Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 02:45:17 CDT From: John Henry Wells Subject: Re: Incentives? On Oct 19 Kevin Karplus wrote in part ... .. one of the best ways for us to renew our teaching and to have the sorts of collegial discussions about teaching that are now missing, is for us to return to being students occasionally. I have actually tried this within my own department in an effort to promote the concept of a core disciplinary curriculum. The idea was that all departmental faculty should be able to step in and teach any of the 10 core courses in our Biological Engineering curriculum. My interest in sitting in on courses of younger faculty were well received; but the well established faculty were very cold to the idea. Short of all faculty particpating in the core curriculum we established an instructor cluster group for each core course (with the idea that members of the various clusters would participate in the development, teaching, and peer evaluation of the course). Also last year our dean sponsored a faculty development lecture series for us whereby a biology instructor came to the department and gave a 13 week lecture series (1 hour per week) to the department. This was so well received that we followed up the next semester with a 13 week lecture series in microbiology. These efforts help our faculty in two ways: 1) it refreshed our memory (or taught us) about important fundamental scientific concepts; and 2) because we heard from the same instructors covering approx. the same content as our students we were better prepared to realistically know what we could expect from our students relative to their knowledge in biology and microbiology. >From what I have seen in engineering curricula, the issue of coordination of content within disciplinary courses and expectation of content covered in courses outside of a disciplinary area is problematic. The 'I thought you covered that in you course?' or the 'Don't they get that in physics?' coupled with the well meaning faculty member who believes they are the only one who teaches students any 'real engineering', leaves me wondering at times how students learn anything. (May they don't and employers have to teach them or they go on to graduate school). The chaos of engineering curricula needs the support systems for improved communication and accountability. In turn, these need our full committment to education. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- /"""""""\ John Henry Wells, D.E., E.I.T. //\\ / \ Assoc. Prof. Biological Engineering / \ \\ ) ( Louisiana State University \ / \\ ( o ) ( o ) Baton Rouge, LA 70803-4505 / \ \\ | | | \ / \\ < > Office (504) 388-3153 / \ \\ /\ |---| /\ Fax (504) 388-3492 \,/ / \ / \-------/ \ E-Mail jwells@gumbo.bae.lsu.edu , /. .\ | / \ | CU-SeeMe 130.39.131.188 , (:.:.:) | | | | 'Can you spell hermeneutic phenomenology?' [~~~] ------ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 09:27:10 -0400 From: Jack Martin Miller Subject: Re: Incentives? Kevin Karplus wrote >Offices of Teaching Support (exact name varies) are a common >institutional response to pressure to provide better teaching. >I've yet to see any indication that they are effective a producing >better teaching. They do provide employment opportunities for people >with PhDs in education, and they could, perhaps, be useful to some faculty. >I've not been too impressed with the ones I've seen. One feature our Instructional Development Office has found useful is various forms of peer mentoring, involving discussions with colleagues, visiting classes etc --- often involving people from disparate disciplines -- I've done it for faculty in Child studies, Phys. Ed. and sociology. Informally I've done it with junior collegues since i was faily junior myself. > >If there is a point to this long, rather rambling message, it is that >one of the best ways for us to renew our teaching and to have the >sorts of collegial discussions about teaching that are now missing, is >for us to return to being students occasionally. > Yes -- its good fun and refreshing --- I've tended to dabble in History courses. Jack Martin Miller Professor of Chemistry Adjunct Professor of Computer Science Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada, L2S 3A1. Phone (905) 688 5550, ext 3402 FAX (905) 682 9020 e-mail jmiller@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca http://chemiris.labs.brocku.ca/staff/miller/miller.