Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Out-of-Class Work (was Lecture vs Advocacy)

Your points, Michael, are well taken, and not really at odds with the "student-centered" idea of instruction, though they may seem that way. Everyone agrees, I think, that teachers teach and students learn. Ultimately, what the student LEARNS is a function of what THEY do, and not so much what the teacher does. That said, the teacher can have an influence on the outcome by setting up an atmosphere that encourages the students to do what they need to do. It's obvious (to me anyway) that I can talk AT kids all day long and have little effect. I swear I could actually SEE my words bouncing off their thick skulls sometimes <g>! Otoh, it isn't practical to have students re-create the entire body of scientific thought from scratch. There needs to be some sort of balance between the two ideas.

Modeling, and similar approaches to instruction, set up an atmosphere that encourages, and often requires, active student participation, both in terms of deeds and also in terms of thinking. It helps students to develop an understanding of the PROCESS of science, and to exercise the kind of thinking skills involved in understanding ANY subject. Some kids do this naturally. Most do not, and have to learn HOW. The active engagement tends to foster enthusiasm which, in turn, encourages the student to go beyond the minimum in terms of thinking and actions. This learning can then carry over into future learning. It essentially teaches them HOW to learn.

I'm bothered (a bit), however, by part of what you've written below: "I would probably be less bothered by this if it were obvious to me that most teachers (especially science, but really all teachers) held students responsible for doing a reasonable amount of study, problem solving, lab
calculations and report writing... outside the class period."

What bothers me about this is that it amounts to, "Why don't those OTHER teachers make them work?" And the answer to that question is, We TRY, just as YOU try. You admit that YOU can't get it done with many/most of the kids you teach (or at least it sounds that way). But you are teaching the very top quartile of the students WE teach. Why would you think we'd be any more successful than you? Their PARENTS can't get them to work; how would you propose WE make them?

The reality is that it's not the 1950's any more. Parents no longer blindly trust our judgement (or our grades). Society will not allow high failure rates or dropout rates. Both of these are now routinely attributed to TEACHER "failure", and it's up to the TEACHER to fix it. That's just the way it is. So we accommodate, and we give "extra chances" and "extra credit assignments", and we give grades for "participation", and we give grades for homework being done. College professors are probably less at risk in this regard, since, traditionally, their research efforts were more important than their teaching. This is most certainly NOT the case in the "lower grades", however, where "poor results" can quickly result in "no job" <g>.

Now the homework thing sounds like part of what you're asking for, but we all know that some (a lot of?) kids copy it, or dash it off without thought. We also know that some kids "got it" in class and, for them, the assignment is just "busy work", so they may not do it. Part of my concern about grading homework is that a kid who actually knows the material and gets a high grade on the test, sees that grade getting reduced because of a low homework grade, whicle another kid who has the virtue of working hard is rewarded for his or her homework, but doesn't know the material nearly as well. There seems something fundamentally wrong with that outcome to me - Partially, I suppose, because I was the kid who didn't see the point in doing homework on something I already understood.

I developed my own way of doing things in terms of grading, and I think I got most of my kids to work more than they were used to. I suspect that same is true of the kids in your classes. But again, the reality is that accountability no longer falls on the student alone (or at all, it sometimes appears).

----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Edmiston" <edmiston@bluffton.edu>
To: "Forum for Physics Educators" <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 9:14 AM
Subject: [Phys-l] Out-of-Class Work (was Lecture vs Advocacy)


Something that continues to bother me every time we have a discussion about
the teaching format that ought to occur during the 50 minutes or so of class
time, is the lack of discussion about what happens outside of class time. I
would probably be less bothered by this if it were obvious to me that most
teachers (especially science, but really all teachers) held students
responsible for doing a reasonable amount of study, problem solving, lab
calculations and report writing... outside the class period.

