hsd@uvacs.CS.VIRGINIA.EDU (Harry S. Delugach) (01/07/88)
As a future Ph.D. who has had extensive experience in teaching, I have been following the recent discussion about the lack of preparation given future teachers. I am encouraged by some universities which seem to care about this enough to offer special instruction in teaching methods, etc. I took the entire undergraduate education curriculum 10-15 years ago. Some of it did seem akin to "basket weaving", as one person has put it, not just because the purpose of most education schools was to produce elementary and secondary school teachers, but also because of the low respect (and low salaries) given the teaching profession in general. The curriculim did provide three courses which I found then (and since) to be of great value, and not just in a supposedly academic setting. I think these courses would also be of value for anyone who expects to give presentations in industry or government as well. 1. Educational psychology - How do listeners learn? What do they learn? Some professors feel that students are merely the cups being filled up at the font of facts, without acknowledging factors such as students' self-image, motivation and sense of accomplishment. 2. Classroom methods - What are some practical ideas and techniques that one can use in a presentation to catch listeners' interest and increase their understanding? Learn alternatives to the chalk-board lecture, such as small group projects, audio/video equipment, live demonstrations, mock competitions, etc. This perks up not only the listeners' interest, but the teacher's as well! 3. Student teaching/presenting - Get some months teaching experience! Get a chance to see teaching as an ongoing job, not just a few minutes' speech every now and then. Before my student teaching, I had conducted a few class sessions in high school and college and thought I knew it all. But in a week or two of student teaching, I used up all my material! That left WEEKS of new material to develop. That's when I found out how much effort the (good) full-time teacher must exert. Enough for now..
pjh@mccc.UUCP (Peter J. Holsberg) (01/08/88)
Right on! In my 28 years of college-level teaching, I've come to learn
a simple fact: "teaching" (i.e., presentation) doesn't insure learning.
While there are many students at top institutions (here we go again) who
do not need formal classroom sessions in order to learn, the other 99%
of college students do. Knowing how to help students learn is far more
important that being a subject matter expert.
--
Peter Holsberg UUCP: {rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh
Technology Division CompuServe: 70240,334
Mercer College GEnie: PJHOLSBERG
Trenton, NJ 08690 Voice: 1-609-586-4800moreno@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Andres Moreno) (01/10/88)
Recent postings on the net reflect a much needed attitude towards improving the quality of teaching in colleges.However, I must point out that ultimately, the student is responsible for his or her own learning. As instructors, we should provide an environment that encourages intellectual curiosity. Classes should give material not easily accessible to the students either because it is too difficult or because it is not readily available in the literature. Courses should outline a subject, not cover it completely. Students can and should learn on their own a *significant* body of knowledge during their college years. Otherwise, we will have produced a crop of college graduates that *need* people to teach them everything. I do not believe that the role of the instructor is to entertain the students while at the same time (hopefully) giving them access to knowledge. Class attendance should be an active endeavour (with the student preparing before going to class).
ed298-ak@violet.berkeley.edu (Edouard Lagache) (01/10/88)
In article <3469@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> moreno@umn-cs.UUCP (Andres Moreno) writes: >Recent postings on the net reflect a much needed attitude towards improving >the quality of teaching in colleges.However, I must point out that >ultimately, the student is responsible for his or her own learning. . . (Additional material deleted) . This is of course what should be true, but the fact of the matter is that students do not go to college (or any other educational institution) to learn - the go to succeed, where success is measured by the social norm of the times. Jean Lave of U.C. Irvine has done some interesting work in which she found that students's actual behaviors on learning are very very different from even what the students stated they were up to. Fundementally, students would do whatever it took to succeed in the class as long as it was accepted in their social group. Thank God, that happened to include a lot of learning! At the college level, things are different. It is possible to do a lot of short term learning in order to pass tests, with little or no long term retention. Thus, I don't think it is reasonable to "farm out" the bulk of the learning to the students (at least if one is hoping that students keep what they learned) without doing something to get the students really hooked on learning the stuff (as opposed to passing the test which after all is the only measure of success in our dehumanized world). Edouard Lagache School of Education U.C. Berkeley lagache@violet.berkeley.edu
pjh@mccc.UUCP (Peter J. Holsberg) (01/11/88)
Those are arguments I've frequently used, but they don't quite hit the
spot. I guess it depemnds on your model of the educational process. If
it's a cooperative model, it assumes that the instructor and the student
have the same goals -- learning and/or high grades. This is the model
that is probably least often found in real life, as typical
undergraduate students are going through that time of their lives when
they are concerned with many more things than "just" book learning. I
include "lessons of life" in the list of those things; this is the
period during which adolescents are usually learning to take the first
step into adult life, and it is a whopper of a step for most.)
Another model is the one you proposed: the instructor is an adjunct to
the learning process. It usually doesn't work very well except with
exceptional students who don;t need an instructor in the first place.
A third has the instructor as motivator, based on the idea that a person
will learn more about something that interests him/her. I know, I know
- if he/she's not interested, what's he/she doing there in the fist
place. There are a variety of answers, none of which are germane. Our
job as instructors is to facillitate the learning process. To me, this
means making classes interesting (for me, it's done with personal
enthusiasm in the classroom), giving timely feedback (my biggest
failing), giving indidual help outside the classroom, expecting a
reasonably high leve; of performance, etc.
Of course, the bottom line is that students who are turned off are not
goimg to learn no matter what, BUT -- there are some/many marginal
students who will learn, given just a little motivation.
At my college, administration "de-motivates" students by discouraging
faculty from enforcing prerequisites, and enrolling more students than
can fit in the classroom or lab. The former is done because we are nice
guys -- if a student really wants to take a course, etc. The latter,
because a certain number will drop out, making the actual enrollment
match the design classroom/lab max. (Did I hear a comment about
self-fulfilling prophecies? Never mind.)
--
Peter Holsberg UUCP: {rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh
Technology Division CompuServe: 70240,334
Mercer College GEnie: PJHOLSBERG
Trenton, NJ 08690 Voice: 1-609-586-4800elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) (01/11/88)
in article <3469@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu>, moreno@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Andres Moreno) says: > Recent postings on the net reflect a much needed attitude towards improving > the quality of teaching in colleges.However, I must point out that > ultimately, the student is responsible for his or her own learning. Certainly. However, that doesn't excuse the poor professor who doesn't know how to do much more besides write the book on the chalkboard! Just about every CS book I've ever read gives plenty of details, but is a bit sketchy about "The Big View" (so-to-speak). Students are notoriously good at memorizing meaningless details and then forgetting them the moment finals are over. It is part of the professor's job to give the students a framework of meaning into which they can assimilate all these details into a coherent whole. The professor had to do this for himself, most probably, by steeping himself in the subject for a number of years. Most students have a semester, not years. Otherwise, why have a professor there? Might as well just tell the students "I'm going to give you an exam on these three dates", and send them home till exam time, if the professor is just going to recite what they can read for themselves in books and journals. I guess you could then say that the professor's job is to summarize. One way of putting it, even if incorrect. I'd suggest looking in any educational psychology book for more info on how people learn... for that matter, maybe I'll do that, myself, even though I'm not an instructor. -- Eric Lee Green elg@usl.CSNET Asimov Cocktail,n., A verbal bomb {cbosgd,ihnp4}!killer!elg detonated by the mention of any Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 subject, resulting in an explosion Lafayette, LA 70509 of at least 5,000 words.
