Science teaching: It's the method that counts

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

http://www.guardian....article/9643229

 

AP Science Writer= WASHINGTON (AP) — Who's better at teaching difficult physics to a class of more than 250 college students: the highly rated veteran professor using time-tested lecturing, or the inexperienced graduate students interacting with kids via devices that look like TV remotes? The answer could rattle ivy on college walls.

 

A study by a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, now a science adviser to President Barack Obama, suggests that how you teach is more important than who does the teaching.

 

He found that in nearly identical classes, Canadian college students learned a lot more from teaching assistants using interactive tools than they did from a veteran professor giving a traditional lecture.

 

For sanity, here's the abstract of the actual paper:

 

We compared the amounts of learning achieved using two different instructional approaches under controlled conditions. We measured the learning of a specific set of topics and objectives when taught by 3 hours of traditional lecture given by an experienced highly rated instructor and 3 hours of instruction given by a trained but inexperienced instructor using instruction based on research in cognitive psychology and physics education. The comparison was made between two large sections (N = 267 and N = 271) of an introductory undergraduate physics course. We found increased student attendance, higher engagement, and more than twice the learning in the section taught using research-based instruction.

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6031/862.abstract

 

Admittedly the study is limited: it tracked one week of lectures and used a single quiz to evaluate learning. It's certainly not definitive. But a change in instructional technique that results in twice the learning? That's pretty impressive.

 

(Incidentally, my university is adopting a "learning assistant" program in which undergraduate physics students who have already taken the introductory courses are paid to sit in and help out students in group discussions and interactive parts of class -- I'm trying to sign up for next semester)

[A Tripolation]

(Incidentally, my university is adopting a "learning assistant" program in which undergraduate physics students who have already taken the introductory courses are paid to sit in and help out students in group discussions and interactive parts of class -- I'm trying to sign up for next semester)

 

This is a the focus of research for one of my physics professors. At my university, upper-level physics undergrads are paid to be "learning assistants", to help students pass the typical University Physics I and II. This coming fall will be my second term as an aid in the Astronomy courses. In my experience, students are much quicker to approach me with a question than the professor. And we help them set labs up and such. I think it's a very good system, and helps immensely with learning.

[imatfaal]

I am convinced that any decent amount of postgraduate research changes ones attitude to the material and breaks a vital bond with the undergrad learner; which is why senior year undergrads can connect and teach in a different and complementary manner to postgrads (from full tenured profs to phd candidates). There is something in the depth, the different weighting given to information and the new ability to be sceptical that creates a marked change; it's liberating but also quite scary when you realise that there is no real authority in the area you are studying. I cannot help but think that the process of teaching lower year students is also a great experience for the undergrad teachers - there is no better way of organising your thoughts than having to prepare to teach them.

[DrRocket]

http://www.guardian....article/9643229

 

 

 

For sanity, here's the abstract of the actual paper:

 

 

 

http://www.sciencema...31/862.abstract

 

Admittedly the study is limited: it tracked one week of lectures and used a single quiz to evaluate learning. It's certainly not definitive. But a change in instructional technique that results in twice the learning? That's pretty impressive.

 

(Incidentally, my university is adopting a "learning assistant" program in which undergraduate physics students who have already taken the introductory courses are paid to sit in and help out students in group discussions and interactive parts of class -- I'm trying to sign up for next semester)

 

It surprises not at all that such an approach produces improved results for average students enrolled in a large freshman-level introductory class.

 

Those large classes are so bad that just about any novel approach is likely to realize an improvement. That alone would prompt the student to actually think about the material a bit and that is the key to learning. Changing back at some future point might also again produce improvement just from the novelty effect.

 

What does not seem to be addressed is the better student or classes with more serious content.

[mississippichem]

I had an organic chemistry class where after a test, the professor would allow the student with the highest test grade to come up to the board, run over the test, and field any questions. Of course, the professor was there to catch tough questions but I always thought this was a good idea.

