Changing the way we teach

[hypervalent_iodine]

In about a year or so I plan on obtaining a graduate certificate in higher education in conjunction with what I am already doing in my current studies. Part of the assessment in this involves designing and implementing something within a course offered at the university. Although this is a fair ways off, I'm told I need to start brain storming now, which has got me to thinking about the broader state of science education at university / college level.

 

The point of this thread is not to help me with my assignment; if anything I hope to maybe glean some inspiration and insight. Rather, what I aim to do is discuss the wider issue regarding the way we teach courses and whether or not things should be changed. My opinion is that some sort of change is required in order to fix an obvious problem with students that enter into and graduate from the tertiary education system, which is that students don't seem to be learning what they need to learn and more importantly, that they aren't understanding the material. A lot of this seems to come down to how learning is facilitated in high school, however I don't think that the blame lies entirely at their doorstep.

 

In any case, I am interested to hear other thoughts on this.

 

 

A relevant thread:

 

What can we do for science education?

 

 

 

As well as a couple of blog entries (enter shameless self promotion):

 

Shut up and listen to your students - By Cap'n Refsmmat

 

Where are they all? - By yours truly

[iNow]

My thoughts are that the focus shoild be heavily on first-hand experience, supplemented by consistent exposure to peers and individuals ay similar levels. I am thinking mostly about the work done on the 70-20-10 model of human learning and development since it couples so well with work from Bandura on social learning theory and modeling behavior done at Stanford years ago.

[Ben Banana]

I'm writing an essay about Khan Academy for ENG101 (yes I'm only 16, just started going to a Community College). If anyone's interested, I might attach it later. Oh... but I'm busy writing it so I can't respond directly to this topic yet.

 

But I have much to say about this subject. For now I'll just predict that this topic will make a very worthwhile discussion, so I suggest everyone participating should eventually extend their thoughts beyond ScienceForums.net, because you (as a topic participant) will already have been sufficiently compelled by the matter.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

My thoughts are that the focus shoild be heavily on first-hand experience, supplemented by consistent exposure to peers and individuals ay similar levels. I am thinking mostly about the work done on the 70-20-10 model of human learning and development since it couples so well with work from Bandura on social learning theory and modeling behavior done at Stanford years ago.

How would this apply in a classroom setting, rather than a skill or job training setting? If I'm learning mathematics, for instance, would the "first-hand experience" be working problems, writing proofs, and so on?

 

There's a movement in science education towards inquiry-based learning, which sounds something like this, and can produce impressive results.

[iNow]

I think so, yes. Doing exercises or solving problems or engaging in research would likely be the equivalent of on the job training.

[rajakrsna]

I think so, yes. Doing exercises or solving problems or engaging in research would likely be the equivalent of on the job training.

 

 

Changing the way we teach should be focused first in developing strategies of how we could get the students their attention on the subject they want to study and learn. Even if the students are interested to know what the subject is all about but if the teacher lacks the expertise & skill in getting it across the firing line, it will be just a waste of time trying to inculcate in their minds what is in the subject the students need to learn. Although test questions are important parameters for the teacher to know if they learned something from what was being taught, it is not a guarantee the students will succeed in making it work once they apply this learning experience in the real world. We only pass this road less-traveled once so the teacher should as if there is no tomorrow teach the students a thing ( the subject ) they will never forget. There wont be any words to express the joy it brings when the students by God`s arrangement meet their teacher at a crossroad telling the latter he/she is their real Guru.

Edited March 11, 2012 by rajakrsna

[iNow]

Moving us now past the post above, Sanjay Gupta did a cool piece on 60 Minutes tonight exploring how education is changing now with tablets and the viral spread of things like the Kham Academy. The video/story may interest you.

 

http://m.cbsnews.com/storysynopsis.rbml?pageType=60minutes&catid=57394905&feed_id=32

[hypervalent_iodine]

Thanks, iNow. I had written a response to your first comment last night, but my trigger finger closed the tab before I hit reply.

 

I suppose for the biological and chemical sciences, lab work would constitute 'first hand experience'. It is absolutely beneficial when implemented properly. One problem I see in some of the courses the the university I attend is that first year students tend to disconnect what they do and learn in the lab from the lecture content and as a result they tend not to learn anything because they simply can't see the point. I think some of that comes down to the fact that undergrad labs are little more than mere recipe following; it's a necessary format because students really have no clue what they're doing when they first enter a lab, but comes at a cost when you consider that your typical student will put minimal thought into why they are being told to do what they're being told to do.

