on the final. No *original, creative, synthetic or analytic thought is required. I have a *feeling that Brazil is not unique in this kind of scholasticism. True. Again, East Asia is an example of this. In Chinese, there is a phrase which translates to "stuff the duck," meaning rote memorization, and this seems to pervade education in East Asian countries. Anecdote: A year ago, I taught a course in networks, and I gave a very free-form assignment involving a simulation study. I said to the students, "YOU pose the problem to be studied, YOU design a simulation experiment to study it, YOU decide how to present the results, etc.." The students worked in teams of 2. One particular team consisted of one student from the top school in Taiwan and the other from a top school in China. After a few days, this team asked me during lecture, "What do you want the output to consist of?" I answered by repeating what I had said before, i.e. this problem is free-form, use your own creativity for both posing the problem and studying it, it's all up to you, etc., etc. The team replied, "Sure, we understand that, but what do you want the output to consist of?" :-) [The rest of the class laughed, though some of those who laughed suffered from a similar problem.] Norm
elg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Eric Green) (01/17/89)
in article <19147@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, matloff@bizet.Berkeley.EDU (Norman Matloff) says: > other from a top school in China. After a few days, this team asked > me during lecture, "What do you want the output to consist of?" > I answered by repeating what I had said before, i.e. this problem > is free-form, use your own creativity for both posing the problem and > studying it, it's all up to you, etc., etc. The team replied, "Sure, > we understand that, but what do you want the output to consist of?" :-) > [The rest of the class laughed, though some of those who laughed suffered > from a similar problem.] Note that in most undergrad classes at the freshman-sophomore levels, you don't get points for creativity. You get points for putting the answer that the professor expects. Is it any wonder that the same attitude carries over to upper-level courses? An anecdote of my own: A friend, whose father is a mathematics professor, took a Discrete Math course. He did a proof on a test, and the professor marked it wrong. He brought it home to his father, who agreed, "that sure looks right to me." Brought it back to the professor, who said "It might be right, but it wasn't the answer I wanted." -- Eric Lee Green ..!{ames,decwrl,mit-eddie,osu-cis}!killer!elg Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509 Netter A: In Hell they run VMS. Netter B: No. In Hell, they run MS-DOS. And you only get 256k.
matloff@bizet.Berkeley.EDU (Norman Matloff) (01/17/89)
I had written: >>>In light of the foreign students' immigration goal which I have mentioned, >>>it is ironic that they don't place more emphasis on improving their English. >>>Good English would certainly enhance their job/immigration prospects very >>>strongly. George had replied: >> I agree! I would never even think about trying to either attent a >>university or land a job in France. My two years of high school French >>are not enough. Yet, I get the feeling that many enter this country will >>less preparation than that! Obviously, somehow they are hearing that it > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>is not all that important to get into an American university or to get a job. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I responded: >It's not so much that they hear this explicitly, but they do hear all >the success stories of others, and emulate them. Unfortunately, they >do NOT hear that these people found it much harder to get their first >job than it should have been, and that these people got jobs which were >not quite up to their qualifications, and that these people had trouble >getting promotions later on, all due at least in part to poor verbal >skills. >Moreover, I'm not sure that your example is directly comparable. There >are so many Chinese immigrants working in the Silicon Valley that many >of them don't have to speak English very much at work. My wife speaks >Mandarin most of the time at work there. I had intended (but forgot) to add: It should be noted that the English-to-French transition is much easier than the Chinese-to-English transition, so your example of your going to France is again not very comparable. On the other hand, I have some Chinese immigrant friends with really outstanding English, so it can be done if one really makes a commitment to do so. Norm
reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) (01/18/89)
