<<< your message start here >>>
> Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995
> From: mxjeli@dogwood.tyler.wm.edu (Mariann Jelinek)
<<< some stuff deleted here >>>
> Two resonances: yeah, we ARE more anti-intellectual than I like,
> and I wish we were not. Clearly, our society doesn't much believe in the
> value of education, because we don't take it seriously. On the other hand,
> the issue of measurements is a tough one: there ARE measurements in use in
> most colleges and universities, and they are pretty awful: simple-minded
> student surveys (widely sneered at, with some justification IMHO, as
> "popularity contests").
At the university levrel in the U.S., we have done a lousy job at
adding value to the customer. In fact, we have convinced people that what
they need to do is to get a degree, getting a high Grade Point Average
(which does not really represent the learning of relevant stuff), without
really a lot of regards for learning. We (teachers, university
administrators, etc.) have falling victims of the simplemindedness of the
textbooks, the test banks, teacher's manual, and other goodies. Students'
surveys, regardless of how sophisticated they might be, will not correct
this situation!
> Teachers face a dilemma: much of what students need to know, isn't
> "fun" to learn, but takes discipline, persistence and effort.
Mariann, I disagree here. Teachers do not face this dilemma.
They created the dilemma themselves, with the help of a number of experts
and educational professional, who have come up with a number of paradigms
which have forced school to teacher water down material, to add color to
textbooks, etc. What students need to know does not have to be boring.
We are the ones who take the fun out of the process. One of the major
problems in this is that we emphasize teaching at the expense of learning!
> Until those
> are invested, the students cannot do the work - whether it's write a
> competent sentence, parse a paragraph in a foreign language, work a
> chemistry problem, or apply a rule from physics. A fair number of young
> folk aren't especially interested in work, until they've done enough of it
> to find it really does pay rewards.
Students who can not do these is because they have not really been
required to do it, learn how to, etc. We all function in systems, and if
the system does not require or demand certaing skills or abilities, we can
not expect those in the system to know how to do that!
> So the profs that make students work
> (especially if surrounded by others who don't, but still give "good
> grades") can come up short on popularity contests. The excellent students
> think the "work-'em" profs are stellar: "Prof. X really taught me
> something important!" But many others, who are in school for the
> credential or to pass the time, resent having to work for grades, and
> discount grading as "wholly subjective" in any area where there is not a
> calculated answer.
My main objective is to develop "excellent" students. I demand
from them a lot of work, regardless of what other professors demand. I let
students know what we do, why, and the rational supporting all of that.
Students have the opportunity to question what I, the books, or any other
printed material say. In fact they are rewarded when they do! I spent
some time in class today discussing with the students their perceptions
about one of the books we are using. They don't like this paritcular
book, and expressed a lot more support for the second book we are using in
this particular course. I ended up supporting their views!
> Meanwhile, of course, the conundrum is wound tighter yet. Students
> ARE "customers," and there is some genuine justification to listening to
> their complaints and preferences. Yet if they're customers, they're also,
> by definition, to some degree "ignorant" of the subject matter they come
> to learn. If they knew it all already, they wouldn't need the class. Thus
> profs have an obligation to craft the learning experiences, direct the
> class, etc. to some degree - at the same time that it is the STUDENTS who
> learn, not the prof (though I've never taught a class without learning
> something!). The students ultimately are responsible for their learning,
> and if they won't - especially at higher levels - it's not obviously "the
> professor's fault."
> No easy answers, alas.
> Sam
> --
> MXJELI@MAIL.WM.EDU
> Mariann Jelinek
All my syllibi contain statements informing learning partners
(a.k.a. students), that I can not teach them anything. That they are the
ones who learn, if they want to, and that the only thing I can do is to
facilitate the conditions for learning to happen. I also tell them that
their active involvement is crucial for learning to takeplace. I tell
thme that I need to learn from them as much as they need to learn from me,
and that if I am not learning anything then it is their lack of
participation that creates that.
For these reasons, I share with my learning partners that they are
not just "passive" customers recipients of what we teachers know, but they
are also information processors (they have to learn), and suppliers of
information (tehy have to help me and the rest ot the class learn
something from them). It is a lot of work, but it is also a lot of fun!
-- Ivan Blanco@BU4090.Barry.edu 305 899-3515 Fax 305 892-6412