[comp.edu] Research vs. Teaching

billd@celerity.UUCP (Bill Davidson) (03/11/89)

In article <21351@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> matloff@iris.ucdavis.edu (Norm Matloff) writes:
>But come on  --  this business of blaming bad teaching on research is a
>gross oversimplification.  Look at the two large California public 
>university systems, the University of California (UC) and the California 
>State Universities and Colleges (CSUC).  UC is research oriented and 
>CSUC is not.  Sit in on some sample lectures in both systems.  You'll
>be amazed at the difference  --  UC professors are on the average 
>SUPERIOR TEACHERS, compared to the CSUC faculty, in my observation.

Since you mentioned UC vs CSUC and having experienced classes from a
number of teachers from both systems (CSUF 1 year, UCSD 2.5 years),
I feel that I have an unusual perspective on this (I was also in the
Califorina Community College system for a while at Orange Coast; that's
junior colleges in case you didn't figure it out :-).  At CSUF, the
computer science faculty was inadequate and the program stank horribly
in nearly every way in 1985.  The classes were not well designed, the
equipment was garbage, the set of classes that you had to take was a
joke (I've heard that they've improved since then but I don't know).  I
came into it with a fair amount of hacking background and a few CS
classes from OCC and I felt that I knew more than some of the teachers.
This was my reason for changing to UCSD, in spite of the fact that it
would push back my graduation date by over a year.  My calculus teachers
at CSUF were very good, probably better than UC.  It was the CS that was
bad.  At UCSD, I always felt that my CS profs KNEW WHAT THEY WERE
TALKING ABOUT!  When I asked questions (when one could ask questions)
they were answered promptly and CORRECTLY!  This was not the case CSUF.
The problem with UC is that I always felt like a number.  Much more so
than elsewhere; especially in classes such as calculus.  Having to teach
calculus seems to be some form of punishment for professors there.  Some
of my profs seemed to actually avoid students, even at upper levels.
OCC seemed to have better instructors than CSUF :-).  At OCC it usually
seemed like the teachers took a personal interest in helping students.
I rarely saw that at UCSD.  At UCSD it was: present the proofs, give the
assignments, give the test and disappear.  The only people you could
regularly get help from were the TA's who were grad students themselves
with little if any training in teaching (not that the profs had any
either).  While, I'm on this tyrade, presenting proofs is no way to
show people how to do calculus.  It may be O.K. for advanced math
students (I still didn't like it up to my last math class (and it was
my major) but at I got to where I could handle it sort of O.K.) but
it makes it unnecessarily difficult for people who are just starting to
get into higher math.

(Oh no!  I actually got up on the soapbox and flamed entire
organizations!  I'm going to get it now.  Where'd I put my
asbestos suit?)

	--Bill (gee, I'm glad I'm out!) Davidson
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
....!{ucsd|sdcsvax}!celerity!billd

eprice@sagpd1.UUCP (Eric Price) (03/12/89)

>I agree wholeheartedly.  I have observed quite a few university faculty
>who were poor researchers but considered by many students to be good
>teachers.  In each case, they were actually POOR teachers.
>...					     ^^^^
>You can be a fine calculus teacher without doing research, but there is
>no way that you are going to be a good teacher in junior, senior and
>graduate level computer science courses without doing research.  As 
>Dave said, "Period." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
             ^^^^^^	
	       rather open minded isn't he  (|^)
	       not to mention judgemental

I'm afraid I must disagree. I'm an instructor at the University of
British Columbia, and, so I'm told (by my peers) a good one. I've
taught courses at every level (right now I'm teaching first, second,
and third year courses), and do no research. On the other hand, I read
voraciously. I read a lot of technical journals, texts, and tech
reports, both in my area and outside it. On the average, about once a
year I tackle a field within computer science about which I know very
little.	

   more follows ... I agree whole heartedly

   I'm glad sombody had the hutzpah to to take this poiunt of view

					Amen

              

dab@oswego.Oswego.EDU (Dave Bozak) (03/14/89)

In article <345@sagpd1.UUCP> eprice@sagpd1.UUCP (Eric Price) writes:
>>I agree wholeheartedly.  I have observed quite a few university faculty
>>who were poor researchers but considered by many students to be good
>>teachers.  In each case, they were actually POOR teachers.
>>...					     ^^^^
>>You can be a fine calculus teacher without doing research, but there is
>>no way that you are going to be a good teacher in junior, senior and
>>graduate level computer science courses without doing research.  As 
>>Dave said, "Period." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>             ^^^^^^	
>	       rather open minded isn't he  (|^)
>	       not to mention judgemental
>
>I'm afraid I must disagree. I'm an instructor at the University of
>British Columbia, and, so I'm told (by my peers) a good one. I've
>taught courses at every level (right now I'm teaching first, second,
>and third year courses), and do no research. On the other hand, I read
>voraciously. I read a lot of technical journals, texts, and tech
>reports, both in my area and outside it. On the average, about once a
>year I tackle a field within computer science about which I know very
>little.	