hes@ecsvax.UUCP (Henry Schaffer) (01/11/88)
Why the fuss about whether faculty have had "FORMAL TRAINING" in educational techniques? I thought we were interested in good teaching, not formal credentials. If much teaching is mediocre, would it be a sufficient defense to say that the teachers had had n credit hours in the Education Dept.? I do believe that there is a background of information and techniques which can be learned by the teacher (prospective or current) which can improve the quality of his/her teaching. My university offers a teaching improvement workshop every fall which covers some such topics. It is particularly aimed at new faculty and TA's, but is advertised and is open to all current faculty and TA's. I have attended many such workshops - does this count as "formal training"? I always opened my undergraduate courses (when I taught) with a statement that I couldn't *teach* the students anything - all I could do was to help them *learn*. I certainly was doing a bit of playing with words, but I do believe (as some of the articles in this group have stated) that the learning process is an active process on the part of the student - that is it will be if the learning is to be retained. However, there were many important things which I had to do in the classroom to "help them learn." I could organize knowledge, give the big picture, motivate the students (that is a big category - it includes demonstrating a personal interest, indicating how the knowledge gained can help the students in the future, tieing in the subject to other areas the student already finds interesting, ...,) answer questions ... all the while remembering that my large classroom contained a diversity of students. Much of what is done by a teacher overlaps what is done in the entertainment industry - speaking clearly, making sure that the entire "audience" can see the "stage", ... and of course one can go overboard and treat teaching as entertainment - by emphasizing that over content. However, I believe, that many teachers neglect the presentation aspects and therefore decrease their own effectiveness. --henry schaffer n c state univ
hen@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Bill Henneman) (01/11/88)
From bu-cs!husc6!bbn!uwmcsd1!ig!jade!violet.berkeley.edu!ed298-ak Mon Jan 11 08:27:00 1988 Article: 863 of comp.edu: Relay-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bds beta 6/6/85; site bu-cs.BU.EDU Path: bu-cs!husc6!bbn!uwmcsd1!ig!jade!violet.berkeley.edu!ed298-ak From: ed298-ak@violet.berkeley.edu (Edouard Lagache) Newsgroups: comp.edu Subject: Re: Ph.D.'s and Teaching (Student's responsibilities) Message-ID: <6511@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: 10 Jan 88 03:36:28 GMT Date-Received: 10 Jan 88 05:04:21 GMT References: <2144@uvacs.CS.VIRGINIA.EDU> <115@mccc.UUCP> <3469@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> Sender: usenet@jade.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: lagache@violet.berkeley.edu (Edouard Lagache) Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 33 Keywords: Student attitudes, Social expectations. Summary: Student do not go to college to learn, they go to "succeed". In article <3469@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> moreno@umn-cs.UUCP (Andres Moreno) writes: >Recent postings on the net reflect a much needed attitude towards improving >the quality of teaching in colleges.However, I must point out that >ultimately, the student is responsible for his or her own learning. . . (Additional material deleted) . This is of course what should be true, but the fact of the matter is that students do not go to college (or any other educational institution) to learn - the go to succeed, where success is measured by the social norm of the times. Jean Lave of U.C. Irvine has done some interesting work in which she found that students's actual behaviors on learning are very very different from even what the students stated they were up to. Fundementally, students would do whatever it took to succeed in the class as long as it was accepted in their social group. Thank God, that happened to include a lot of learning! At the college level, things are different. It is possible to do a lot of short term learning in order to pass tests, with little or no long term retention. Thus, I don't think it is reasonable to "farm out" the bulk of the learning to the students (at least if one is hoping that students keep what they learned) without doing something to get the students really hooked on learning the stuff (as opposed to passing the test which after all is the only measure of success in our dehumanized world). Edouard Lagache School of Education U.C. Berkeley lagache@violet.berkeley.edu
hxe@rayssd.RAY.COM (Heather Emanuel) (01/11/88)
In article <3469@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> moreno@umn-cs.UUCP (Andres Moreno) writes: > ...I must point out that ultimately, the student is responsible > for his or her own learning. As instructors, we should provide an > environment that encourages intellectual curiosity. Classes should > give material not easily accessible to the students either because > it is too difficult or because it is not readily available in the > literature. Courses should outline a subject, not cover it > completely. Students can and should learn on their own a > *significant* body of knowledge during their college years. > Otherwise, we will have produced a crop of college graduates that > *need* people to teach them everything. With all due respect to M. Moreno, who is speaking from an idealized point of view: Bull. The salient point in the above paragraph is that instructors should create an environment that encourages intellectual curiousity. If that is accomplished, maybe the rest will follow. However, it is THE INSTRUCTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY to ensure that the students are learning, not the the students' responsibility to dig whatever useful information they can glean from what the instructor is throwing their way. I don't know how many times I have talked with an instructor who says something like, "But they just won't ask questions!" Of *course* they won't ask questions if they haven't got the foggiest notion what's going on! If the students in your class are not asking questions, are not curious or excited about the subject matter, that's your problem, not theirs. After all, it's exactly what you're getting paid to do. There is an entire body of knowledge, constantly growing, on Learning Theory. There are courses on Adult Learning Theory, Child Learning Theory, Adult Education versus Adult Industrial Training, and on and on. Of all the instructors I know -- at all levels and in all disciplines -- maybe one in fifty has had any education in these subjects. > I do not believe that the role of the instructor is to entertain > the students while at the same time (hopefully) giving them access > to knowledge. Class attendance should be an active endeavour (with > the student preparing before going to class). Why not? My favorite classes were the ones that were entertaining. I don't mean that the instructor dressed up like a clown and juggled, but that the material was presented in a way that made it seem exciting, that kept me on the edge of my seat waiting for the `next installment'. I try to continue that in my teaching today. Every course should have a different approach depending on what is being taught, so it would be peripheral to this discussion for me to say what I do in class, but I take full responsibility for creating the maximum amount of active learning time (the time when the instructor is teaching and the students are learning) in every class. Of course the students should come to class prepared -- those are the rules and there are very easy ways of enforcing them -- but it's not their fault if the class is a failure. If you couldn't already guess, this is a real pet peeve of mine. I thought it was confined to the areas of adult education and training, where people who are experts in the subject matter but are not educators (they are usually pulled from local industry) do the majority of the training, but I see I was wrong and it is in colleges too. (I guess I was lucky to have had real instructors throughout college.) What can be done? Require a minimum amount of education in education for anyone who professes to be an instructor, and give more respect to the field of education as a legitimate body of knowledge, rather than what "those who can't do" do. --Heather Emanuel --Supervisor of Training and Development --Computer Operations --Raytheon Submarine Signal Division hxe@rayssd.ray.com {allegra,cbosgd,gatech,ihnp4,linus,necntc,raybed2,uiucdcs}!rayssd!hxe -------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't think my company *has* an opinion, so the ones in this article are obviously my own. -------------------------------------------------------------------- "It's often said that life is strange, oh yes, but compared to what?" -Steve Forbert
windley@iris.ucdavis.edu (Phil Windley) (01/12/88)
In article <3469@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> moreno@umn-cs.UUCP (Andres Moreno) writes: >Recent postings on the net reflect a much needed attitude towards improving >the quality of teaching in colleges.However, I must point out that >ultimately, the student is responsible for his or her own learning. (Additional material deleted) Most of the posting so far have concentrated mainly on the classroom presentation. While I think that classroom presentatin is important, that is only one part of whay should be a cohesive attempt to build an environment where the students learn in spite of proclivities to merely get the grade and get out. Included in this, of course, is homework, exams, discussion sections, etc. Also important, I believe, are grading policies (the proper grading policy goes a long way toward encouraging students to do those things that will help them learn the materal) and office hours. In computer classes (where much of the learning takes place outside of the classroom), it is especially important that the homework emphasize the right things. For example, in a class that is designed to teach someone to program in Pascal, it might be appropriate to assign problems like writing a program to do horoscopes or play mastermind. These could be used to introduce new features of Pascal. These assignments would, in my opinion, be inappropriate for a class that is supposed to introduce computer science to majors. In this case, one isn't trying to teach a language (although that may be a side issue), but teach important CS topics. Appropriate problems, might emphasize recursion, operator overloading, and other CS topics. Phil Windley Robotics Research Lab University of California, Davis
liberte@uiucdcsb.cs.uiuc.edu (01/12/88)
> /* Written 2:04 pm Jan 10, 1988 by hes@ecsvax.UUCP in uiucdcsb:comp.edu */ > Much of what is done by a teacher overlaps what is done in > the entertainment industry - speaking clearly, making sure that > the entire "audience" can see the "stage", ... and of course one > can go overboard and treat teaching as entertainment - by emphasizing > that over content. However, I believe, that many teachers neglect the > presentation aspects and therefore decrease their own effectiveness. > --henry schaffer n c state univ > /* End of text from uiucdcsb:comp.edu */ Along this line, I wonder how many teachers have considered making video recordings of their presentations. This would have a number of benefits. Teachers would learn to appreciate how every minute counts. They could review the tape to see how it looks from the students perspective. Students could replay the tape as a review or a first viewing in case the lecture was missed. I certainly recognize the value of having a live speaker who can answer questions on the spot or involve the audience. There is also danger of turning students into more passive viewers than they are already. But a once a semester video recordings session over several years, for example, could have a positive long term effect on the educational process. Dan LaLiberte liberte@a.cs.uiuc.edu uiucdcs!liberte
elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) (01/12/88)
in article <1759@rayssd.RAY.COM>, hxe@rayssd.RAY.COM (Heather Emanuel) says: > will follow. However, it is THE INSTRUCTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY to > ensure that the students are learning, not the the students' I don't believe that to be true. I think the instructor's responsibility ends at presenting the material clearly, providing feedback, and all those other things that make up good teaching. The instructor isn't a babysitter who has to ram learning down the throats of the class. At any public university, you will, in the freshman classes, encounter people who simply do not have the talent to do the work. This is sad, but, alas, true. Attribute it to poor public education, supression of intellectual thought by "passive" entertainment such as television, or other things wrong in their background, but this is simply a fact that cannot be denied. Laying the blame at the instructor's feet is unjustified. > There is an entire body of knowledge, constantly growing, on > Learning Theory. There are courses on Adult Learning Theory, Child > Learning Theory, Adult Education versus Adult Industrial Training, > and on and on. Of all the instructors I know -- at all levels and > in all disciplines -- maybe one in fifty has had any education in > these subjects. While this is all well and true, I don't think lengthy formal education in the subject is necessary for a college professor to learn what is necessary to teach mature, interested persons. I may have mentioned the single-semester course that our English department has, that all graduating PhD.'s in English are required to take, entitled "Teaching English on the College Level". A single course like that should suffice for college-level instructing. If we start requiring a bevy of extraneous material, we may soon get into something like the current problem with high school science teachers... most of which know an aweful lot about how to teach, but not much at all about what they're teaching. And before you flame me, you better go look at your college's education catalog... I don't know about there, but here, the "science education" majors take watered-down science courses, that tell precious little about why the heck those equations actually work. I took a couple of those courses... childs play. -- Eric Lee Green elg@usl.CSNET Asimov Cocktail,n., A verbal bomb {cbosgd,ihnp4}!killer!elg detonated by the mention of any Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 subject, resulting in an explosion Lafayette, LA 70509 of at least 5,000 words.