 

In that vein of thought, there is this paper, which was written by one of my old lecturers earlier this year, and presents the case of undergraduate research experiences. The concept of what they are doing in that course I think is fantastic, as it provides a nice transition for students who to gain experience in doing self-motivated and hands on research. Implementing it on a larger scale is perhaps the biggest problem.

 

Exposure to peers is very useful. Where I am, first year chemistry and biology subjects have study sessions led by second and third years, which act as a place for stuents to go to discuss whatever problems they are having with the lecture content. It's been quite successful and my own experience from leading sessions has shown that (at least in an anecdotal sense) that students seem get a lot out of it.

 

Even with all that in place, however, there still seems to be a gap in student understanding. Perhaps it is a problem in implementation or perhaps in the way courses are taught. I quite like Capn's blog about inquiry-based learning. I think that perhaps replacing current lecture format is perhaps a bit too far, but I certainly think that inquiry based learning should start to take up a larger focus of course structure.

[DrRocket]

. I think some of that comes down to the fact that undergrad labs are little more than mere recipe following; it's a necessary format because students really have no clue what they're doing when they first enter a lab, but comes at a cost when you consider that your typical student will put minimal thought into why they are being told to do what they're being told to do.

 

 

As I recall freshman chemistry lab consisted of following by rote a procedure that can from on high to perform a series of steps using equipment that probably originally belonged to Robert Boyle and had not been maintained since.

 

The primary objective seemed to be to complete the assignment and clean up the mess within the prescribed 2-hour laboratory period and then cobble together a "report" on the outcome of following the recipe. Hopefully one accomplished this with minimal threat to life and limb. It was very artificial, very contrived, and basically worthless.

 

I hope things have improved a bit since then.

 

The point is that "practical" laboratory experience, while very beneficial to those who understand the fundamental principles involved, is indistinguishable from cooking following a cookbook or witchcraft to those who have yet to grasp the basic theory.

 

The same comments apply to freshman physics labs. I recall one class where we used iron filings to map magnetic field lines. We cut the paper diagonally to split the map between students. Most of the grade was based on how one folded that triangle to get it into the prescribed laboratory report book.

 

"Hands on" approaches only work when the student has sufficient knowledge to engage the brain at the same time. That does not necessarily occur concurrently with the first glimmer of understanding of the basic theory. I found good classroom demonstrations infinitely more enlightening than struggling with poor laboratory equipment.

 

Now, once one gets to a somewhat more advanced setting all of these problems seem to disappear. Students have greater understanding of the fundamentals. The equipment in research laboratories and upper class labs is much better, and may actually work.

[CharonY]

The point is that "practical" laboratory experience, while very beneficial to those who understand the fundamental principles involved, is indistinguishable from cooking following a cookbook or witchcraft to those who have yet to grasp the basic theory.

 

The actual implementation especially with respect to theory will vary a lot from course to course (or rather, depends on the style of those organizing it). However, the problem of following rote procedures is not limited to wet lab classes, of course. I tend to think that lab work is near useless in the first or so semester, as there is usually not enough time to provide sufficient background and have them do experiments (while not blowing themselves up or setting themselves on fire).

The chemistry classes that I took during undergrad studies were mostly analytical in nature, so at least there was some time of goal you tried to achieve (e.g. quantifying or identifying a substance). At the beginning it was kind of rote, as you had to be introduced to the techniques, but towards the end you get an unknown substance and you could unleash everything you learned. I try to set up my classes in a similar way. Equip them with knowledge/technique and then give a riddle to solve.

Works really well for advanced and grad students, not so much for freshmen (they complain that it is too hard and too much work).

[JohnStu]

Here is the problem with implementing anything in teaching, it is that, there will always be someone unsatisfied with it, as in almost any classroom, the students are all quite different actually. There is always students that barely keep up. The students that excel at it, and the students who kind've understands and has to spend hours to understand what was learned in class. I think it's time to create this "accelerated program" to focus just on the top kids. This way the top kids won't be held back (such as me), and everybody else would still be comfortable at that pace.

 

 

 

Instead of serving everyone the same dinner and changing the menu, how about we put these guys in a different restaurant huh?