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 07:33:10 PDT From: Michael Pavelich Subject: discuss the Doyle paper Dear Colleagues, We have survived a slow server and kept the ideas flowing. Nice work. We now invite discussion of the paper SCHOLARSHIP RECONSIDERED - INHERENT DANGERS IN ITS APPLICATION by Michael P. Doyle, Trinity University The question that Michael brings us is: will we damage scholarship by such changes? A possible reading of his remarks is that changes such as Boyer suggests will weaken an already beleaguer aspect of the university. He also seems to question whether there is a scholarship of teaching commensurate with that of discovery (research). We invite discussion. Note that we have through Monday, Oct 23, for exchanges on Michael's paper. Michael Pavelich CSM Arlene Russell UCLA ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 09:51:03 EDT From: Robley Light Subject: Re: Incentives? On Thu, 19 Oct 1995 21:42:22 -0700, Kevin Karplus wrote: I think Karplus' suggestion (about taking courses) is certainly an intriguing one. Some years ago I also sat in on some language courses for the express purpose of learning enough German for a research leave in Germany. It was interesting to contrast the teaching methodology in languages (particularly lower level courses), compare the styles of different instructors, seeing from a student's point of view what "works" and what doesn't work. (Basically--what motivates one to spend time outside of class boning up for the next class). I did want to make a comment or two (see below) about the question of memorization. I have tended to be someone requiring memorization of structures in beginning biochemistry courses, and the students hate it. I guess as I've gotten older, I've backed off a bit, but I still feel there is some value (i.e. even necessity) in some memorization. Try learning a language without some study time aimed at memorizing vocabulary, for instance. Sure, you forget it if you don't use it. But at the time you memorized, you probably gained some structural insights and connections that were'nt obvious in the usual biochemistry 3 and 4 letter word vocabulary (NAD, CoASH, ATP, Leu, Lys, etc. etc.). Only by memorizing can the symbol "Lys" conjure up a picture of a structure with a particular charge distribution. Further comments below: >The closed-book exams I found quite difficult---not because the >questions themselves were hard---they were very similar to the >homeworks, but because they required enormous amounts of memory work. >For example, remembering the structure of all the amino acids, and all >the dimensions of the different DNA configurations. I did not have >the time to spend on memory work, and I did not attend the review >sessions (which often presented what you needed to memorize). So how would you have fared in a language course? > >Several computer science grad students with interest in bioinformatics >were also taking (or sitting in on) the class. One of them (who like >me, hadn't had any chemistry for 20 years) did extremely well in the >course, putting in nearly 20 hours a week to really master the >material and ace the exams. A year later, she cannot remember the >structure of all the amino acids, nor the dimensions of the DNA >configurations, despite doing publishable work in "computational >molecular biology". Her experience and mine lead me to seriously >question the value of the memory work so heavily emphasized in the >course. > But now when she "looks up" this information, structural aspects may make sense more quickly. (It gets easier the second time around?) And she certainly knows that structure and dimensions are important to some aspects of molecular biology. >Both of us would have preferred a class in which more attention was >paid to using data to elicit interesting facts, or in repeating the >discovery processes that lead to finding the knowledge originally, and >less to raw memory work. Did your instructor cover the interesting impass that Watson and Crick faced because neither of them had "memorized" the correct tautomeric structures of the bases, and only after that was straightened out did the beauty of the DNA structure fall into place? > >Of course, this may represent a disciplinary bias---computer science >relies heavily on the skilled application of basic principles, and >chemistry may rely more on bringing together previously unrelated >facts. Memory work plays little role in computer science, but the >some of the concepts require a lot of practice to master. > So why do I have so much trouble with unix? Can never seem to remember the commands to do a chore. Of course, this is a case where memory comes with use and practice, as it also does for vocabulary in a language course. Therefore perhaps we need to develop more problems and exercises that reinforce the learning of structures by "using" this information more often. Robley Light ************************************************************* Robley J. Light Phone: (904) 644-3844 Department of Chemistry email: rlight@sb.fsu.edu Florida State University Fax: (904) 644-8281 Tallahassee, FL 32306-3006 home page: http://www.sb. fsu.edu/~rlight ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 08:06:32 PDT From: Michael Pavelich Subject: Re: Incentives? I would like to take issue with two things in Dr. Karplus' statements. 1. That Offices of teaching effectiveness (OTE's) don't seem effective Here again, we seem to be taking our own feelings as gospel without seeking data. From school to school that have such services, data can be gathered showing that faculty who work one-on-one with good OTE people more often than not do raise their student evaluations scores significantly. The students feel that they are getting a better course. 