 

You have a student who just took said test and made high marks, so at least he has a decent grasp of the material; explaining the problems he just worked last week to his fellow students. I did the review twice and classmates always said that it was nice to get it from a fellow student.

 

I also had a physics professor who said something like: 'you guys gotta tell me which problems are hard. I can't tell, there all easy to me.' Which is obvious but I think is quite telling about the disconnect we sometimes get between PhD's and soon to be BSc's.

 

However, given a very rigorous, difficult class, [like upper tier math classes] I would rather learn from the biggest intellectual heavyweight possible. No matter how cryptic his lecture may be, he is probably an infinite well of knowledge begging to be mined; So I'll bug the hell out of him and pick his brain to get my money's worth out of the class!

Edited May 13, 2011 by mississippichem

[DrRocket]

I had an organic chemistry class where after a test, the professor would allow the student with the highest test grade to come up to the board, run over the test, and field any questions. Of course, the professor was there to catch tough questions but I always thought this was a good idea.

 

You have a student who just took said test and made high marks, so at least he has a decent grasp of the material; explaining the problems he just worked last week to his fellow students. I did the review twice and classmates always said that it was nice to get it from a fellow student.

 

I also had a physics professor who said something like: 'you guys gotta tell me which problems are hard. I can't tell, there all easy to me.' Which is obvious but I think is quite telling about the disconnect we sometimes get between PhD's and soon to be BSc's.

 

However, given a very rigorous, difficult class, [like upper tier math classes] I would rather learn from the biggest intellectual heavyweight possible. No matter how cryptic his lecture may be, he is probably an infinite well of knowledge begging to be mined; So I'll bug the hell out of him and pick his brain to get my money's worth out of the class!

 

In my graduate classes in mathematics many classes were conducted by the students with guidance from the professor, but little lecturing in the traditional sense (typical class size 4-12). I am not a big fan of lectures, but I am a huge fan of having classes run by experts in the subject.

 

Student participation is one thing. Replacing experts with video games or students is quite another. I do not agree that even a good (stellar perhaps, but only real exceptions)) undergraduate student has the depth and expertise to be teaching a class that he has just recently taken. But having students present their perspective is a great way to get discussion going and to find areas that need reinforcement.

[mississippichem]

In my graduate classes in mathematics many classes were conducted by the students with guidance from the professor, but little lecturing in the traditional sense (typical class size 4-12). I am not a big fan of lectures, but I am a huge fan of having classes run by experts in the subject.

 

Student participation is one thing. Replacing experts with video games or students is quite another. I do not agree that even a good (stellar perhaps, but only real exceptions)) undergraduate student has the depth and expertise to be teaching a class that he has just recently taken. But having students present their perspective is a great way to get discussion going and to find areas that need reinforcement.

 

Agreed. Undergrads not fit to teach a class, but can provide some "expert-layman" insight into the material.

[DrRocket]

Agreed. Undergrads not fit to teach a class, but can provide some "expert-layman" insight into the material.

 

AAgreed but for one thing -- the term "expert'.

 

To me an expert in a given area is someone who: 1) knows everything that is known in the area 2) knows what the important problems are and why they are important 3) understands the known avenues of research on the open problems and who is pursuing them and 3) has in-depth knowledge of related areas and understands their relevance, and 4) can quickly evaluate a proposed avenue of research and weed out those that won't work..

 

In some areas there are no experts.

[mississippichem]

AAgreed but for one thing -- the term "expert'.

 

To me an expert in a given area is someone who: 1) knows everything that is known in the area 2) knows what the important problems are and why they are important 3) understands the known avenues of research on the open problems and who is pursuing them and 3) has in-depth knowledge of related areas and understands their relevance, and 4) can quickly evaluate a proposed avenue of research and weed out those that won't work..

 

In some areas there are no experts.

 

I'll concede that point. Well argued.

[Genecks]

I come from the large public university setting. It seems like some of you are from the small private college/uni.

 

I feel at the large research university that it never matters.