t-mccann@puff.cs.wisc.edu (L. I. McCann) (01/13/88)
In article <170800004@uiucdcsb>, liberte@uiucdcsb.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > > Along this line, I wonder how many teachers have considered making > video recordings of their presentations. This would have a number of > benefits. Teachers would learn to appreciate how every minute counts. > They could review the tape to see how it looks from the students perspective. > Students could replay the tape as a review or a first viewing in case > the lecture was missed. > > Dan LaLiberte > liberte@a.cs.uiuc.edu > uiucdcs!liberte When I started teaching sections of our introductory Pascal course, the department required all first-time instructors to have themselves videotaped while lecturing. (That was two years ago; I don't know if they still require that it be done or not.) I'm not certain viewing the tape helped me greatly with my teaching, but I did learn that I had a really annoying tendancy to tug on my sleeves (I happened to be wearing a long-sleeved shirt that day). I have since stuck to wearing short-sleeved shirts while lecturing. Lester McCann mccann@primost.cs.wisc.edu
pjh@mccc.UUCP (Peter J. Holsberg) (01/13/88)
In article <1759@rayssd.RAY.COM> hxe@rayssd.RAY.COM (Heather Emanuel) writes: > >With all due respect to M. Moreno, who is speaking from an idealized >point of view: Bull. The salient point in the above paragraph is >that instructors should create an environment that encourages >intellectual curiousity. If that is accomplished, maybe the rest >will follow. However, it is THE INSTRUCTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY to >ensure that the students are learning, not the the students' >responsibility to dig whatever useful information they can glean >from what the instructor is throwing their way. > With all due respect to Ms. Emanuel -- you are also speaking from an idealistic point of view. In the best of all possible learning situations, students "should" do this and that, and instructors "should" do this and that, and learning "should" be the result. There is nothing I can do to reach a student who is worried about his next period exam, his traffic ticket, the fight she had last night with her boyfriend, etc. Even if I create an ideal situation for stimulating intellectual curiosity, I cannot guarantee that learning will take place. It's a partnership: BOTH student and instructor need to fulfill their roles for learning to take place. >I don't know how many times I have talked with an instructor who >says something like, "But they just won't ask questions!" Of >*course* they won't ask questions if they haven't got the foggiest >notion what's going on! If the students in your class are not >asking questions, are not curious or excited about the subject >matter, that's your problem, not theirs. After all, it's exactly >what you're getting paid to do. > Or perhaps they are afraid to ask questions because their peers seem to understand the material. I'm reminded of an experience I had in industry (I was manager of an educ & training dept for a small computer company, oncer). Two fellows from GE came to a course: the engineer responsible for the computer and his immediate supervisor. Neither asked a question the entire week. But the following week, they both -- independently -- burned up the phone lines with questions! It ain't that simple! -- Peter Holsberg UUCP: {rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh Technology Division CompuServe: 70240,334 Mercer College GEnie: PJHOLSBERG Trenton, NJ 08690 Voice: 1-609-586-4800
lewis@rocky.STANFORD.EDU (Bil Lewis) (01/13/88)
Re: Dan's comment about taping teaching. Here at Stanford, a good number of the courses are broadcast over the SU TV network to local industry. All of these courses are (of course) taped; the tapes then being left in the library where players are available. A few things I have noticed: o Most of the teachers make very little effort to take advantage of the TV classroom. A good number use a televised pad instead of the blackboard, resulting in a disembodied pen talking at them. o I have watched a good number of other people on tape & find it amazingly boring. (I am astounded by the number of students who enjoy the tapes.) o I have not heard of anyone else actually going in and watching either themself or anyone else. The potential is there. The actuality is a different matter. -Bil --
reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) (01/14/88)
In article <170800004@uiucdcsb> liberte@uiucdcsb.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >Along this line, I wonder how many teachers have considered making >video recordings of their presentations. This would have a number of >benefits. Teachers would learn to appreciate how every minute counts. >They could review the tape to see how it looks from the students perspective. I like this idea! Athletes use this technique to analyze their form and can make adjustments after viewing a tape. Instructors may or may not be able to pick up something from the tape, but certainly someone else could attempt to critique the presentation. It is difficult as an instructor to think from the student's perspective. I found this problem when I taugh an introductory class in Pascal. To a student who is new to all of this, it can at times appear overwhelming. To the person who is instructing the class it is all basic and trivial. The instructor has to realize that unless the student can grasp these concepts no future classes will have much to build upon. Not everyone who stands up in front of a class thinks along these lines. My appologies must go out to the first section of students that I taught. They were basically subjects of an experiment. It may have been a painful experience for them, but I think they learned despite my stumbling to find the best way to teach. -- George W. Leach Paradyne Corporation {gatech,rutgers,attmail}!codas!pdn!reggie Mail stop LF-207 Phone: (813) 530-2376 P.O. Box 2826 Largo, FL 34649-2826
windley@iris.ucdavis.edu (Phil Windley) (01/14/88)
In article <2804@killer.UUCP> elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) writes: >in article <1759@rayssd.RAY.COM>, hxe@rayssd.RAY.COM (Heather Emanuel) says: >> will follow. However, it is THE INSTRUCTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY to >> ensure that the students are learning, not the the students' > I don't believe that to be true. I think the instructor's responsibility >ends at presenting the material clearly, providing feedback, and all those >other things that make up good teaching. The instructor isn't a babysitter who >has to ram learning down the throats of the class. I agree wholeheartedly. The idea that it is the instructor's responsibility to ensure learning is reminiscent of high school. At a university I assume that everyone there is an adult and are there because they want to be. I know this is not 100% true; I have taught courses that were mostly freshmen and dealt with the problems that many freshmen have (I had them too). The point is, by putting the responsibility on their shoulders, a different kind of learning takes place; students learn how to learn, something most of them didn't learn in high school. I think the most important thing I got out of my freshman year was figuring out how universities (and the real world) work with regard to learning. Some students of course never leran and others might need special help form campus programs, but most of them do and their better off because of it. Phil Windley Robotics Research Lab University of California, Davis
gp1764@sdcc15.UUCP (glockner) (01/14/88)
In article <3469@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> moreno@umn-cs.UUCP (Andres Moreno) writes: >ultimately, the student is responsible for his or her own learning. As >instructors, we should provide an environment that encourages intellectual >curiosity. >I do not believe that the role of the instructor is to entertain the students >while at the same time (hopefully) giving them access to knowledge. Class >attendance should be an active endeavour (with the student preparing before >going to class). When I taught French at UCSD, I was told that keeping the students' attention and motivating them to come to class was my responsiblity. Sagging enrollments in the language classes might have had something to do with this, as much as the Professor's contention that language learning can only take place when a student is attentive. I found this viewpoint challenging, and often difficult to accomplish. It did give me greater respect for other people's time. It also made we appreciate having students who did not need me to take attendance. Michelle grossAT sdcsvax.ucsd.edu using glockner's account
pjh@mccc.UUCP (Peter J. Holsberg) (01/14/88)
Back in the late 60's, we (I was in industry at the time) got a 2" video
tape recorder for our training programs, and put it to use for
instructor training immediately. The problem with it was that
instructors got caught up in seeing their mannerisms -- most of which
did not detract from their teaching -- and wanted to quit the E & T
group! So, video is a two-edged sword!