In article <19145@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> matloff@iris.ucdavis.edu (Norm Matloff) writes: >In article <5354@pdn.UUCP> reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) writes: [Norm discusses the tendancy for foreign students to concentrate too much on math and science and not enough on language and communications skills, even in their native languages] >> That is unfortunate. Years ago the same was true in this country. >>The science and math courses were everything and who cares if you can >>speak, read or write. However, communication skill play a very important >>part in a technical person's life and should not be ignored. >Agreed. But do you really feel that things have improved in this respect >in U.S. education? Oh, no! I didn't mean to imply that this is not a problem here. I feel that we are at least more aware of the problem these days, but not enough is being done about it. >> I agree! I would never even think about trying to either attent a >>university or land a job in France. My two years of high school French >>are not enough. Yet, I get the feeling that many enter this country will >>less preparation than that! Obviously, somehow they are hearing that it ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>is not all that important to get into an American university or to get a job. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >It's not so much that they hear this explicitly, but they do hear all >the success stories of others, and emulate them. Unfortunately, they >do NOT hear that these people found it much harder to get their first >job than it should have been, and that these people got jobs which were >not quite up to their qualifications, and that these people had trouble >getting promotions later on, all due at least in part to poor verbal >skills. It sounds like what many of the immigrants of the earlier part of this century heard: "the streets are paved with gold". >Moreover, I'm not sure that your example is directly comparable. There >are so many Chinese immigrants working in the Silicon Valley that many >of them don't have to speak English very much at work. My wife speaks >Mandarin most of the time at work there. True! In the New York/New Jersey area there are enough Chinese who work in certain places that they can band together and speak their native tongue as well. In fact, I have known people who came to this country and settled in Chinatown, in lower Manhattan, where the society very much mirrors their homeland. New York is rather unique in this respect. There are many ethnic neighborhoods there. -- George W. Leach Paradyne Corporation ..!uunet!pdn!reggie Mail stop LG-129 Phone: (813) 530-2376 P.O. Box 2826 Largo, FL USA 34649-2826
matloff@bizet.Berkeley.EDU (Norman Matloff) (01/18/89)
In article <6817@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> elg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Eric Green) writes: >in article <19147@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, matloff@bizet.Berkeley.EDU (Norman Matloff) says: *> other from a top school in China. After a few days, this team asked *> me during lecture, "What do you want the output to consist of?" *> I answered by repeating what I had said before, i.e. this problem *> is free-form, use your own creativity for both posing the problem and *> studying it, it's all up to you, etc., etc. The team replied, "Sure, *> we understand that, but what do you want the output to consist of?" :-) *> [The rest of the class laughed, though some of those who laughed suffered *> from a similar problem.] >Note that in most undergrad classes at the freshman-sophomore levels, >you don't get points for creativity. You get points for putting the >answer that the professor expects. >Is it any wonder that the same attitude carries over to upper-level >courses? Actually, it doesn't. I have making free-form assignments like this quite a bit in my grad courses recently, usually with projects instead of homework problems, and the projects are VERY free-form. I agree with Eric's point, but the better students (i.e. MOST of those in grad school) tend not to have this follow-the-instructions-step-by-step point of view, and they do some really nice, creative and insightful work on their projects. And even more surprisingly, they enjoy it! Norm
shankar@haarlem.SRC.Honeywell.COM (Son of Knuth) (01/19/89)
In article <1088@bird.ldgo.columbia.edu> hough@ldgo.columbia.edu (sue hough) writes: >American education has this pie-eyed premise of equality: > Every student can be a rocket scientist if he/she is taught > right. Rather than ship the less promising students off > to some sort of trade school (where they won't embarrass > your national statistics), everybody gets the same classes > up to at least eighth grade. Perhaps because every student *can be a rocket scientist if he/she is thought right and works hard at it. Let's see, who was it that said genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. I would rather not see elementary school kids tested, classified into one of many professions, and then sent to an appropriate school. -- Subash Shankar Honeywell Systems & Research Center voice: (612) 782 7558 US Snail: 3660 Technology Dr., Minneapolis, MN 55418 Internet: shankar@src.honeywell.com UUCP: shankar@srcsip.uucp {umn-cs,ems,bthpyd}!srcsip!shankar -- Subash Shankar Honeywell Systems & Research Center voice: (612) 782 7558 US Snail: 3660 Technology Dr., Minneapolis, MN 55418 Internet: shankar@src.honeywell.com