 

Professors end up making the material more difficult and curving, anyway.

They never really care in the first place. At least, their pay doesn't involve them caring.

 

I know that the TAs are decently intelligent, most of them. And I know that they can at least teach the material if they are refreshed on it.

The trick is getting them to do it rather than have them dodge and evade undergraduates seeking help. Sometimes professors advise the TAs to not help undergrads.

I'm serious about that. I had a TA tell me once that she was told by the professors not to help us undergrads.

 

Experts seem to have a way to weasel their way out of teaching the material.

 

My money is on the belief that they will continually do a poor job at teaching (Even though they really could do impressively better) in order to say, "Hey, let me do what I'm best at. See! I'm not good at teaching. I'm good at research. Let me do research rather than teaching."

 

As such, they'll do a bare-minimum teaching style, giving the classes subpar averages of 30% to 40%. Pft.

I lack serious faith in the modern professor who has already specialized in research skills.

 

As a senior, I bet there are a few labs I could teach. The lecture material is a different story.

I'm more of a lab person, though.

 

Then again, I suspect I could give some of the "expert" professors a run for their money by generating higher exam averages.

 

Seeing as how many professors still go off pre-generated notes, all I would have to do is the same "class in a can" method but with a different skew on how to provide learning resources in order for people to do well.

 

Anyway, many of us on SFN have discussed this issue before.

There needs to be a division between teaching professors and research professors, unless of course the research professor is teaching some useful research skills.

Edited May 15, 2011 by Genecks

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I don't think it generalizes that easily; I've had some professors who give excellent lectures and clearly care, some who don't care, and some who just suck at lecturing. But perhaps that's because our university bases salary decisions partly on course evaluations. There have, in fact, been professors denied tenure due to poor evaluations.

[CharonY]

Well, most universities that do teaching have teaching evaluations as part of the tenure process. However, if someone is scientifically very successful (i.e. pulls in huge amounts of grants and is well embedded) then the the teaching evaluations may play a minor role.

 

The main point is that tenure is not given for teaching alone and most profs need to balance their time between teaching and performing good research. In teaching unis the ratio tends to be reversed, though.

[DJBruce]

In my experience most professors I have encountered are more than willing to not only help students who ask for help, but are also willing to go above and beyond for their students. So to paint the image that all professors don't care about their students is in my opinion a little hasty generalization. From what I have seen often those who have problems with professors do so not because of the professor, but often because of their own actions. Students often do not seek help until it is to late -ie: the day before or day of an exam-, expect professors to spoon feed them material, want professors to go over the lectures because they are continually absent, or expect professors to magically fix their grade at the end of the semester. In any of these situations I do not blame professors for being less than helpful, and these are the things that often get professors the rap of being "bad".

 

On the not of professors making the exams hard and curving it is necessary because if the purpose of the purpose of an exam is to delineate between those who have mastered the material, and those who haven't then an incredibly easy exam where everyone does well does not actually fulfill its purpose.

 

I know at least in mathematics department at my university upper level undergraduates are hired to be course assistants. These course assistants are required to hold office hours and give a out of class lecture on something related to the class. They also grade some of the homework, occasionally fill in for the professor, and serve as a general mentor to all of the kids in the class. I found them really helpful because they are great resource to go to about general questions that you might not want to ask a professor.

[timo]

Admittedly the study is limited: it tracked one week of lectures and used a single quiz to evaluate learning. It's certainly not definitive. But a change in instructional technique that results in twice the learning? That's pretty impressive.

If something sounds too good to be true, then it probably isn't true. I haven't read the paper, so it's somewhat lame of me to comment on it, and the lot of obvious problems that I see in your simplified explanation may have been addressed there. But I can't help it. My first thought when reading your post was: Somewhat original idea and method, certainly important topic, and a strong and slightly sensationalist conclusion from data that probably doesn't support the conclusion when you're honest => I could have told you it's a Science publication without looking at the paper .