--
Peter Holsberg UUCP: {rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh
Technology Division CompuServe: 70240,334
Mercer College GEnie: PJHOLSBERG
Trenton, NJ 08690 Voice: 1-609-586-4800shankar@srcsip.UUCP (Subash Shankar) (01/15/88)
In article <126@mccc.UUCP> pjh@mccc.UUCP (Peter J. Holsberg) writes: >In article <1759@rayssd.RAY.COM> hxe@rayssd.RAY.COM (Heather Emanuel) writes: >>I don't know how many times I have talked with an instructor who >>says something like, "But they just won't ask questions!" Of >>*course* they won't ask questions if they haven't got the foggiest >>notion what's going on! If the students in your class are not >>asking questions, are not curious or excited about the subject >>matter, that's your problem, not theirs. >>... >Or perhaps they are afraid to ask questions because their peers seem to >understand the material. ... Or, perhaps, they fear negative feedback from their professors, or even other classmates. I have had one too many class (undergraduate) in which the professor believes that all undergraduates are ignorami (or whatever the plural of ignoramus is), and any question they ask is by default a stupid question and a waste of class time. These professors typically look aghast at your stupidity, and then answer by reiterating their last 10 prepared vu-graphs, except at a slower pace. Even worse, there is criticism from other students who happen to understand the material and consider the questioner to be wasting class time, even when the question is one clearly bothering a majority of the class. Interestingly, the questioner often has the same feeling when somebody else asks a question about something he understands. -- Subash Shankar Honeywell Systems & Research Center ihnp4!srcsip!shankar
mason@tmsoft.UUCP (Dave Mason) (01/16/88)
I thought I'd throw my $.02 worth into this discussion. It turns out to be a rather long $.02 worth, but the gist of it is: it's not clear to me that a teacher education course is going to help. I've been teaching Applied Computer Science for 6.5 years at Ryerson, an undergraduate university/polytechnic. Normally I teach 3rd & 4th year students. (I'm teaching 1st & 2nd this year, but that's a whole other story for another posting, another day.) I'm a good, but not great, teacher. I have difficulty understanding why my students don't understand my statements/explanations. Despite this I get a lot of respect and appreciation from my students. I see my job as to challenge the students, to push them where they wouldn't otherwise go (and judging by the moans and groans, I accomplish this :-). I run very interactive classes: in my compiler, graphics, and operating systems courses, I typically have 50-60 students in a lecture section, but insist on 15-20 per lab section so that the students can feel more comfortable to ask the questions that spark the learning: I set the challenges, provide the basic underpinnings of the facts & drag them kicking & screaming into asking the questions that I'm there to answer to fill in the gaps. This lets the student build the internal models that are most appropriate for them. I am constantly on the lookout for incorrect model building (i.e. the student asks x, I answer y, the student asks z, which lets me see that they are building the wrong model around the facts y, so I go back & correct their model). This is harder for the student... much easier to accept a model that someone else has structured; but also much easier to forget the foreign model... and once they've built their own model, they SHOULD have better intuition about the problem. I frequently am in the situation where there are no questions, but I'm sure it's because no one has a clue what's going on. My experience is that this is invariably a case of peer pressure: no one wants to look stupid (though it's often claimed to be that they don't know where to start, I've rarely found this to be the case...they just think the question they want to ask is too embarassingly trivial/simple). (This is why I have the small lab sections...fewer people means less peer pressure.) My usual response is to say something like: "If you have a question, ask it cuz there's probably several other people who have the same question, and are just too shy to ask." This usually gets a question, which leads to another & we make some progress. I have no formal training in teaching, but the first couple of years there were some workshops that I attended, although I don't think they were particularly helpful. They were taught by someone who used all the pedagogically sound principles, like `outline, describe, summary', lots of spiffy overheads, etc., and I thought they were PRETTY BORING. I like a VERY loose teaching style... maybe some notes, or a few minutes before class (often in the halls on the way to class :-) thinking about what I want to cover, then a willingness to go on a tangent if it seems helpful in class. When this doesn't work, it leads to disorganised classes, and wasted time. When it does work, it produces effective, interesting, alive presentations. (The trick of course being to have more of the latter classes than the former. :-) Today for example, I had a fairly (unusually :-) solid idea of what I wanted to talk about, and how I was going to present it. Somebody asked a question (looking for an example), and after about 15 seconds thinking, I structured the lecture around an example I had just thought of which, I feel, made for a much better class than the one I had planned. A couple of times I have taken notes that students have taken down in class, and photocopied them, and taught from those notes the following year (or 2, or 3, or ...). This is very seductive, as it is MUCH easier to do, but the resulting lectures seem very stiff, and rigid, and, well, ... LECTURES, rather than classes. Even the classes that had seemed so bright and alive the first time, seem dryer when taught from the notes. Well, I've rambled rather more than I intended. If you have comments (yay or nay) about my teaching (as biasedly described here), I'd appreciate mail. (And if you thought this was boring, I'm sorry, but writing it probably helped my teaching a bit, and reading it may help someone else). ../Dave
pjh@mccc.UUCP (Peter J. Holsberg) (01/17/88)
In article <794@altura.srcsip.UUCP> shankar@europa.UUCP (Subash Shankar) writes: > >Or, perhaps, they fear negative feedback from their professors, or even >other classmates. I have had one too many class (undergraduate) in which >the professor believes that all undergraduates are ignorami (or whatever >the plural of ignoramus is), and any question they ask is by default a >stupid question and a waste of class time. These professors typically >look aghast at your stupidity, and then answer by reiterating their last >10 prepared vu-graphs, except at a slower pace. > >Even worse, there is criticism from other students who happen to understand >the material and consider the questioner to be wasting class time, even when >the question is one clearly bothering a majority of the class. Interestingly, >the questioner often has the same feeling when somebody else asks a question >about something he understands. > I guess we've all seen the instructor who cannot tolerate being asked a question, as if a student's need to understand cast aspersions as to the instructor's ability to explain. Unfortunately, there's no answer to that one. Once an instructor has put a student down for asking a question, that student will likely never ask another (unless he has very large cojones!). Of course, that instructor should be whipped (or beaten, if he happens to like being whipped) and relegated to the research lab; he obviously is NOT a teacher. As far as "superior" students -- those who happen to know the answer to a particular question and act out that the question is wasting class time, I have one suggestion for the questioner. If it bothers you that Joe Smartass doesn't like you question, ask the instructor outside of class. Or, if your ego is intact, ignore Joe. The only dumb question is the one that goes unasked. -- Peter Holsberg UUCP: {rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh Technology Division CompuServe: 70240,334 Mercer College GEnie: PJHOLSBERG Trenton, NJ 08690 Voice: 1-609-586-4800
windley@iris.ucdavis.edu (Phil Windley) (01/17/88)
All this discussion of Ph.D.s and teaching has lead me to a question. The US is largely regarded to have one of the best university systems in the world and at the same time is largely regarded to have one of the worst secondary school systems around. Why then should we suppose that taking education classes that up until now have been largely tailored for secondary school teachers will help? I know someone is going to say that the problem is not the education that these people receive, but the lack of money. Certainly more money could be spent on teacher's salarys, but I beleive an even larger problem is that most secondary school teachers don't know their subject. A chemistry teacher in high school should be a chemistry major who took a couple of education courses, not an education major who took a couple of chemistry courses. Rather than try to figure out how to improve and already good system, the univesities, let's discuss how to improve a not so good system, the high schools. Phil Windley Robotics Research Lab University of California, Davis
pjh@mccc.UUCP (Peter J. Holsberg) (01/17/88)
In article <261@tmsoft.UUCP> mason@tmsoft.UUCP (Dave Mason) writes: >I thought I'd throw my $.02 worth into this discussion. It turns out >I'm a good, but not great, teacher. Dave, from what you wrote, I'd say "better than good". Clearly there is a need for an instructor to cover the "advertised" material and to help students reach the advertised goals of the course, but so much more important is the goal of getting them to think, or as you put it, "build the correct models". > I frequently am in the situation where there are no questions, but I'm >sure it's because no one has a clue what's going on. >My usual response is to say something like: "If you have a >question, ask it cuz there's probably several other people who have the >same question, and are just too shy to ask." This usually gets a >question, which leads to another & we make some progress. > Another thing you might do is pick a student and ask him a question about something you mentioned in the simplest part of the class meeting. But it sounds to me like you are doing a very very good job. Can your faculty specify class/lab size? Lucky! -- Peter Holsberg UUCP: {rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh Technology Division CompuServe: 70240,334 Mercer College GEnie: PJHOLSBERG Trenton, NJ 08690 Voice: 1-609-586-4800
pjh@mccc.UUCP (Peter J. Holsberg) (01/17/88)
Phil,
Noo Joisey has recently enacted legislature/created policy that allows
school boards to hire people with subject matter expertise but no teacher
training, based apparently on thoughts similar to yours!
