Re: teaching and understanding

["Cooper, John N" <jcooper@bucknell.edu>]

On Sat, 28 Dec 1996 kowalskil@alpha.montclair.edu wrote:

> ....  Probing for understanding during an
> exam, taken under pressure, may be counter-productive.

   As we have seen elegantly elucidated here, examinations have a plethora
of purposes from rewarding/providing incentives through additional 
instruction and probing for skills developed, even those never taught. 
   I had an instructor notorious for putting Basque proverbs on his
inorganic chemistry exams with extra credit for their translations. 
   I know of and have known very few faculty who explicitly illustrate,
instruct in, guide or even encourage development of the sort of third-
order comprehensive creativity we tend to pride ourselves on.  Sure, it is
of interest to discover which of our charges have in fact progressed this
far independently, but is right to penalize those of our students who have
failed to invent it from whole cloth?  Perhaps it is more fair, if
'understanding' has NOT been an explicitly voiced and fostered
instructional goal to include probing for its development on tests under
the rubric of 'extra credit' problems. 
   More importantly if 'understanding' is a skill we wish them to learn,
are we confident our teaching in fact presents that skill in a manner our
students can emulate successfully?  My impression is that teaching
'understanding' is almost as difficult as teaching 'creativity'; to say
nothing of learning either. 

  John Cooper, Chemistry, Bucknell University, Lewisburg PA 17837-2005
	    jcooper@bucknell.edu		717-524-3673