2. That better teaching equates with finding the better ordering of material. Content order in chemistry courses is not a critical issue. We have the general order and importance of things pretty well established. The differences that do occur from prof to prof are not significant to student learning. Content debates are critical in new fields (materials, environmental sciences) but the big questions really have been settled in fields with long teaching histories (chemistry). What we need in chem ed is serious study, experimentation and discussion of teaching methods. We are at least a decade behind the eng ed societies in this. When I go th eng ed meetings I can consistantly find talks about different methods with measurements of their effects. In chem ed meetings we hear only about new demos and new software, very rarely about how students learn. At the last BCCE, I heard only one speaker who had conducted a substantial study of how his course changes effected learning. I repeat..we are at least a decade behind the engineering educators in understanding the scholarship of teaching. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 09:19:44 -0500 From: "Dr. Jose Lage" Subject: Re: Team Teaching One thing reading all the comments so far made me realize how correct was my decision to turn-down offers from big public schools, and how fortunate I am to be able to teach in a private school. I sympathize with the frustration of those TEACHERS that have their abilities subdued by circunstances beyond their control. > The answer to large classes, effective teaching, > and classroom discipline is team teaching. There should be two or three > teachers in any lecture room with over 200 students all the time. The answer to large classes is to make them smaller! Do we know math? Follow this: ten percent of 200 students asking one 1.0 minute question per class; you provide one minute answer for each in every class. How much time is left for you to lecture a 50 minutes session? ***** I hate to see my tax-$$$ being wasted!!! ***** LEARNING can not be mass-produced as students are ALL CUSTOM-MADE!! (...I am sure some of you should be old enough to know this!) -- Jose' L. Lage ph.(214) 768-4172 J. L. Embrey Assistant Professor fax(214) 768-1473 Mechanical Engineering Department email: JLL@SEAS.SMU.EDU Southern Methodist University www: http://www.seas.smu.edu/~jll 3160 SMU Blvd. Dallas, TX 75275-0337 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 10:10:13 EDT From: "JAMES E. STURM" Subject: Re: Reply to Comments of active researchers? CHEMCONF: Would the author of message #3728, a person who did undergrad at St. John's (MN) please give me his e-mail address? James E. Sturm jesd@lehigh.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 10:49:05 -0400 From: Jack Martin Miller Subject: Re: Incentives? >> >>Of course, this may represent a disciplinary bias---computer science >>relies heavily on the skilled application of basic principles, and >>chemistry may rely more on bringing together previously unrelated >>facts. Memory work plays little role in computer science, but the >>some of the concepts require a lot of practice to master. >> > > >So why do I have so much trouble with unix? Can never seem to remember >the commands to do a chore. > That is why I use a Mac which is even better than the protective layer of Motif on top of UNIX and Windows on top of DOS Not only can't I remember them I can't type them syntactically correctly -- my fingers spell diferently from the rest of me, not that I can spell well at the best of times. Jack Martin Miller Professor of Chemistry Adjunct Professor of Computer Science Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada, L2S 3A1. Phone (905) 688 5550, ext 3402 FAX (905) 682 9020 e-mail jmiller@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca http://chemiris.labs.brocku.ca/staff/miller/miller.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 09:58:51 -0500 From: "GERALD MORINE, PHONE:218-755-2792 FAX: 4107" Subject: Paper 3. PracticalResearch Collaboration In Paper 3, by Michael P. Doyle, are his comments about Boyer's suggestion that research at undergraduate schools be done through "collaborative relationships with colleagues at research universities." I read Doyle to say that Ph.D.'s expect to be allowed to control their own research. I naturally agree, but think there currently is not a good mechanism for this to occur. Collaboration works best, in my observation, when both collaborators bring money/funding into the collaboration. Otherwise, the professor at the research institution (say, Sue) is likely to treat the professor from the undergraduate institution (say, John) as a kind of post-doc, and not an equal in running the project. If John brings money beyond his own support, into the effort, though, the power-balance is more equal and more genuine collaboration can occur. John's money could be used for supplies, equipment, support for grad students and/or post-doc, etc. How can John get funding? It could be through a grant specifically to him only, with