--
Peter Holsberg UUCP: {rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh
Technology Division CompuServe: 70240,334
Mercer College GEnie: PJHOLSBERG
Trenton, NJ 08690 Voice: 1-609-586-4800hes@ecsvax.UUCP (Henry Schaffer) (01/18/88)
In article <261@tmsoft.UUCP>, mason@tmsoft.UUCP (Dave Mason) writes: > ... [lots of good stuff deleted] > My usual response is to say something like: "If you have a > question, ask it cuz there's probably several other people who have the > same question, and are just too shy to ask." This usually gets a > question, which leads to another & we make some progress. > This approach does work - but it may take a while (i.e., a number of lecture sessions before the students "trust" you that asking questions is really ok. From the point of the teacher - it is easy to *say* that questions are welcome - it is not as easy to *act* as if they are. (Especially hard to avoid the put-down "It was in the reading assignment for this lecture." when it was in the reading assignment.) The instructor must be able to either give a substantive answer, or to avoid it when desired - and do it without turning off the students. There are many ways to accomplish that if you think it through ahead of time and have some good phrases ready - e.g. "That's a good question but I can answer it better next week when I've finished development of this topic." - and then remember to point out when you are answering it in a future lecture - you can believe that the student who asked it will remember and feel good when you mention that here is the answer. > ... [section on "loose teaching style"] > Even the classes > that had seemed so bright and alive the first time, seem dryer when > taught from the notes. Now to get back on my favorite hobby horse. This is where I bring up the essence of the art of presentation and the relevance of show business or theater skills ... Can you imagine the singer, musician or actor who doesn't rehearse for such reasons! (There are such, they may be happy as amateurs, they just don't make it as professionals.) One of the essential parts of the preparation is to make it sound/seem/ actually be just as bright and alive - even though you are presenting it for the thousandth time. In fact, it should even be better the thousandth time, because you have been able to improve your timing, weed out poor phrases, find better examples ... That's why they take shows "on the road" before the "opening". That's why I'd suggest that part of the preparation for teaching should be training in the show business type of presentation. (Got to sign off now, the sermon detector in our local inews version just started beeping.) > ../Dave --henry schaffer n c state univ
elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) (01/18/88)
[Re: Chemistry teacher in secondary schools should be a Chemistry major with a couple of education courses, not an Education major with a couple of Chemistry courses:] in article <136@mccc.UUCP>, pjh@mccc.UUCP (Peter J. Holsberg) says: > Noo Joisey has recently enacted legislature/created policy that allows > school boards to hire people with subject matter expertise but no teacher > training, based apparently on thoughts similar to yours! Louisiana also recently passed a similiar law (about time -- the only school system worse than that of Louisiana is Mississippi). It requires the person to take 9 hours of Education classes during the summer. One problem, however, is that very few schools can support more than one or two sections of Chemistry, at least, not Louisiana public schools or "fundamentalist" academies (which are mostly Bible-study groups :-(. Around here, the only schools that could possibly feed and clothe a full-time Chemistry teacher are the more prestigious parochial schools of the "established" religions (note that Louisiana has never had a tradition of prestigious private academies such as some Northern states have... that niche has always been filled here by parochial schools, especially the Catholic ones, since over 50% of the state's population is Catholic). Of the two public high schools that I attended, both of which had about 1400 students, both had trouble filling a single section of Physics, and both only had a couple of sections apiece of Biology and Chemistry. It's interesting to note that in the parochial school I attended for a couple of years, they DID have both a full-time Physics teacher and a full-time Chemistry teacher -- but then, Chemistry and Physics were both required, at that school. Things might have improved a bit since then, especially with recent Louisiana laws requiring two sections of science in order to graduate. But still, I doubt it (probably all that the Louisiana laws accomplished was the dilution of science and mathematics courses to the point where any semi-vegetative potato-brain could pass them, especially with the shortage of mathematics and science teachers -- thus the justification for the recent law to allow math and science majors to teach high school with just a summer's worth of education courses). It is still quite probable that in the majority of the U.S., students are still not required to take science and mathematics courses in order to graduate (or, at least, not beyond "Consumer Math" and "Home Economics"). Until we put those kids in class, it gets very hard to economically justify paying a person full-time wages to work 2 hours a day (and do you REALLY think that someone with a BS in Chemistry can afford to work part-time?). -- Eric Lee Green elg@usl.CSNET Asimov Cocktail,n., A verbal bomb {cbosgd,ihnp4}!killer!elg detonated by the mention of any Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 subject, resulting in an explosion Lafayette, LA 70509 of at least 5,000 words.