Well, yes I do believe I am judgemental, especially when it comes 
to my students and my responsibility towards them.  What is the
problem here is how you define research.  I don't remember my exact words,
but the argument goes something like this:  you don't need to be on a quest
for the Turing award, but you do need to exhibit a curiosity about the
field, and enjoy the process of learning what you don't already know.  The
excitment of that discovery process is what then makes the classroom
experience fun and stimulating.  I would define what you do as "research".
My guess is that when you "...read a lot..." you are doing much more than
staring at the text on the page.  I'll bet you don't take any one author's
approach to a topic as gospel, but rather synthesize many different sources.
I'll bet you share those insights with colleagues and students.  I'll bet
you encourage and work with students as they attempt to master material.

That is "research" in my mind, albeit not the "Publish or Perish" style of
research that leads to lots of words on paper in some journal, whose
content may be minimal, but whose title might be long (so as to take up
lots of space on an academic vita).  And I'd defend that as a valuable
activity, especially in a school where in the big three criteria of 
teaching, service and research, teaching is 1/2, and maybe even service
is a dash more weighted than research.

These are very fuzzy lines, and I'm sure I've offended some.  First criteria
has to be the quality of service delivered to students, and I don't believe
that quality exists where the instructor isn't actively involved in
questioning and learning.  Mind you, communicating that excitement to 
your peers through presentations and articles is also appropriate...

-dave bozak
 dab@rocky.oswego.edu

tdhammer@wsuiar.uucp (03/17/90)

Organization: Wichita State Univ., Wichita KS
Lines: 55

In article <WINDLEY.90Mar14092554@cheetah.cheetah.ucdavis.edu>, windley@cheetah.ucdavis.edu (Phil Windley/20000000) writes:
> In article <1990Mar14.021955.27323@athena.mit.edu> oliver@athena.mit.edu (James D. Oliver III) writes:
> 
>    Anyway, the view that good reasearchers *in general* make lousy teachers
>    is pretty pervasive.  What do people at other schools, particularly
>    those with undergraduate experience at places with smaller graduate
>    departments (i.e. less research emphasis) seem to think? 
> 
> 
> There is a very importatn point being missed here.  In order to *teach*
> GRAD students, you have to be able to do *research*.  If a school awards
> PhD's then more than likely, it will emphasize research because this is how
> grad students are educated.  Now I know that this doesn't sit well with all
> the undergrads that want an excellent classroom teacher (not an execellent
> mentor), but if you want a good undergrad education *AND DON'T PLAN ON
> GOING TO GRAD SCHOOL* go to a school that DOESN'T offer the PhD degree.
> You'll see a great emphasis on teaching.  


I think the emphasis needs to be on learning everywhere.  It seems that every
year at this time there is an uproar around the country about professors at
universities who have been denied tenure because of a lack of publications.
Students respond because that professor was a good instructor.

Being available to students is a major part of being a good instructor, perhaps
moreso than classroom ability.  But, how is anyone, professor or student or
professional, going to keep up with their peers without doing some kind of
research?  I hate to see a good instructor get the boot, but sometimes that
instructor also has gotten a bit behind the times and can't keep up a discussion
with colleagues.

On a related thread, I attended a small, liberal-arts school because that was
where I felt comfortable.  I always expected to go to grad school and now I
know how under-prepared I was, however I did get the emphasis on teaching.
And I will return to that environment to teach if at all possible and take
with me a commitment to be both a good teacher and a good researcher, even
if it isn't the kind of work that brings in mega-money contracts.  I think
that that situation could be an excellent preparation for grad school or
career.

		Tim .D.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim .D. Hammer                         BITNET: TDHAMMER@TWSUVAX
Teaching/Research Assistant            UUCP: uunet!ncrlnk!ncrwic!wsucsa!hammer
Computer Science Dept. Box 83	       INTERNET: tdhammer@wsuiar.wsu.ukans.edu
Wichita State University               TalkNET: (316)689-3156
1845 Fairmont
Wichita, Ks.  67208-1595

#include <std.disclaimer>
#define VIEWS_and_OPINIONS  MY_OWN  /* no one else would admit to them */
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A little learning is a dangerous thing." Alexander Pope