Edited May 16, 2011 by timo

[DrRocket]

I come from the large public university setting. It seems like some of you are from the small private college/uni.

 

I feel at the large research university that it never matters.

 

Professors end up making the material more difficult and curving, anyway.

They never really care in the first place. At least, their pay doesn't involve them caring.

 

I know that the TAs are decently intelligent, most of them. And I know that they can at least teach the material if they are refreshed on it.

The trick is getting them to do it rather than have them dodge and evade undergraduates seeking help. Sometimes professors advise the TAs to not help undergrads.

I'm serious about that. I had a TA tell me once that she was told by the professors not to help us undergrads.

 

Experts seem to have a way to weasel their way out of teaching the material.

 

My money is on the belief that they will continually do a poor job at teaching (Even though they really could do impressively better) in order to say, "Hey, let me do what I'm best at. See! I'm not good at teaching. I'm good at research. Let me do research rather than teaching."

 

As such, they'll do a bare-minimum teaching style, giving the classes subpar averages of 30% to 40%. Pft.

I lack serious faith in the modern professor who has already specialized in research skills.

 

As a senior, I bet there are a few labs I could teach. The lecture material is a different story.

I'm more of a lab person, though.

 

Then again, I suspect I could give some of the "expert" professors a run for their money by generating higher exam averages.

 

Seeing as how many professors still go off pre-generated notes, all I would have to do is the same "class in a can" method but with a different skew on how to provide learning resources in order for people to do well.

 

Anyway, many of us on SFN have discussed this issue before.

There needs to be a division between teaching professors and research professors, unless of course the research professor is teaching some useful research skills.

 

You seem to be under the gross misconception that it is the job of a university professor to teach you. It is not.

 

It is the job of the professor to facilitate your learning. It is your job to actually learn. To learn at a high level, it is sometimes useful to have the guidance of an expert.

 

A university is not a high school. Students are there to learn, not to be taught.

[Genecks]

You seem to be under the gross misconception that it is the job of a university professor to teach you. It is not.

 

It is the job of the professor to facilitate your learning. It is your job to actually learn. To learn at a high level, it is sometimes useful to have the guidance of an expert.

 

A university is not a high school. Students are there to learn, not to be taught.

 

Seems, huh?

I wouldn't say that is the case.

 

I'm under the firm belief that university systems have become examination centers and little more than a place to obtain technical qualifications.

 

However, I think it would be nice if it acted as a place to learn how to grasp the material on a similar level as the professor understand it in order to better learn it.

Otherwise, students tend to come to the university system and learn, study, and digest the material with whatever study skills they've obtained ahead of time.

 

I've begun to consider that whenever people say, "This isn't highschool," that those people may have went to a college preparatory high school where they were introduced with college-level study skills. I know there are plenty of students around the university I attend who did go to such. However, since I went to a drop-out high school, I didn't get that treatment.

 

Since the majority of college students do not come from middle-class families nor families with a high educational background, I would consider it on-track for university and college systems to serve students in obtaining better study skills or to find a way for them to learn the material well.

 

In my more advanced undergraduate courses, I've found sitting in lecture to be a waste of time. Professors rarely edified their presentations and it became an absolute data dump. I'm quite sickened by it all, really. It could be better, but I suspect their SES has influenced them to be lazy.

Edited May 25, 2011 by Genecks

[DJBruce]

My personal opinion is that universities and four year colleges are for providing students the opportunities and resources to use their ability to learn to do just that. I would never expect a college professor to take the time to try and teach me or a class how to learn - if that is even possible, and in fact I would be unhappy if a professor ever did try to this. I am not saying that professors should not facilitate learning, they most certainly should. Meaning they should try and present the material in an effective manner and field well thought out questions from students who are actively grappling with the material.

 

As for the fact that not everyone has these skills coming out of high school all I can say is made not everyone is truly ready for a four year university/college. I mean there are other educational avenues for those who are not prepared for university, and there would be nothing wrong with going to a community or junior college to develop the skills need for a four year institute. Also there is some transition between the high school and university environments, and most institutes and even many professors understand this, and so are willing to assist freshman if they need a little help in the adjustment.