hxe@rayssd.RAY.COM (Heather Emanuel) (01/18/88)
[I said in an article that if students don't ask questions, it's the instructor's problem (note I did not say "fault"; I said "problem".)] shankar@europa.UUCP (Subash Shankar) responds: > Or, perhaps, they fear negative feedback from their professors, or even > other classmates. I have had one too many class (undergraduate) in which > the professor believes that all undergraduates are ignorami (or whatever > the plural of ignoramus is), and any question they ask is by default a > stupid question and a waste of class time. These professors typically > look aghast at your stupidity, and then answer by reiterating their last > 10 prepared vu-graphs, except at a slower pace. > > Even worse, there is criticism from other students who happen to understand > the material and consider the questioner to be wasting class time, even when > the question is one clearly bothering a majority of the class. This is clearly the point I was trying to make. It is a poor instructor who blames students for not understanding the material, and it is a poor instructor who sets up a class so that some students can `blame' other students. Here is what I would do to counteract this specific situation: Every lecture/discussion cycle (one cycle for each major concept) should include an overview of the concept, some specifics about the concept (examples, etc.), and an interactive review of the concept so the instructor knows the students grasp the concept. The interactive review can consist of hands-on, if the course happens to be a computer class in a room with terminals, for example, or just a quick question and answer session with the instructor asking the questions that are most often asked by students at that point. I, personally, do not just call on students with a list of questions. I group them into two's or three's based on who they're sitting next to, give them the list of questions (or a case study or whatever is appropriate), and have them discuss it and arrive at a mutual solution. I give them about 5 minutes, because this is a *quick* review. Then the class as a whole discusses the answers to the questions, with students answering each other's questions if necessary. Students answering each other's questions solves two problems. First, it gets rid of the "you're wasting my time" from the more advanced students, because they now feel valuable and can prove how `smart' they are. Second, it keeps the instructor from "reiterating their last 10 prepared vu-graphs, except at a slower pace." The instructor should have at least two or three ways of explaining each concept, so if students don't understand it one way they can get it another, but sometimes it is the other students who can make something clear to their classmates where the instructor can't. This is a plus, not a minus or a failure, for the instructor. It's all a case of letting go our pretensions of godliness and just getting the information across in whatever way works best for our students. My whole point in this discussion has been that instructors are arrogant if they ignore the fact that there is an art, a science, to teaching, and if they think they can just stand up and recite facts they're failing their students. I suggested that every instructor should have some education in education. I never said that they all have to go back to school and get an Education degree. There is a huge body of literature, there are seminars galore, there are workshops. All or some of these may be appropriate to a specific style of teaching or field of study. My point is that to ignore all of it is simply negligent. --Heather Emanuel hxe@rayssd.ray.com {allegra,cbosgd,gatech,ihnp4,linus,necntc,raybed2,uiucdcs}!rayssd!hxe -------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't think my company *has* an opinion, so the ones in this article are obviously my own. -------------------------------------------------------------------- "It's often said that life is strange, oh yes, but compared to what?" -Steve Forbert
reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) (01/19/88)
In article <261@tmsoft.UUCP> mason@tmsoft.UUCP (Dave Mason) writes: [lots of good stuff deleted here] >PRETTY BORING. I like a VERY loose teaching style... maybe some notes, >or a few minutes before class (often in the halls on the way to class :-) >thinking about what I want to cover, then a willingness to go on a >tangent if it seems helpful in class. Yup, me too. Too often I find that the person who is so organized and prepared with lots of view graphs, etc..... can not deviate from the prepared script. Too often you find TAs teaching this way. I have also run into this in industry class settings. The overhead projector is one piece of equipment that I absolutely hate with a passion. If one uses it rather than the black- board because it is easier for everyone in the roon to see, fine! But if you are just going to put stuff up there and expect the students to copy it into their notes, why not just provide a handout. Why waste time with all the writing :-) Seriously, I also hated it when people gave me a handout to go with the viewgraphs. I can get just as much out of a book. The classroom is time for interactions to take place. Lectures can be delivered via other media, including computers. How often is it true that if a student simply reads one chapter ahead in the book, then s/he has effectively consumed the next class without ever attending? The classroom, texts, and assignments all need to fit nicely together, not simply duplicate each other. That is boring! > Today for example, I had a fairly (unusually :-) solid idea of what I >wanted to talk about, and how I was going to present it. Somebody >asked a question (looking for an example), and after about 15 seconds >thinking, I structured the lecture around an example I had just thought >of which, I feel, made for a much better class than the one I had >planned. I like this guy! Although I tried to have a rough outline and some rough notes available, if we went out on a tanget (but not astray) great! It showed that someone was interested in the class (and hopefully everyone else). It is a bit more of a strain on the instructor because it can show weaknesses, but what the heck you can't know everything. >A couple of times I have taken notes that students have taken >down in class, and photocopied them, and taught from those notes the >following year (or 2, or 3, or ...). This is very seductive, as it is >MUCH easier to do, but the resulting lectures seem very stiff, and >rigid, and, well, ... LECTURES, rather than classes. Even the classes >that had seemed so bright and alive the first time, seem dryer when >taught from the notes. I tried to restructure what I would teach and try to bolster my available information each semester. I hopefully improved upon those mistakes and weak areas with each semester. As you said, it was extremely easy to just pump out the notes and/or assignments from the previous semester (I had it all online). But I didn't feel like I was doing my job if that was all I did. I constantly tried to find new examples, more information, better assignments, etc.... if nothing else so that it wasn't boring to me :-) Oh, by the way, I was only an adjunct teaching nights. I also worked full time while I was doing this. -- George W. Leach Paradyne Corporation {gatech,rutgers,attmail}!codas!pdn!reggie Mail stop LF-207 Phone: (813) 530-2376 P.O. Box 2826 Largo, FL 34649-2826
reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) (01/19/88)
In article <844@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> windley@iris.ucdavis.edu (Phil Windley) writes: >I know someone is going to say that the problem is not the education >that these people receive, but the lack of money. Certainly more >money could be spent on teacher's salarys, but I beleive an even >larger problem is that most secondary school teachers don't know their >subject. A chemistry teacher in high school should be a chemistry >major who took a couple of education courses, not an education major >who took a couple of chemistry courses. Ah, but you see the problem does come back to money. You see that Chemistry teacher may also be teaching Physics or some other science. Most high schools can not afford to hire subject matter experts for each and every subject that is taught. Generally you find people within certain departments will have to handle several specialties. More money would enable just what you are asking for to take place. More teachers could be hired and they could specialize. I believe that I read in the past year or so, that the New York school system has hired some people who are subject matter experts (Masters Degree in their field) and are seeing how they work out. Anybody heard anything about this and how it has compaired with the standard way of hiring Education Degreed people? -- George W. Leach Paradyne Corporation {gatech,rutgers,attmail}!codas!pdn!reggie Mail stop LF-207 Phone: (813) 530-2376 P.O. Box 2826 Largo, FL 34649-2826
reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) (01/19/88)
In article <135@mccc.UUCP> pjh@mccc.UUCP (Peter J. Holsberg) writes: >Another thing you might do is pick a student and ask him a question about >something you mentioned in the simplest part of the class meeting. I never like this as a student and felt that it was not appropriate to put people on the spot in a classroom setting. Some people just are not that comfortable when they are arbitrarily picked out of a class to answer a question in front of the entire class. The only thing this technique will succeed in is driving students out of the class to the registrar's office to fill out a drop/add form. Of course, there are some instructors who prefer it that way. It cuts down on the number of papers they have to grade :-) -- George W. Leach Paradyne Corporation {gatech,rutgers,attmail}!codas!pdn!reggie Mail stop LF-207 Phone: (813) 530-2376 P.O. Box 2826 Largo, FL 34649-2826
windley@iris.ucdavis.edu (Phil Windley) (01/22/88)