dkingsle@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU (david kingsley) (01/19/89)
In article <331@sunset.MATH.UCLA.EDU>, troly@redwood.math.ucla.edu (Bret Jolly) writes: > In article <85191@sun.uucp> landman@sun.UUCP (Howard A. Landman) writes: > >My first grade teacher taught that there was no such thing as a negative > >number. It took me three years to figure out she was wrong, but when I > >did, I was furious for a month. > > My 3rd grade teacher said the same thing, but I didn't believe her. > I tried to explain them, but that only served to enrage her. She > pulled me up in front of the class and said, "All right smarty, show > the class numbers less than zero on your fingers. See, you can't, so > there aren't any! Nyaah!" I had just come to this country and the > encounter left me wondering if Americans were just intellectually > inferior. This reminds me of something I read in Isaac Asimov's book, "Asimov on Numbers" In college, Asimov was waiting for a friend's class to finish and sat in the back of the room. The instructor had lists of scientists and mystics on the board and included mathematicians in the list of mystics. Asimov asked why, and the instructor said, "Because they believe in numbers that don't exist. The square root of minus one doesn't exist, but they believe that it has an existence of some sort." Asimov said, "What do you mean? It's just as real as any other number." The instructor said, "My friends, we have here a budding mathematician who believes that the square root of minus one exists. If so, would you care to hand me the square root of minus one pieces of chalk?" Asimov hesitated, then said, "Okay, I'll do it, if you hand me half a piece of chalk." The instructor took a piece of chalk, broke it into two pieces, and handed one of the pieces to Asimov. He then said, "Okay. Now fulfill your end of the bargain." Asimov said, "That isn't half a piece of chalk. It's one piece. It certainly doesn't look like two or three." The instructor replied, "A one half piece of chalk is half a regulation piece." Asimov said, "Now let's assume that I accept your defintion of half a piece of chalk. How can you be sure that isn't a .52 or a .48 piece? Furthermore, how can you feel qualified to talk about the square root of minus one when you're a bit fuzzy on the concept of one half?" The instructor then became infuriated and ordered Asimov, laughing, out of the room. David Kingsley Department of Mathematics and Statistics University of Minnesota, Duluth
matloff@bizet.Berkeley.EDU (Norman Matloff) (01/19/89)
In article <5392@pdn.UUCP> reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) writes: >In article <19145@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> matloff@iris.ucdavis.edu (Norm Matloff) writes: >>In article <5354@pdn.UUCP> reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) writes: %>> That is unfortunate. Years ago the same was true in this country. %>>The science and math courses were everything and who cares if you can %>>speak, read or write. However, communication skill play a very important %>>part in a technical person's life and should not be ignored. >>Agreed. But do you really feel that things have improved in this respect >>in U.S. education? % Oh, no! I didn't mean to imply that this is not a problem here. I feel %that we are at least more aware of the problem these days, but not enough %is being done about it. *Who* is aware of the problem? Certainly managers in industry are painfully aware of it, especially on the written side. University educators are vaguely aware of it. But the *students* are not aware of it at all. They would be shocked to know how much of ordinary work in the real world consists of communication -- holding meetings, writing reports, explaining things to others, dealing with users of the company's products, etc. %>> I agree! I would never even think about trying to either attent a %>>university or land a job in France. My two years of high school French %>>are not enough. Yet, I get the feeling that many enter this country will %>>less preparation than that! Obviously, somehow they are hearing that it % ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ %>>is not all that important to get into an American university or to get a job. % ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>It's not so much that they hear this explicitly, but they do hear all >>the success stories of others, and emulate them. Unfortunately, they >>do NOT hear that these people found it much harder to get their first >>job than it should have been, and that these people got jobs which were >>not quite up to their qualifications, and that these people had trouble >>getting promotions later on, all due at least in part to poor verbal >>skills. % It sounds like what many of the immigrants of the earlier part of %this century heard: "the streets are paved with gold". Yes, and it's true! I believe that the average salary for an engineer in Taiwan is about $5,000, and of course a lot lower than that in China and India. When word gets back home that Wang Ai