 

Maybe my opinions are shaped by the fact that I had taken a lot of college courses before entering university, and so my transition and expectations are different from others, but I honestly believe that a 4 year college or university is not, and has never been, the place for being taught study skills, and that making it a place for this would greatly devalue the education the level of education these institutes are able to offer. I mean I could not justify cutting back on the quantity or depth of information presented in a class or over a students time at a institute in order to help teach study skills.

Edited May 25, 2011 by DJBruce

[hypervalent_iodine]

 

 

However, I think it would be nice if it acted as a place to learn how to grasp the material on a similar level as the professor understand it in order to better learn it.

Otherwise, students tend to come to the university system and learn, study, and digest the material with whatever study skills they've obtained ahead of time.

 

The problem with this, especially in the earlier years of a science degree, is that a professor has a far more expansive and detailed knowledge of the subject than is feasible to teach. You say that your lectures are presently a 'data dump', so I have to ask you how on earth you think that will improve by a professor divulging all of his knowledge on a given subject in the context of an undergraduate level class? If anything, this will make it much more difficult for a student to learn, as they are trying to process too much complex information before they have a firm grasp on the basics. It is counterproductive at best, in my opinion.

 

 

I've begun to consider that whenever people say, "This isn't highschool," that those people may have went to a college preparatory high school where they were introduced with college-level study skills. I know there are plenty of students around the university I attend who did go to such. However, since I went to a drop-out high school, I didn't get that treatment.

 

Since the majority of college students do not come from middle-class families nor families with a high educational background, I would consider it on-track for university and college systems to serve students in obtaining better study skills or to find a way for them to learn the material well.

 

Perhaps this is true for the USA, but it certainly is not so in places where university education is free or (As in my case) student loans are easily attainable and affordable. The phrase 'this isn't highschool' is quite pertinent. In high school you are essentially spoon fed all that you need in order to pass or do well. University, as has been mentioned, is a place to facilitate learning, not to present everything to you on a shiny platter, wrapped in a bow. You have to take responsibility for yourself and your work and apply a little initiative to achieve anywhere near decent results - hardly an unfair expectation.

 

In reference to the OP:

 

I recently completed a post-graduate course where the lectures were prepared and presented entirely by students. The lectures were sat i on by a professor, who asked questions and pointed out any errors as they arose, so there was no risk of being taught anything incorrect, etc. I think at post-grad level it is productive in the sense that it teaches students how to research and present foreign material in a manner conducive towards learning, which is certainly a handy skill to have. In larger undergraduate classes, where students don't have a good grounding of the basic knowledge, there is a much larger room for error and the size of the class would make it logistically unfeasible. I don't agree that such a situation would be at all productive.

[CharonY]

I would also argue that at least in undergrad teaching one of the more important bits is to get exposed to different topics, concepts and ways of thinking rather than factoids. It is also the time to recognize whether you enjoy getting exposed to new concepts on a regular basis. To me, this broadening of perspective is one of best elements of universities.

After high school this can be quite liberating (though for many it can be a source of anxiety and uncertainty, being used to spoon feeding and rather clear-cut tasks).

 

Unfortunately it is easier to create an exam that tests the latter.

 

Unis are not a factory. You do not go there to work, but it is more of a giant toolbox. In that regard I agree with the OP that being an expert on a certain field does not necessarily makes a better lecturer for more basic concepts. The real advantage will be in the field overlapping with actual ongoing research.

For many junior lecturers (e.g. assistant prof level) graduate level classes are far easier to teach, as it is closer to what they actually do. Getting the skills to do good undergrad teaching takes a lot of more time.