In article <2062@pdn.UUCP> reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) writes: >In article <844@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> windley@iris.ucdavis.edu (Phil Windley) writes: >>larger problem is that most secondary school teachers don't know their >>subject. A chemistry teacher in high school should be a chemistry >>major who took a couple of education courses, not an education major >>who took a couple of chemistry courses. > > Ah, but you see the problem does come back to money. You see that >Chemistry teacher may also be teaching Physics or some other science. >Most high schools can not afford to hire subject matter experts for each >and every subject that is taught. Generally you find people within certain >departments will have to handle several specialties. More money would enable >just what you are asking for to take place. More teachers could be hired and >they could specialize. > I believe that my point (with some small modifications) still has validity. Who would you rather learn physics from: an education major who took non-calculus-based physics, or a chemistry major who as part of his major took several physics classes and has a good grounding in basic science? I still would rather have the chemistry major, even if she's teaching physics. Another solution might be to share teachers anong high-schools so that more sections of a course could be supported. Phil Windley Robotics Research Lab University of California, Davis
howard@COS.COM (Howard C. Berkowitz) (01/22/88)
I give frequent technical presentations at seminars and conferences, and am becoming increasingly furious at the demand of organizers for advance copies of my visuals. Aside from the logistical nightmare which can accompany bringing 200 copies of a 40-page document on a flight, I find that advance handouts interfere with the quality of presentation. Others dislike them as well, perhaps not for the same reasons: In article <2060@pdn.UUCP>, reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) writes: > In article <261@tmsoft.UUCP> mason@tmsoft.UUCP (Dave Mason) writes: > > >PRETTY BORING. I like a VERY loose teaching style... maybe some notes, > >or a few minutes before class (often in the halls on the way to class :-) > >thinking about what I want to cover, then a willingness to go on a > >tangent if it seems helpful in class. > Yup, me too. Too often I find that the person who is so organized and > prepared with lots of view graphs, etc..... can not deviate from the prepared > script. Too often you find TAs teaching this way. I have also run into this > in industry class settings. The overhead projector is one piece of equipment > that I absolutely hate with a passion. If one uses it rather than the black- > board because it is easier for everyone in the roon to see, fine! But if you > are just going to put stuff up there and expect the students to copy it into > their notes, why not just provide a handout. Why waste time with all the > writing :-) Seriously, I also hated it when people gave me a handout to go > with the viewgraphs. I can get just as much out of a book. > > Today for example, I had a fairly (unusually :-) solid idea of what I > >wanted to talk about, and how I was going to present it. Somebody > >asked a question (looking for an example), and after about 15 seconds > >thinking, I structured the lecture around an example I had just thought > >of which, I feel, made for a much better class than the one I had > >planned. > I like this guy! Although I tried to have a rough outline and some > rough notes available, if we went out on a tanget (but not astray) great! > It showed that someone was interested in the class (and hopefully everyone > else). It is a bit more of a strain on the instructor because it can show > weaknesses, but what the heck you can't know everything. Even when I am presenting a formal paper, I am willing to deviate from my planned presentation flow if questions (or glazed looks) during the talk seem to dictate such a deviation. There are those who complain when the presentation does not follow the published paper; I respond only that the presentation typically is six months more recent than the final paper sent to the conference. In an industrial context (I don't have sufficiently recent academic experience to judge), if I give out advance handouts, the audience tends to follow the paper copy, not the presentation. Many conference and seminar organizers demand the handouts "so the attendees may take notes on them." How real is this need? I'll happily provide notebook paper if they need it! :-) An extreme problem of advance text comes when I want to use surprise and/or humor in the presentation, sometimes with technical material, sometimes with flourishes. To cite an absurd but useful example, I frequently give a seminar on "The Practicality of OSI Today." (Note: it is.) Many audiences come with a feeling of burnout from sales hype, and it is important to deflate this. After I am introduced, I begin with an increasingly irrational, worst-of-TV-evangelist style presentation of outrageously wonderful things OSI communications will do for the audience. After about 30 seconds, or when enough faces show total disbelief, I turn on the overhead, talking all the while, with a slide: "The Speaker is Lying." It is not noticed at first, giggles begin to break out, and, within another 30 seconds, I have a roaring audience's complete attention. Should I give out this first slide in the advance text, as some demented organizers have requested? A lesser problem of handouts is that they may not be meaningful, or may actively be misleading, outside the context of the presentation. I structure my visuals as adjuncts to presentations, not as pseudo-publications. -- -- howard(Howard C. Berkowitz) @cos.com {uunet, decuac, sun!sundc, hadron, hqda-ai}!cos!howard (703) 883-2812 [ofc] (703) 998-5017 [home] DISCLAIMER: I explicitly identify COS official positions.
pjh@mccc.UUCP (Peter J. Holsberg) (01/23/88)
In article <2063@pdn.UUCP> reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) writes: >In article <135@mccc.UUCP> pjh@mccc.UUCP (Peter J. Holsberg) writes: > >>Another thing you might do is pick a student and ask him a question about >>something you mentioned in the simplest part of the class meeting. > > I never like this as a student and felt that it was not appropriate to >put people on the spot in a classroom setting. Some people just are not that >comfortable when they are arbitrarily picked out of a class to answer a >question in front of the entire class. The only thing this technique will >succeed in is driving students out of the class to the registrar's office to >fill out a drop/add form. I guess I wasn't clear. The type of question I had in mind was one that's easy to answer. The purpose is to get the ball rolling, not to embarrass anyone. If I ask a student a question and he/she hesitates, I usually ask if anyone can help. If no one volunteers, I ask someone specifically. Despite what you say, this technique leads to students feeling better about asking questions and doesn;t send them scurrying to the registrar's office for "drop" slips. Of course, there are too many (one is "too many") instructors with weak egos who must show off at their students' expense, or perhaps they are not that interested in teaching. I'm reminded of an experience I had at a Large Ivy League University about 20 years ago. My company had developed a small analog computer with a display plotter meant to be used in the lecture hall for demostration "dynamic behavior of systems". You know, "what happens to the frequency of a pendulum if we increase the mass of the ball?" stuff. We did this because it seemed obvious that a real-time demo was a more effective teaching tool than a simple statement of the relationship. However, the Head of Freshman Physics at LILU said, "If they can't learn the concept from the simple statement, they don't belong at LILU."!!! Not my kind of teacher. (I work at a Medium-size Comprehensive Junior College, not far from "LILU".) -- Peter Holsberg UUCP: {rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh Technology Division CompuServe: 70240,334 Mercer College GEnie: PJHOLSBERG Trenton, NJ 08690 Voice: 1-609-586-4800
dam@uvacs.UUCP (01/23/88)
Armed only with my near-Master's in CS and the need for employment, I have
accepted a job as a "teaching specialist" at a private school in Southside
Virginia. ("Teaching specialist" means I teach the same subject to all
grades, kindergarten through high school. In fact, I'm a "specialist" in
two areas, CS and music, but that's another story.)
The school does not require certification to teach; the accreditation board
(SACS) requires expertise (read degree) in the field most taught, plus two
education courses, which can be taken after you start, but must be completed
within two years. I am not certified; the state doesn't certify for CS anyway,
so the point is moot.
I give my first real classes Monday (the last 2 weeks have been semester review
and exams) and I am scared stiff. I haven't taken any ed courses, and it seems
to me that taking 2 or 3 might have helped to alleviate my current plight.
Virginia is moving to a system whereby prospective teachers major in their
subject fields, and then take a year of gradskool which includes the necessary
education courses. The pilot program for this system is here at UVa, but I'm
not sure how it works. I will be contacting the Dept of Ed in the near future
to check on actual certification requirements, because the 6 people I've asked
have given me 6 different and often conflicting answers about it. (The initial
certification would apparently be math for a CS teacher.)
I think this is the right direction: away from the undergrad education major.
However, I think 2-3 ed courses would be advisable for prospective teachers...
as would a course in Public Speaking. The purpose of these courses would be
to improve one's communication with the class, and to mollify those d@#=ed
stomach butterflies (to some extent).
Comments? I'll write again after I've got some real classroom experience
under my belt.