It is abundantly clear to me that students coming to college have become
used to doing nothing outside the class period. Although this begins in
high school, I can't put all the blame on high school because there is ample
evidence this also happens in many college courses. When I tell students I
expect them to spend 15 clock-hours per week on my 5-credit-hour course,
their first reaction is laughter. They think I'm kidding. I go on to tell
them that this includes everything. They are in class each day, so there
are 5 hours right there. They are taking data in lab for about 2 hours a
week, so now we are up to 7 hours. If they would spend 2 or 3 hours
analyzing data and writing the lab report we would be up to 9 or 10 hours.
That leaves about 5 hours for reading the textbook, general studying
(rereading, review of class notes, etc.), and working on problem sets.
Students are permitted to collaborate on the data acquisition, data
analysis, problem solving, and of course they can study together... so lots
of collaborative work should be happening.

If students would do the things outside of class that I listed above, it
would hardly matter what I did during "lecture" time. Since I am still
trying to operate on the idea that students work outside class, all I
attempt to do in "lecture" is go over some of difficult areas, talk about
common pitfalls, answer/discuss a few questions, and discuss/assign the new
lab and new problems. On the other hand, if students do nothing outside of
class such that the only time set aside for any learning whatsoever occurs
in the five 50-minute class periods a week, then I think we are doomed. In
this case it also hardly matters what I do during "lecture" time because it
won't be anywhere close to enough.

Many of my students will probably tell you that I mostly lecture. That's
because I probably do "lecture" about 20 minutes each day, for a total of
100 minutes of lecture per week. I indeed lecture about one-third to
one-half of the in-class time. But the total time they are supposed to be
on task is about 900 minutes per week. By my definition, this is clearly
teacher-directed time, so I am only lecturing about 11% of the time that
they are supposed to be working on physics material that I am
directing/coordinating/grading. They should be spending about 90% the total
physics time in lab collecting data (with lab partners), group analysis of
data, group support solving problems (not quite group solving), and
individually writing lab reports. I have approximately 4 office hours per
day so I am abundantly available for individual visits or group visits. Is
this a lecture class? Not even close.

Thirty years ago when I first began college teaching, this is the way it was
at my school. Today, this model is no longer working at my school. I have
evidence it still works at institutions in which 95% or more of the
applicants to the program don't get accepted. The top 5% of high-school
students are either used to working or will rise to the occasion. They know
if they don't, there is a long line of students waiting to take their
places.

Today, my daughter is near the end of the 4th year of a 5-yr program that
admits 16 students out of about 600 applicants. For the past 4 years she
and her student colleagues have worked on course-related projects day and
night. They will flunk out of the program if they don't, and they know
that. On the other hand, at institutions where the average student in
college was also an average student in high school, the work ethic simply is
not there. Instead, they are still spending time doing the things they did
in high school... playing on one or more sport teams, singing in choir,
playing in band, acting in a play... not bad things if done in moderation...
but for some this is where they spend almost 100% of their awake time...
especially the athletes. Then there are those who are partying, exploring
each other, exploring alcohol or other substances, spending money on and
enjoying material things, you name it.

What allows students to stay in school if all their awake time outside of
class time is spent on non-class activities? The answer is simple... we
allow it. We restructure our curriculum and our teaching methods so that
in-class time is the only thing that is needed for the average student to
pass the course. If there are a few old timers like me around who try to
bring these students up to speed in terms of work expected, all they do is
leave science and flock into majors like business, recreation management,
and even teaching (especially elementary and middle school). If we don't
try to bring these students up to speed, thereby trying to cram all learning
into class time, they are nowhere near where they need to be to do well on
GRE, MCAT, etc. exams, and they are not likely to succeed in the next phase
or their careers.

Bottom line... I don't particularly care how you spend your class time as
long as your class time is approximately one-third of the total time the
average student needs to spend on your class in order to pass your class.
On the other hand, if you have structured your in-class time and your
grading procedure such that the required out-of-class time for passing the
course is less than the time spent in class... then please stop this method
of teaching. No matter what you do in class, you are not developing the
work ethic that we need to instill in our students.

Michael D. Edmiston, Ph.D.
Professor of Chemistry and Physics
Bluffton University
1 University Drive
Bluffton, OH 45817
419.358.3270
edmiston@bluffton.edu


_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l