Edited May 25, 2011 by CharonY

[amanda more]

If something sounds too good to be true, then it probably isn't true. I haven't read the paper, so it's somewhat lame of me to comment on it, and the lot of obvious problems that I see in your simplified explanation may have been addressed there. But I can't help it. My first thought when reading your post was: Somewhat original idea and method, certainly important topic, and a strong and slightly sensationalist conclusion from data that probably doesn't support the conclusion when you're honest => I could have told you it's a Science publication without looking at the paper .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ah,my management graduate work (with science undergrad) comes into play

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect

Classic view that says if you add better lighting workers (students) perform better. Vut any change will do that if they are being studied. Methinks someone is trying to sell online canned classes.

Not to say interactive may have benefit. I recall an older alumni mentioning something about that. Students went to the front of the room and solved problems using this device- a blackboard.

 

 

 

[jamesbell]

AAgreed but for one thing -- the term "expert'.

 

To me an expert in a given area is someone who: 1) knows everything that is known in the area 2) knows what the important problems are and why they are important 3) understands the known avenues of research on the open problems and who is pursuing them and 3) has in-depth knowledge of related areas and understands their relevance, and 4) can quickly evaluate a proposed avenue of research and weed out those that won't work..

 

In some areas there are no experts.

 

I am very enjoyed for this blog. Its an informative topic. It help me very much to solve some problems. Its opportunity are so fantastic and working style so speedy. I think it may be help all of you. Thanks.

[Wilmot McCutchen]

Seems, huh?

I wouldn't say that is the case.

 

I'm under the firm belief that university systems have become examination centers and little more than a place to obtain technical qualifications.

 

However, I think it would be nice if it acted as a place to learn how to grasp the material on a similar level as the professor understand it in order to better learn it.

Otherwise, students tend to come to the university system and learn, study, and digest the material with whatever study skills they've obtained ahead of time.

 

I've begun to consider that whenever people say, "This isn't highschool," that those people may have went to a college preparatory high school where they were introduced with college-level study skills. I know there are plenty of students around the university I attend who did go to such. However, since I went to a drop-out high school, I didn't get that treatment.

 

Since the majority of college students do not come from middle-class families nor families with a high educational background, I would consider it on-track for university and college systems to serve students in obtaining better study skills or to find a way for them to learn the material well.

 

In my more advanced undergraduate courses, I've found sitting in lecture to be a waste of time. Professors rarely edified their presentations and it became an absolute data dump. I'm quite sickened by it all, really. It could be better, but I suspect their SES has influenced them to be lazy.

 

So true. The sage-on-a-stage model of education -- a scheduled data dump on bored undergraduates -- clearly does not work, as you can attest from personal experience. Education is lighting a fire, not filling a bottle, said Plutarch. Students who have just been through the course are the most qualified to teach it. But it seems that the objective is not education at all, but hazing, seeking to flunk out the requisite number of hopefuls to limit the upper level classes to manageable sizes for the convenience of the staff.

[Appolinaria]

So true. The sage-on-a-stage model of education -- a scheduled data dump on bored undergraduates -- clearly does not work, as you can attest from personal experience. Education is lighting a fire, not filling a bottle, said Plutarch. Students who have just been through the course are the most qualified to teach it. But it seems that the objective is not education at all, but hazing, seeking to flunk out the requisite number of hopefuls to limit the upper level classes to manageable sizes for the convenience of the staff.

 

I like that analogy.

[pantheory]

I didn't see this answer yet. The professor gives the lecture but most can't take the time to answer all questions by students, and if the prof is willing most students are too shy to ask questions in the middle of a lecture. That's where the teaching assistants come in. They can work after the lecture or by appointment, one on one with the students which is almost always better than the lecture concerning understandings of all lecture details. Each student can ask many questions of the teaching assistant and the teaching assistant can see at what level the student needs further insight. I think the answer is as simple as that. In a large university both are needed, the lecturer and the teaching assistant. Could teaching assistants give a good lecture? most probably not. Could a professor be a good teaching assistant? From my experience I expect nearly all of them could. One on one eduction is nearly always superior.

Edited December 8, 2011 by pantheory