the understanding that he would find adequate facilities. One might ask: does this have much to do with the topic of this conference? I would argue that the research activities of a professor at an undergraduate institution are important to the institution in proportion to their scientific importance, which usually means a certain minimum funding level is required. Perceptions are important. If John is doing only low budget projects, administrators and, to some extent, students may not value them highly. A project using state-of-the-art equipment in a collaboration with a research institution will be perceived as important (as it actually is, of course) by students, administrators, parents, legislators, alumni, and John's colleagues. The perception of importance thus helps John, his students, and his institution. Also, it promotes support for more research funding for John's next project, wherein more students will also be well trained, John's expertise and morale maintained, and science advanced. Collaborative efforts are most likely to be scientifically and professionally rewarding if management authority and decision-making is shared by the collaborators. This situation is most likely to happen if both bring appreciable funding into the effort. Grants should be given to undergraduate college faculty that they can use to shop around for a promising collaboration. These grants should be of sufficient size to fund the costs of research, not just personal support. If such was available, a collaborative model would work. With such funding, the benefits to the undergraduate institution and its students of faculty research would be greatly enhanced. Dr. Gerald Morine, Chemistry Department, Bemidji State University, Bemidji, Minnesota 56601-2699 ghmo@vax1.bemidji.msus.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 11:56:34 -0400 From: reeves Subject: Re: Incentives? In response to Professor Karplus' observation that "Offices of Teaching Support (exact name varies) are a common >institutional response to pressure to provide better teaching. >I've yet to see any indication that they are effective a producing >better teaching. They do provide employment opportunities for people >with PhDs in education, and they could, perhaps, be useful to some faculty. >I've not been too impressed with the ones I've seen." let me respond by saying that the ones he describes are typically doomed to failure, but there are other models. The Center for Teaching Excellence at UNCW was created and funded when we were able to convince the Provost that we could provide a clear direction and impetus for it. For the past three years we have focused much of our atttention to educating faculty in the use of hypermedia for educational instruction. Over 150 of our faculty (over 1/3) have taken the two and one half day workshop we offer, and more that 25 courses (with over 2500 students) are currently being taught using hypermedia for at least part of their instruction. It's easy to dismiss this "high tech" approach to improving teaching as gadetry, until you observe the effect of the training on the faculty. We encourage them to consider developing a presentation of a topic that they have found difficult to teach by conventional methods. The result is that they begin to focus on the "specific content, how to structure the material to make a coherent whole, what ideas are the crucial ones for a particular class, and which stuff is just entertaining examples." to quote Professor Karplus again. In other words, the focus on hypermedia has been a very successful means to an end. We're also trying approaches to stimulate ongoing faculty discussions that lead to publications on effective methods for teaching large classes, teaching statistics to diverse groups, and dealing with the diverse student populations that exist in our classrooms. Administrative support has been remarkable, because we've been successful at generating faculty interest. We have 13 complete hypermedia classroom systems including Pentium computers with CD-ROM and sound capabilities, videodisk, videotape, and Internet connectivity, all funded through the Office of Academic Affairs. The Center director and staff are from the mainstream faculty (not the School of Ed). Faculty on this campus who frequent the center have found it to be a very valuable resource. Jimmy Reeves, Director The Center for Teaching Excellence University of North Carolina at Wilmington 601 S. College Rd. Wilmington, NC 28403 910-395-3034 910-350-4000 fax http:\\cte.uncwil.edu reeves@uncwil.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 10:52:57 -0500 From: Alfred Lata Subject: Re: Team Teaching re Dr. Jose Lage posting Fri, 20 Oct 1995 09:19:44 >The answer to large classes is to make them smaller! If you have space and faculty. Ideal would be a one to one ratio! >Follow this: ten percent of 200 students asking one 1.0 minute question per >is left for you to lecture a 50 minutes session? Two hundred students are not meant to be a class; I would hope that this is a lecture situation: i.e., a well prepared, well orchestrated PRESENTATION of material; itw will generate questions, and provide some answers, along with direction. It should incorporate support personnel. It is not meant to be interactive. The interactivity comes in other situations: office hours, discussion sessions, laboratory (?), resource room facilities, classes (of what size?). "Classes" of 200 are impossible; How about 100? 