--
From the University of Virginia at Boar's Head, C.S. Department-in-Exile:
Dave Montuori (Dr. ZRFQ)
dam@uvacs.cs.virginia.EDU
I am usually at the College of William and Mary. Email: #damont@wmmvs.BITNETdnelson@ddsw1.UUCP (Douglas Nelson) (01/25/88)
I strongly agree with your dislinking of the overhead projector. As a student, I view this action from an instructor the attitude of wanting/having a ready- made-course, in which he merely has to pull pages 41-68 and transparancy 8a and he is ready for the day. Sometimes I feel that I myself could get up and do the same task equally as effective. If I feel this way, surely other students do as well. I greatly respect and can alway find interest in an instructor that is willing to take input from the class as a whole and present things in that order/interest, rather than teach the chapters in a book, whic (which) I could easily do at home. ------------------ Douglas Nelson dnelson@ddsw1.UUCP ------------------
hes@ecsvax.UUCP (Henry Schaffer) (01/25/88)
In article <834@cos.COM>, howard@COS.COM (Howard C. Berkowitz) writes: > I give frequent technical presentations at seminars and conferences, > and am becoming increasingly furious at the demand of organizers for > advance copies of my visuals. Aside from the logistical nightmare ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ that's one kind of problem - but not the heart of the issue > which can accompany bringing 200 copies of a 40-page document on a > flight, I find that advance handouts interfere with the quality of ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > presentation. Others dislike them as well, perhaps not for the ^^^^^^^^^^^^ This is at the heart of the matter - and the quality can only be assessed after the purpose of the lecture is decided. A lecture can have a number of different purposes (maybe more than one simultaneously.) It can be inspirational, it can convey factual information, it can provide an organization of information - a viewpoint, it can teach a concept (this latter purpose can put demands on the lecturer to sense the degree of bewilderedness of the class), ... A typical academic class lecture may very well try to divide its time to serve several of these. > same reasons: > In article <2060@pdn.UUCP>, reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) writes: > > In article <261@tmsoft.UUCP> mason@tmsoft.UUCP (Dave Mason) writes: > > > > >PRETTY BORING. I like a VERY loose teaching style... maybe some notes, > > >or a few minutes before class (often in the halls on the way to class :-) > > >thinking about what I want to cover, then a willingness to go on a > > >tangent if it seems helpful in class. > > Yup, me too. Too often I find that the person who is so organized and >> prepared with lots of view graphs, etc..... can not deviate from the prepared >> script. Too often you find TAs teaching this way. ... Is this a case of deciding that if one extreme is bad, then one should espouse the other *extreme*. > Even when I am presenting a formal paper, I am willing to deviate from > my planned presentation flow if questions (or glazed looks) during the > talk seem to dictate such a deviation. Hear, hear! If the purpose of the lecture is to get something across to the audience - then to ignore the questions/glazed looks would be silly. (You can also develop a sensitivity to "fidgiting", which has an earlier onset than glazed looks.) > There are those who complain when > the presentation does not follow the published paper; I respond only that > the presentation typically is six months more recent than the final > paper sent to the conference. I think that you're being polite - (which is probably good). > In an industrial context (I don't have sufficiently recent academic > experience to judge), if I give out advance handouts, the audience tends > to follow the paper copy, not the presentation. Many conference and > seminar organizers demand the handouts "so the attendees may take notes > on them." How real is this need? I'll happily provide notebook paper > if they need it! :-) Here is the point of my remark on purpose. Most lectures do have an informational content - At some point in you OSI lecture you probably do have a slide with a list of various standards on it - now *that* is something worth putting on a handout - perhaps even in an annotated form (and you leave off the annotations on the overhead to preserve readability.) The handout would allow the audience to get all the stuff correct and without distracting them too much from your valuable comments (no smiley next to "valuable" - it is or you wouldn't be there). The overheads you use to introduce a concept don't have the same need to be handed out. Might the organizers be satisfied with a handout which you tell them contains the material which you feel is appropriate. (I think they would, as long as you give them something decent - usually they're turned down because the speaker doesn't want to take the trouble.) > An extreme problem of advance text comes when I want to use surprise > and/or humor in the presentation, sometimes with technical material, > sometimes with flourishes. To cite an absurd but useful example ... Of course, this is something you would not include - > A lesser problem of handouts is that they may not be meaningful, or may > actively be misleading, outside the context of the presentation. I > structure my visuals as adjuncts to presentations, not as pseudo-publications. Right - so only give out those (and perhaps in modified format) that will be a help. > -- howard(Howard C. Berkowitz) @cos.com > {uunet, decuac, sun!sundc, hadron, hqda-ai}!cos!howard > (703) 883-2812 [ofc] (703) 998-5017 [home] > DISCLAIMER: I explicitly identify COS official positions. --henry schaffer n c state univ
beth@hubcap.UUCP (Beth Katz) (01/26/88)
Sometimes, an overhead slide and handouts are exactly the correct tool for teaching. If you have an extended example, drawing it on the board may take valuable class time. And you may make mistakes. If students have the example in front of them, they won't have to copy it when they should be paying attention to the words that go along with it. The examples shouldn't be from the book, but they should augment the book and the concepts taught in class. Then you can play "what if". (No, I don't mean the TV commercials.) Ask the students what would happen if you changed this part or that part of the example. Ask if there is a better or maybe just another way to do it. Answer their questions about alternatives. You can always write on the slides with water-soluble pens and wash them later. You don't have to hand out all the slides. Maybe some people just grab the slides and don't prepare for class. But having slides doesn't preclude improvisation and appropriate side- tracks. It also don't preclude using the chalkboard (or a blank transparency and pens). Use what works for your class. Unfortunately, it is sometimes hard to tailor talks at conferences in your 20 minutes. Beth Katz ...!gatech!hubcap!beth
wgtr@cgch.UUCP (Graham Tritt) (01/27/88)
As a student following my first degree, I was supporting myself by teaching
in several places. (This was in Australia)
Tutoring beginning maths students at uni was tough - they were lazy,
wanted to be fed on a plate, suffered from peer pressures about asking
questions.
A similar level course (i.e. beginning calculus level) at the local tech
college was much more stimulating for these students. I had to really keep on
my toes. The average age was higher (22-30) and they were agressively
tryng to learn what they knew they needed. (they paid for their courses)
I think I did both of these jobs well. At the same time I was trying to
teach maths to 13-15 year olds at a private school (no teacher training
was required). I did very badly. I couldn't keep discipline (at the Uni
I didn't have to care, and at the Tech I didn't need to). It was a pity
that half of my energy had to go into organisational problems rather
than content, but most schools had these problems.
With teacher's training, or now with more maturity, I think I would have
much fewer problems in the school.
There were also interesting teachability differences between school classes
of low, middle and high abilities and by age ... educators will know more
than I if you want to know more.
__________
Graham D. Tritt | ______|__
P.O. Box 302, 3000 Berne 25, Switzerland | | _ |
| | _| |_ |
Telephone: +41 31 82 34 79 +41 61 32 61 65 | | |_ + _| |
Uucp: wgtr@cgch.uucp uunet!mcvax!cernvax!cgch!wgtr |__| |_| |
|_________|gilbert@hci.hw.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) (01/28/88)
In article <2144@uvacs.CS.VIRGINIA.EDU> hsd@uvacs.CS.VIRGINIA.EDU (Harry S. Delugach) writes: >The curriculim did provide three courses which I found then (and since) >to be of great value > >1. Educational psychology > >2. Classroom methods > >3. Student teaching/presenting As someone with a degree in Education, I would add curriculum design, curriculum evaluation, philosophy of education and sociology of education to the list. Without some sensitivity to curriculum design and evaluation, teaching is a waste of time. It's easy to think that a course is a success if there are no explicit aims/objectives and no attempt to evaluate their satisfaction. Philosophy is an essential training for aim and objective design. Without philosophy's critical approach, it is easy to motivate a course with inconsistent, unoperationalisable nonsense. Sociology - in the US, anthropology, soci-anything smacks of commies ;-) - is essential for understanding conflicts between the aim of a course and the ideologies of different student populations. For many students, neither education nor competence is the goal of a course - it's just another credit towards a status qualification with economic benefits. Grades count, but what they reflect is less important. Sociology is also useful for revealing conflicts between the producers and consumers of graduates. -- Gilbert Cockton, Scottish HCI Centre, Heriot-Watt University, Chambers St., Edinburgh, EH1 1HX. JANET: gilbert@uk.ac.hw.hci ARPA: gilbert%hci.hw.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk UUCP: ..{backbone}!mcvax!ukc!hci!gilbert
wes@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) (02/17/88)
In article <834@cos.COM>, howard@COS.COM (Howard C. Berkowitz) writes: > > In an industrial context (I don't have sufficiently recent academic > experience to judge), if I give out advance handouts, the audience tends > to follow the paper copy, not the presentation. Many conference and > seminar organizers demand the handouts "so the attendees may take notes > on them." How real is this need? I'll happily provide notebook paper > if they need it! :-) > I've had the opposite problem at many presentations; the blasted handouts are so *extremely* detailed that I wind up underlining that small portion which I find interesting. This naturally takes a rather large amount of time, which could be better spent observing salient points in the lecture itself. Of course, I'm sure that there are those who would take the speaker's actual notes if they could get them. 8^> > [description of humourous intro using slides deleted] > Should I give out this first slide in the advance text, as some demented > organizers have requested? > While I realize that the organizers wish to present as complete a package of material as possible, I think that the presentors should be given a cer- tain amount of leeway. It's gotten to the point where one really doesn't have to attend at all; all one has to do is xerox the advance text, from whatever source. > A lesser problem of handouts is that they may not be meaningful, or may > actively be misleading, outside the context of the presentation. I > structure my visuals as adjuncts to presentations, not as pseudo-publications. This also creates a problem later, months after the presentation. Poor visuals and/or handouts can leave the reader with a huge amount of data, but no memory of the greater concept. This problem is best solved by the presentor's dis- cretion in designing visuals/handouts. > -- > -- howard(Howard C. Berkowitz) @cos.com -- wes@engr.uky.edu OR wes%ukecc.uucp@ukma OR ...cbosgd!ukma!ukecc!wes Ho! Ha ha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Thrust! <*SPROING!*> Actually, it's a buck-and-a-quarter quarterstaff, but I'm not telling him that!