Qian has bought a $500,000 house and is running his own business in addition to his regular job with Sun Microsystems, it looks very attractive indeed. [But, apparently, it's much less attractive to Americans. Why?] >>Moreover, I'm not sure that your example is directly comparable. There >>are so many Chinese immigrants working in the Silicon Valley that many >>of them don't have to speak English very much at work. My wife speaks >>Mandarin most of the time at work there. % True! In the New York/New Jersey area there are enough Chinese who %work in certain places that they can band together and speak their %native tongue as well. In fact, I have known people who came to this %country and settled in Chinatown, in lower Manhattan, where the society %very much mirrors their homeland. New York is rather unique in this %respect. There are many ethnic neighborhoods there. Actually, the Chinatown example is not what I meant. You won't find many professional people living in Chinatown. The residents there are "normal" immigrants, i.e. who immigrated through U.S. relatives instead of on the basis of professional skills. Norm
cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) (01/20/89)
In article <15007@srcsip.UUCP>, shankar@haarlem.SRC.Honeywell.COM (Son of Knuth) writes: > In article <1088@bird.ldgo.columbia.edu> hough@ldgo.columbia.edu (sue hough) writes: > > >American education has this pie-eyed premise of equality: > > Every student can be a rocket scientist if he/she is taught > > right. Rather than ship the less promising students off > > to some sort of trade school (where they won't embarrass > > your national statistics), everybody gets the same classes > > up to at least eighth grade. > > Perhaps because every student *can be a rocket scientist if he/she is thought > right and works hard at it. Let's see, who was it that said genius is 1% > inspiration and 99% perspiration. > > I would rather not see elementary school kids tested, classified into > one of many professions, and then sent to an appropriate school. The problem and solution are both simpler and more complex than you have stated. There are massive innate differences of ability. Having seen promising-looking graduate students run into a stone wall strikes a fatal blow to the idea that students are even approximately equal. I believe that a student capable of understanding abstraction is more capable of it at the age of 6 than at the age of 16. Am I right? We do not know. We need great diversity in teaching children because their abilities are diverse. Sending children to appropriate schools is not feasible. We would need thousands of different types of schools. We need to consider the child who can advance rapidly in one area but not in another. So I even reject the idea that students in a given group get the same education. Advancing students rapidly in particular subjects is far from ideal, but is immediately feasible. It was widely used before the social adjustment people took over the educational establishment 50 years ago. But there is another way, which involves technology. I mean electronic classes, NOT lectures. That is, the class is assembled, not by physical presence, but electronically. I think the expense is tolerable, and it need not be used for all students in all cases. This also allows students to switch if the ability and desire are there, and allows fairly quick correction of gross errors. Of course mistakes will be made, but will they be worse than teaching every child exactly the same material as eveyone else of the same age? -- Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907 Phone: (317)494-6054 hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet, UUCP)
dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg) (01/20/89)
In article <19214@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> matloff@iris.ucdavis.edu (Norm Matloff) writes: >*Who* is aware of the problem? Certainly managers in industry are painfully >aware of it, especially on the written side. University educators are >vaguely aware of it. But the *students* are not aware of it at all. They >would be shocked to know how much of ordinary work in the real world >consists of communication -- holding meetings, writing reports, >explaining things to others, dealing with users of the company's products, >etc. Be careful when you're making broad, encompassing generalizations. Maybe you just know a lot of stupid students. Maybe you've just never met any students who've held full time jobs. Maybe it's much easier to remember instances in which you noticed that a recent graduate was shocked by the amount of verbal communication in the business world. Most students I know spend their entire academic lives doing things like writing papers, reading source material, writing exams, and trying to get themselves heard in small classes. -Dan
matloff@bizet.Berkeley.EDU (Norman Matloff) (01/20/89)