50? 25? 20? 10? 5? At what number of students do you reduce your teaching activities? I.e., will you do a demonstration for 100? 50? 25? 20? 10? 5? 1? (Demonstration implying securing materials, preparation, testing, etc.) Different activities may take place in different sized groups and with different levels of understanding and/or interest. Alfred J. Lata, Dept of Chemistry, Univ of Kansas, Lawrence KS 66045 lata@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 12:18:36 -0400 From: Jack Martin Miller Subject: Re: Incentives? Jimmy Reeves wrote For the past three >years we have focused much of our atttention to educating faculty in the use >of hypermedia for educational instruction. Over 150 of our faculty (over >1/3) have taken the two and one half day workshop we offer, and more that 25 >courses (with over 2500 students) are currently being taught using >hypermedia for at least part of their instruction. This is also a rooute we are persuing, I'm a member of a multimedia "research" group, dare I use the word that has funding for a couple of development systems and will serve as an seed group to try to get others to use multimedia in an instructional enviromnet -- we have Comp Sci, Chemistry, Math, Business, Child Studies and Psyc. types in the group. Jack Martin Miller Professor of Chemistry Adjunct Professor of Computer Science Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada, L2S 3A1. Phone (905) 688 5550, ext 3402 FAX (905) 682 9020 e-mail jmiller@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca http://chemiris.labs.brocku.ca/staff/miller/miller.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 12:22:14 -0400 From: Jack Martin Miller Subject: Re: Team Teaching > Different activities may take place in different sized groups and with >different levels of understanding and/or interest. > >Alfred J. Lata, Dept of Chemistry, Univ of Kansas, Lawrence KS 66045 >lata@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu Unfortunately unless the class is really good, there will be 5 or 6 students who will ask all the questions whether in a lecture situation of 10, 30, 100 or 300, though in the former case I certainly am less likely to use a lecture format -- for 100 or 300 no choice, and for the 2-30 class I use a mix of lecture/seminar, workshop formats in the "lecture" period as oppose d to labs or seminars which are scheduled separately in small groups. For safety reasons a chem. lab shouldn't be over 15-16 students per instructor. Jack Martin Miller Professor of Chemistry Adjunct Professor of Computer Science Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada, L2S 3A1. Phone (905) 688 5550, ext 3402 FAX (905) 682 9020 e-mail jmiller@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca http://chemiris.labs.brocku.ca/staff/miller/miller.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 12:42:17 -0500 From: "Dr. Jose Lage" Subject: Re: Team Teaching one on one > > re Dr. Jose Lage posting Fri, 20 Oct 1995 09:19:44 > >The answer to large classes is to make them smaller! > If you have space and faculty. Ideal would be a one to one ratio! > Not really: the Montessori method of teaching has demonstrated for years that group (small) teaching is far more efficient than one on one. By the way, I wonder how many participating in this discussion know about Montessori, Piaget, Socrates, etc. teaching methods. > "Classes" of 200 are impossible; How about 100? 50? 25? 20? 10? 5? > At what number of students do you reduce your teaching activities? Efficient learning at University level in 50minutes lecture: 15 to 25 students; laboratories with individual apparatuses 3 to 5. -- Jose' L. Lage ph.(214) 768-4172 J. L. Embrey Assistant Professor fax(214) 768-1473 Mechanical Engineering Department email: JLL@SEAS.SMU.EDU Southern Methodist University www: http://www.seas.smu.edu/~jll 3160 SMU Blvd. Dallas, TX 75275-0337 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 10:42:28 -0700 From: Kevin Karplus Subject: National Conference on College Teaching I just got the following message from our department staff, and thought it relevant to these mailing lists. The National Conference on College Teaching and Learning will be held in Jacksonville, Florida on March 20-23, 1996. Nearly 1,000 faculty and administrators from all academic fields will attend from the US and abroad. The subject of the conference is Teaching, Learning and Technology: Strategies to Motivate Lifelong Learning. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 14:06:37 -0400 From: Gail Meyer Subject: Doyle paper I haven't really seen much discussion yet of this paper. I share some of Doyle's concerns and have some ideas as well. "Teaching institutions versus research institutions" - I believe a better descriptor might be undergraduate vs graduate. At the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga (student pop. app. 8500) we have no graduate program in chemistry, but we do have research. In the past five years, 46 student research papers have been presented at national & regional conferences, and we have secured nearly $1 million dollars in external funding from sources such as NSF, the Research Corporation,and the Dreyfus Foundation (we had a Dreyfus fellow for two years). We are one of the institutions which have been able to acquire a 300 MHz FT-NMR and other instrumentation through grants. Yet none of this detracts from our role as an undergraduate teaching institution because the research is all being done with Undergraduates! Let's be certain we don't throw out the good with the bad. Part of the problem we have created for ourselves is the way we report and rank schools in the information we distribute to the public. If you look at the rankings in C & E News each year, the schools which get all the publicity are the large, Ph.D. granting institutions, because obviously they will produce more chemistry graduates than smaller schools (surprisingly UTC was on the list for 1992-93 as #22 in the country). If one assumes that good teaching and research at the undergraduate level is reflected in the number of majors and graduates, why not give a little notice to the rankings of schools with no Ph.D. program? I have written the ACS Committee on Professional Training which produces such rankings and asked for one more table: a ranking of institutions with no graduate program in chemistry. So far my request has gone unheeded. Why do I think this is important? As Doyle says, "there has been a misalignment of the functions of the professorate at some institutions" but the criticism will reflect on us all. The public needs to be aware that research does not have to conflict with teaching, but can enhance it when done on the undergraduate level. Let them know that there are schools other than the "big ones" which put research to good use and graduate many chemistry majors. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 14:45:29 EST From: Howard Kimmel Subject: teaching vs. reseerach Just to follow up on Helen Naye's comment: > > This is in fact done in our department - we have a group whose >postgraduate and academic research is in the area of engineering >education. We have university-wide grants for teaching-learning projects > and >I did not include this as teaching. Here I include developing courses, >improving the quality of small group teaching, giving thought to and >perhaps changing the tutoring structure, or the lecturing load for a >subject etc,... Just to be sure my previous statements are not misundrstood, my reference to teaching or the "act of teaching" is the normal things done to teach a class: prepare for the class, teach the class, homeowrk, exams, office hours, etc. THe items noted above, including developing labs/demos, writing textbooks, and so on is certainly scholarly work, and deserves the time off from the classroom just as resrach, writing papers, etc. do. In the same vein, I disagree with Doyle"s comment (i know this is a day late, but i was off-campus at a conference yesterday, sorry) that >Is the "scholarship of teaching" the development of a new laboratory >experiment or a new demonstration? "Maybe" should be the answer, because impact >Kis a factor in judgement..... Yes, impact is a factor, but such a generalized statement can be said for reserach also. How many papers publ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 13:08:49 -0600 From: Doris Kimbrough Subject: Doyle paper One of the things I really liked about Mike Doyle's paper is the idea that was inherent throughout that "many of us also hold that research is education," and not just at the graduate level. Doing research with undergraduates is not terribly efficient from a productivity standpoint, but many of us do it because we value it as much (or more) from an *educational* effort as a research effort. Chemistry in a research laboratory is a very different process from chemistry in a teaching laboratory, and making our students aware of this difference is an important part of their education. I think that there has been enough discussion about "research versus teaching". I am interested in a discussion of "research as teaching". I personally do not feel that faculty with a strong committment to doing research with undergraduates get credit (whatever that is) for the extra effort it requires. Doris Doris Kimbrough phone: 303-556-4885 Chemistry Department Box 194 fax: 303-556-4776 University of Colorado at Denver Denver, CO 80217-3364 dkimbrough@castle.cudenver.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 15:29:22 -0400 From: Jack Martin Miller Subject: Re: Doyle paper >I haven't really seen much discussion yet of this paper. I share some of >Doyle's concerns and have some ideas as well. Perhaps the silence is due to agreement with Doyle who takes a much more balanced view of what a university is and does, not the big research university and not the small "teachng only" college? I thing the participants in this discussion have made very clear that the presence of PhD students is not a requirement for doing original research that will be funded. I've seen good undergraduate research thesis that have been far better than MSc thesis done in a far greater amount of time. Jack Martin Miller Professor of Chemistry Adjunct Professor of Computer Science Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada, L2S 3A1. Phone (905) 688 5550, ext 3402 FAX (905) 682 9020 e-mail jmiller@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca http://chemiris.labs.brocku.ca/staff/miller/miller.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 16:45:22 -0400 From: JOHN WOOLCOCK Subject: Re: Doyle paper Just to provide some counterpoint to J. Miller: I find some of the points made by M. Doyle to be myopic and elitist and not at all "balanced". For example: "None of Boyer's descriptive comments on the schloarship of teaching have convinced me that there is the same innovation in classroom teaching as in what can be unversally regarded as innovative research." What about microscale chemistry? Collaborative Learning techniques? Chemistry in the Community, etc. I regard these to be as innovating in teaching as the discovery of fullerenes or high temperature superconductors. The former are certainly having a bigger impact on student learning than the latter ones! I have other points I could make but I am leaving for a conference on student recruiment and retention in an hour. Perhaps we are all tired of the teaching versus research debate. I know I am. Let's see how we can work togather to support each others efforts, not just use a "circle the wagons" or mentality to justify what we are trying to do. (Sorry this sounds a little bitter, maybe the conference will restore my equilibrium) John Woolcock woolcock@grove.iup.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Oct 1995 11:44:14 -0400 From: Theresa Julia Zielinski Subject: team teaching one on one In reply to the message below I would like to comment as follows. Many who teach at the college level are aware of the work of Piaget Keller, Bodner, Perry, King and Kitchner etc. Unfortunately when these approaches are used thay are found to be very time consuming for the instructor and not conducive to the mass movement of students through the educational pipeline. We are, I think you would admit, in the business of education and productivity in terms of numbers of students put through the system is an important consideration when there are so many to prepare for work in our technological society. There are numerous studies and books on effective teaching methods for college level and adult learning. There is research that shows that lecture is one of the least effective method of instruction. It just happens to be a way to transmit information and a not too efficient way at that as the student attention span works against the lecturer every time. So we go on to build bigger and better lecture halls. Well it makes one wonder. As a matter of fact it is very expensive to 'teach' large numbers of students in small classes. With respect to one on one instruction the article published by B. Bloom on learning (and learning is the important outcome). The title is "The 2 sigma Problem: the search for Methods of Instruction as Effective as One-to One Tutoring" A quote from this paper "Most striking were the differences in final achievment measures under the three conventions. Using the standard deviation (sigma) of the control (conventional) class, it was typically found that the average student under tutoring was about two standard deviations above average of the contol class..." Benjamine S. Bloom, Educational Researcher, vol 13 p 4-16 The study was done for the junior high school level. Conventional = lecture in classes of 30 Mastery learning = 30 students formative tests and corrective feed back Tutoring = 2-3 students with a tutor. In my opinion this result is valid for college and graduate school education Consider the success of the mentor/student model in training new Ph.D.s and the value of the research experience for undergraduates. So now what do we do the educate the large numbers of students who come to our major universities every year? Certainly not by moaning over our teaching loads or boasting about how wonderful we are when we can juggle many tasks or give outstanding lectures. Every lecturer can be replaced by a good video tape. The thought is humbling. You might claim that the personal touch and the joy of science can only be conveyed by a real person. My reply is to view the World of Chemistry series. Finally, I do not think that efficient learning occurs in the 50 minute'lecture' no matter how small the class. The key word is "learning.' Learning requires reflection, practice, feedback for mistakes, etc. These are not usually part of the traditional 50 minute lecture. Please do not confuse good teaching with great lecture style or an efficient content transfer to the blackboard or overhead. Theresa From: "Dr. Jose Lage" Subject: Re: Team Teaching one on one > > re Dr. Jose Lage posting Fri, 20 Oct 1995 09:19:44 > >The answer to large classes is to make them smaller! > If you have space and faculty. Ideal would be a one to one ratio! > Not really: the Montessori method of teaching has demonstrated for years that group (small) teaching is far more efficient than one on one. By the way, I wonder how many participating in this discussion know about Montessori, Piaget, Socrates, etc. teaching methods. > "Classes" of 200 are impossible; How about 100? 50? 25? 20? 10? 5? > At what number of students do you reduce your teaching activities? Efficient learning at University level in 50minutes lecture: 15 to 25 students; laboratories with individual apparatuses 3 to 5. -- Theresa Julia Zielinski Niagara University FCHEZIELI@NIAGARA.edu Chemistry Department 716-286-8257 (campus office) Niagara University NY 14109 716-639-0762 (home office) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Oct 1995 18:21:41 CDT From: "Brenda L. Mokijewski" Subject: Doyle paper When I heard MIke Doyle speak in Chicago one subject which he discussed was conducting research with high school students. I was very excited and intrigued by this development. After reading Professor Howald's comments about improving science K-13, I agree this is an imperative. I think that students need to be exposed to active application of the scientific method as demonstrated in research universities as a part of their education. Part of improving science instruction at this state is improving the training of teachers in the teaching of science in the pre-college level. I am advocating carefully designed age-appropriate scientific activities to expose as many students in the pre-college years to science. The initial potential interest in science among students is shown to very high. By the time we see them in college in the introductory course, we actually see only a tiny minority of those who originally exhibited potential interest in science. The training of these students is often put off until late in in the undergraduate career or even into the start of the graduate career. This can be likened to the traditional method of language training in this country which often does not start until the freshman year of high school and passes up the peak years of language acquisition. A typical student is left struggling for an accent and an "ear" for the language long after the peak time for learning has passed. I feel that it is important to have centers or areas for the conducting of undergraduate research. Quality classroom teaching is an imperative, but it is not enough simply to be "book smart". Part of a good science education should involve some knowledge of how research works in a laboratory. I am a late sign-on to this conference. I am interested in those on the list who can recommend the best journals to read in terms of the latest research in general and organic chemistry pedagogy. I do read J. Chem. Ed. but what I find further information on teaching techniques during the lecture section. I would appreciate more information about the engineering education programs or any other programs where meaningful results have been obtained. Brenda Mokijewski Physical Science Division Troy State University, Troy, AL ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Oct 1995 22:12:20 CDT From: John Henry Wells Subject: Re: Doyle paper On Sun, Oct 22, 1995 Brenda L Mokijewski worte in part ... > I would appreciate more information about the engineering education programs > or any other programs where meaningful results have been obtained. I presume from the context of your discussion, Brenda was refering to a K-12 engineering curriculum that could be used in public schools. (This is something that NSF refers to as 'pre-engineering' curricula.) I too would be interested if anyone on this conference has experience with developing and delivering some kind of pre-engineering curricula to public schools. Last year I worked on a science curriculum unit on food packaging with a group of 4-H advisors from the Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service. My role was as the expert advisor on the disciplinary subject, in effect teaching the advisors some fundamental aspects of food packaging (e.g., materials, how glass and plastic bottles are made, etc.). In turn these educators developed posters, rap songs, and other instructional media based on my consultation with them. This curriculum was proofed at a summer science camp and is now in statewide distribution. My understanding is that each parish (a Louisiana county equivalent) will have displays, instructor training manuals, and classroom reproducable material. It seems to me that the national system of Agricultural Extension Services (in place in both rural and urban areas) may provide an excellent infrastructure for assisting with development and delievery of pre-college curricula to the public schools. John Henry Wells jwells@gumbo.bae.lsu.edu ------------------------------