In article <1104@l.cc.purdue.edu> cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: >In article <15007@srcsip.UUCP>, shankar@haarlem.SRC.Honeywell.COM (Son of Knuth) writes: >> In article <1088@bird.ldgo.columbia.edu> hough@ldgo.columbia.edu (sue hough) writes: *> >American education has this pie-eyed premise of equality: *> > Every student can be a rocket scientist if he/she is taught *> > right. Rather than ship the less promising students off *> > to some sort of trade school (where they won't embarrass *> > your national statistics), everybody gets the same classes *> > up to at least eighth grade. %> Perhaps because every student *can be a rocket scientist if he/she is thought %> right and works hard at it. Let's see, who was it that said genius is 1% %> inspiration and 99% perspiration. %> I would rather not see elementary school kids tested, classified into %> one of many professions, and then sent to an appropriate school. > There are massive innate differences of ability. Having seen >promising-looking graduate students run into a stone wall strikes a fatal >blow to the idea that students are even approximately equal. This reasoning ("There are massive ...") just doesn't hold water. The question was, "Is variation in X due to Y?", and you are answering, "Yes, because I have observed that there IS variation in X." Yes, many promising-looking grad students do run into a stone wall. But I would contend that there are nongenetic (i.e. non-"innate") reasons for this. In grad school, we emphasize (or should emphasize) insight and creativity. In undergrad school, high school and grade school, we generally do NOT have this emphasis; in fact, the lower the level, the less the emphasis on these aspects. There are two consequences of this: 1. A grad applicant may only APPEAR "promising," but actually be someone who has done well in the undergrad courses that don't emphasize insight and creativity; in fact, he/she may have even deliberately avoided the courses/professors who had this reputation. 2. Since the lower-level schools don't emphasize insight/creativity, only those students whose personal attitudes toward learning stress these aspects will cultivate it, RESULTING IN THE VARIATION THAT YOU (AND I) HAVE OBSERVED AMONG STUDENTS AT THE GRAD LEVEL. So here would be a nongenetic source of that variation. If Point 2 above were somehow "proven" to be correct, then the "different schools for different kids" idea would not only be wrong, but actually a tragic opportunity cost. If Point 2 were correct, we should be making sure our schools DO foster insight, instead of shaping schools around incorrect notions of what traits are genetic. -- Norm
reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) (01/20/89)
In article <19214@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> matloff@iris.ucdavis.edu (Norm Matloff) writes: >In article <5392@pdn.UUCP> reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) writes: >% It sounds like what many of the immigrants of the earlier part of >%this century heard: "the streets are paved with gold". >Yes, and it's true! I believe that the average salary for an engineer >in Taiwan is about $5,000, and of course a lot lower than that in China >and India. When word gets back home that Wang Ai Qian has bought a >$500,000 house and is running his own business in addition to his regular >job with Sun Microsystems, it looks very attractive indeed. [But, >apparently, it's much less attractive to Americans. Why?] I've got friends and relatives who never went beyond high school. They never gave it a second thought. They are plummers and electricians. Some can do better than me! It certainly was an easier path to take, with more immediate realization of money. However, in the long run those with the education will benefit more >Actually, the Chinatown example is not what I meant. You won't find many >professional people living in Chinatown. The residents there are "normal" >immigrants, i.e. who immigrated through U.S. relatives instead of on the >basis of professional skills. Yes, I meant it as an extreme example. The larger number of foreign professionals that work for certain companies allow them to congregate at work and keep to themselves. Then again, native americans do the same. -- George W. Leach Paradyne Corporation ..!uunet!pdn!reggie Mail stop LG-129 Phone: (813) 530-2376 P.O. Box 2826 Largo, FL USA 34649-2826
nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) (01/21/89)
In article <1104@l.cc.purdue.edu>, cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: > > Advancing students rapidly in particular subjects is far from ideal, but is > immediately feasible. It was widely used before the social adjustment people > took over the educational establishment 50 years ago. > And it has serious drawbacks. I am a product of such a policy -- I entered college at age 15, and had serious problems in social adjustment as a result. Until I saw the alternatives in action, I was totally against such an idea -- but now that I've seen them, I'm not so sure. Is it better to be socially adjusted and intellectually alienated or bored stiff? I dunno. When I was 17 I knew all kinds of things, for sure. I must have forgotten all the cogent arguments ... -- Ed Nather Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin