What does it mean to fail as a teacher? The answers will vary as you ask different people. It would be a fair statement to say that someone has failed as a teacher when their students have failed. I am not talking about a few outliers on the fringe because these will always be present. When there are great grade curves necessary to bring the majority of the class within average grades, that would be failing as a teacher.
Much like in business if the majority of employees are failing, then it is a management issue; the same standard should be applied in teaching. The fact is that if the material is so difficult that students score less than a passing grade on tests then that should indicate not that students are failing, but the teacher is failing to explain it in bite-sized pieces and ways that the students are able to grasp.
The first requirement is caring. If the teacher has no concern whether the student is actually learning the material, then most students will not care either. Without concern, a teacher will not be inspired to go the extra mile in teaching. A personal example is that I have had great success with individual students who were having difficulties grasping material by utilizing the following method. I would first talk with the student and find out what their personal interests were as well as any area where they were very knowledgeable. Then I would pick one of these areas and spend 15-30 minutes learning it myself. Then I am able to communicate with the student using something they already understand.
As a teacher, I think it is just a matter of proficiency that any teacher worth two cents should be able to take a given topic and understand it well enough withing 15-30 minutes in order to be able to draw analogies between this new area of student understanding and the area of the teacher's expertise. By being able to talk with a student about something they understand and plug in knowledge they dont understand by association, they are able to grasp difficult concepts very quickly. Since learning occurs by association, it makes for very effective learning that a student will likely remember as well as understand the practical application of.
The caveat is that this takes extra time and effort on the teacher's part. So we can sum up the failure of teaching to not only using ineffective methods, but also being adverse to trying new ways and learning new things on the teacher's part.
To Ponder:
How to convince the all knowing and all powerful wizard (Teacher in this case), that there is more to learn. Is it necessary to pull back the curtain and reveal the ineffective person first?
Monday, March 12, 2012
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Philosophy of Teaching
In being an effective teacher, it is first important to understand your teaching philosophy. I think teaching is is a discipline that is dynamic and constantly changing. This is particularly with using technology in teaching, as new technologies are discovered and implemented as teaching tools the methods of teaching must grow to encompass these new "teach-nologies".
Teaching is being able to facilitate learning by being able to give learning to a student as well as the student receiving the learning. My particular approach is a thorough knowledge of my field of expertise while also having a very broad base of knowledge to draw from. Even though teaching occurs in the class setting, it still comes down to teaching individual students. By understanding what areas a student is likely to have knowledge of, I am able to translate the knowledge I have and make associations with the knowledge they have.. An example I recently used was being able to explain computer operating systems to a carpenter with no computer knowledge. Take the example of processor sorting algorithms, To the carpenter, "Have you ever been building something and needed your next piece of lumber, went and looked around to find a piece that was just long enough without too much excess waste?" Now you understand the Best Fit sorting algorithm. Maybe you were in a hurry and just grabbed the piece closest to you.......and so on.
By creating such associations you tap into the knowledge a student already understands and knows. Granted, every student is not a carpenter, but every student has picked classes, studied, played video games, not had enough money.....etc. You don't have to look too far to find an analogy that will make a connection.
Also, teaching must be dynamic. Employing a variety of learning methodologies and modalities increases the student interaction and involvement. In-class experiments, multimedia presentations, student centered learning, pair programming, group projects, and so on are effective in getting more students involved that what a lecture style format can ever hope for. Since many students have different learning styles and abilities, using a varying format will facilitate better learning overall.
Perhaps my greatest tool for teaching is keeping the student mindset. I try to ask myself, if I were a student learning this material,
By considering these questions in the preparation of instruction materials, I am able to gain realistic expectations for the quantity and content that can be learned in a session. I am able to set goals for each class as well as for the course. Additionally, I attempt to set goals for individual students, having greater expectations for every single one than what they came into class with.
I also feel teaching needs to be relevant. Material presented in class should be time-relevant as well as having a meaning and purpose that can be demonstrated in terms of skills learned, concepts understood, and progress toward a measurable goal. Teaching computer science courses, the knowledge learned needs to be relevant and marketable to the computer industry.
What I value as the end result of teaching, is the ability to take something away from the class a student can use in the future. If the class is of the type that teaches a skill, then I expect the student to have an end product that can demonstrate that skill. For example, in a class teaching HTML, the end result should be at a minimum that the student has a working website available on the Internet whereby they can showcase their learning from the class.
Teaching is being able to facilitate learning by being able to give learning to a student as well as the student receiving the learning. My particular approach is a thorough knowledge of my field of expertise while also having a very broad base of knowledge to draw from. Even though teaching occurs in the class setting, it still comes down to teaching individual students. By understanding what areas a student is likely to have knowledge of, I am able to translate the knowledge I have and make associations with the knowledge they have.. An example I recently used was being able to explain computer operating systems to a carpenter with no computer knowledge. Take the example of processor sorting algorithms, To the carpenter, "Have you ever been building something and needed your next piece of lumber, went and looked around to find a piece that was just long enough without too much excess waste?" Now you understand the Best Fit sorting algorithm. Maybe you were in a hurry and just grabbed the piece closest to you.......and so on.
By creating such associations you tap into the knowledge a student already understands and knows. Granted, every student is not a carpenter, but every student has picked classes, studied, played video games, not had enough money.....etc. You don't have to look too far to find an analogy that will make a connection.
Also, teaching must be dynamic. Employing a variety of learning methodologies and modalities increases the student interaction and involvement. In-class experiments, multimedia presentations, student centered learning, pair programming, group projects, and so on are effective in getting more students involved that what a lecture style format can ever hope for. Since many students have different learning styles and abilities, using a varying format will facilitate better learning overall.
Perhaps my greatest tool for teaching is keeping the student mindset. I try to ask myself, if I were a student learning this material,
- What would I want the end result to be?
- How could it best be presented that would make it easier to learn?
- Is there a way to make this "fun" to learn?
By considering these questions in the preparation of instruction materials, I am able to gain realistic expectations for the quantity and content that can be learned in a session. I am able to set goals for each class as well as for the course. Additionally, I attempt to set goals for individual students, having greater expectations for every single one than what they came into class with.
I also feel teaching needs to be relevant. Material presented in class should be time-relevant as well as having a meaning and purpose that can be demonstrated in terms of skills learned, concepts understood, and progress toward a measurable goal. Teaching computer science courses, the knowledge learned needs to be relevant and marketable to the computer industry.
What I value as the end result of teaching, is the ability to take something away from the class a student can use in the future. If the class is of the type that teaches a skill, then I expect the student to have an end product that can demonstrate that skill. For example, in a class teaching HTML, the end result should be at a minimum that the student has a working website available on the Internet whereby they can showcase their learning from the class.
Monday, December 26, 2011
Relevance in Learning
As one semester ends and another begins, I find myself again in the unique position of having been a student, then a teacher, and now in a dual role of teacher/ student. The overwhelming arguments I hear from the student's perspective are those of the relevance in what they are being taught. "Why do we need to learn this?" is one of the most common rhetorical questions posed. I have to speculate if most teachers ever ask themselves this question, because I generally try to answer that question in my own mind when I hear people say it. Oftentimes I find myself unable to formulate any type of answer that has logic as to the modus operendi involved in a given course.
I have pondered the range of possibilities. Perhaps this was the way it was taught to them. Perhaps they are looking at the larger picture. Perhaps it is to teach the theory rather than the practice. Perhaps it follows the course of instruction laid out in the textbook. Perhaps they don't know themselves. Perhaps they don't care. So many possible explanations. I have had to restrain myself from actually asking professors this question myself after engaging in a strenuous round of mental gymnastics regarding the WHY of their methods.
We need to clarify that relevance in teaching involves structuring the learning to be relevant to the present time and to the field of computer science as well as to the computer industry. The reason why our learning needs to be relevant is that 99% of the people are in college in order to obtain a better job. Most employers of today are more interested in what an employee can do in terms of output relating to their job. This being said, students should be taught material that is relevant to the workplace, marketable, and current.
Some would argue there is a need for low level machine language programmers. While this may be true, the trend is rapidly moving toward more dynamic programming methods. If you spend your college time learning "legacy" languages, systems, and development strategies, then the job you get will be in the phasing out process when you start. Better to focus on technologies of our times for the maximum in returns.
So the question again surfaces why most professors are not teaching relevant material. The typical assignment involves a command line interface (console program) that performs limited functions. Counting to 100 by input choice of 2, 3, or 5; converting binary to decimal (maybe hexadecimal for the more adventurous); create an output involving two intersecting lines; etc. I know these are cutting edge concepts (in a time machine set to 60 years ago), but have to question the relevance of their application for today. Imagine an employer being blown away by a demonstration of projects like these.
I have decided to stop pondering why this is the norm and start changing it. I want to inspire students to produce an end result they can be proud of. An end result that can be published, marketed, even blogged about. Publishing a web page is withing every college student's immediate reach and can be used as a repository for their work. Much like framing a good painting to put on the wall. Getting something "live" is a first step for a student to begin to take pride in their work.
Is there any real excuse for a computer science student not having online content? First having a web "space", then adding meaningful content in the way of programs written, applications designed, games created, papers written, resume, and so forth. Imagine if it was not only functional, but also looked good. LOL
I have pondered the range of possibilities. Perhaps this was the way it was taught to them. Perhaps they are looking at the larger picture. Perhaps it is to teach the theory rather than the practice. Perhaps it follows the course of instruction laid out in the textbook. Perhaps they don't know themselves. Perhaps they don't care. So many possible explanations. I have had to restrain myself from actually asking professors this question myself after engaging in a strenuous round of mental gymnastics regarding the WHY of their methods.
We need to clarify that relevance in teaching involves structuring the learning to be relevant to the present time and to the field of computer science as well as to the computer industry. The reason why our learning needs to be relevant is that 99% of the people are in college in order to obtain a better job. Most employers of today are more interested in what an employee can do in terms of output relating to their job. This being said, students should be taught material that is relevant to the workplace, marketable, and current.
Some would argue there is a need for low level machine language programmers. While this may be true, the trend is rapidly moving toward more dynamic programming methods. If you spend your college time learning "legacy" languages, systems, and development strategies, then the job you get will be in the phasing out process when you start. Better to focus on technologies of our times for the maximum in returns.
So the question again surfaces why most professors are not teaching relevant material. The typical assignment involves a command line interface (console program) that performs limited functions. Counting to 100 by input choice of 2, 3, or 5; converting binary to decimal (maybe hexadecimal for the more adventurous); create an output involving two intersecting lines; etc. I know these are cutting edge concepts (in a time machine set to 60 years ago), but have to question the relevance of their application for today. Imagine an employer being blown away by a demonstration of projects like these.
I have decided to stop pondering why this is the norm and start changing it. I want to inspire students to produce an end result they can be proud of. An end result that can be published, marketed, even blogged about. Publishing a web page is withing every college student's immediate reach and can be used as a repository for their work. Much like framing a good painting to put on the wall. Getting something "live" is a first step for a student to begin to take pride in their work.
Is there any real excuse for a computer science student not having online content? First having a web "space", then adding meaningful content in the way of programs written, applications designed, games created, papers written, resume, and so forth. Imagine if it was not only functional, but also looked good. LOL
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Definition of Quality in Learning, part 2
For the purposes of this blog it is necessary to define this elusive term of quality. Quality as related to learning refers to excellence or superiority of a higher degree than normal. Perhaps this should be further related as Higher Quality. Any way you want to slice the term- Ivy League, Deluxe, Special, Platinum, or any other synonym denoting a cut above the rest. I think this is an important distinction because one could say there is always quality in learning, whether it is low or high quality, and this is true. But the low quality of learning almost seems to be the prevailing norm at times in many areas, so there is no searching required to find it. The effort lies in avoiding it, or finding the higher quality of learning.
Today I had the opportunity to talk with a group of about 12 students and get some feedback on higher quality of learning. It came as no surprise to hear that students frequently miss classes of teachers who specialize in low quality of instruction. Many commented that they sleep in class, do other work, surf the net, and so on. The general consensus was that if the teacher does not care about what they are teaching why should the student. The students felt that low quality of instruction had more of a bearing on a teacher's concern rather than their ability to teach or knowledge of subject matter.
I asked what type of teaching do you think helps you to learn better. Everyone agreed that the most effective methods are ones that caused interaction between the student, teacher, and other students in the class. The greater the degree of interaction the more effective the learning. There was a noted disdain for the teacher-centered lecture. Of some surprise was that the students felt instruction of reading from a book or slides to be even worse than a lecture. One girl was animate about how it insulted her intelligence because she could read the slides on her own.
I probed further, asking for examples of times they had been involved with an exceptional level of learning. Several students spoke about a class they had been involved in where the professor used string to illustrate how a network is connected and envelopes to illustrate how packets travel. Many said they would remember this learning for their entire lives because it caused them to interact with each other and with the strings and envelopes to the point where they became part of the network, rather than just reading about it and looking at diagrams.
Another spoke of a professor who was able to use high level concepts to get students involved in projects that were way beyond their level of knowledge at the time, and by doing so was able to create learning without them immediately being aware of it. I should have inquired further as to a more specific method involved, but it brought to mind Mr. Miyagi in the Karate Kid teaching without the student knowing they were being taught.
I cannot say this sample group is representative of students as a whole, but their reactions were telling and provide for further thought on this area. I do realize that it is an exercise in futility to expect anyone to change their methods of teaching, and I am not suggesting this even be attempted because it would meet with severe reproach. My goals are much loftier than that, I want to better master this area and make further strides in my own teaching ability and methods of instruction delivery. I see the need for constant improvement that continues for a lifetime in my own pursuits.
Monday, November 21, 2011
Definition of Quality in Learning
What is quality???? As I begin this blog, I am reminded of reading Robert Pirsig's books, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and Lila as he explores this very question in such detail that it consumes his every waking moment. While I have not experienced the desire to inquire of quality to that level, I have nonetheless devoted a lot of thought-hours to the subject of quality. Specifically as it relates to education and teaching. After a lifetime as a student, and four years as a professor then back to student, I find myself deep in thoughts on the nature of quality.
Embarking on a path of doctoral studies brings me back to the classroom as a student, and I have to say it is an interesting paradigm shift from student to professor...then back to student. I sometimes find myself scrutinizing the various teaching methodologies I see employed. Not just from an individual teaching perspective but even from an "academic approach". It is a difficult practice to once again be a student because I find myself questioning much of the rationale behind some teaching approaches. Largely, I find professors ineffective and out of touch with the reality of their students... and in some cases out of touch with the reality of reality.
It is hard not to have a biased approach to the issue and remain objective in being a student/ after having been a teacher. I keep reminding myself that there are many individual teaching styles and my own personal teaching methods are by no means traditional, but they have been overwhelmingly effective. Teaching from a computer science/ technology perspective should no doubt contain some degree of science. Yet the problem is that most classes are not being taught in a manner that inspires individual creative thinking and facilitates and fosters greater learning.
The fact is that the student of today has evolved and is not the same student of 20 years ago. The methods that were effective then are not going to be effective today. The traditional method of a monotone lecture for 50 minutes is falling on deaf ears as student minds of today have grown accustomed to multiple stimuli input. We need to make a hyperjump from multi-tasking to multi-learning. We are supposed to be teaching technology, but are not using technology to teach.
Slightly farther up the scale is the teacher who reads from slides for the entire class while students attempt to scribble notes and may ask a question or so when prompted. Such limited interaction seldom entails mastery of the material covered and largely involves rote memorization of key phrases the teacher has deemed and noted to be of importance.
Few and far between do you find the teacher who is able to capture the attention of students and actually integrate them into a learning process beyond a textbook, where they can actually use their mind to solve problems in a method that involves thinking outside the box. I consider this far different that the textbook problem solving of equations and formulas that will never be experienced in a real world application.
QUALITY- how do we define that? We know what it is when we experience it. How many pieces of cake do you have to eat to know it is good? Similarly, you know from the first class the quality of a teacher. While it may be hard to define, hard to quantify, it is very easy to recognize.
More later, this is only about 1/20th of what I have to say on this subject.
Embarking on a path of doctoral studies brings me back to the classroom as a student, and I have to say it is an interesting paradigm shift from student to professor...then back to student. I sometimes find myself scrutinizing the various teaching methodologies I see employed. Not just from an individual teaching perspective but even from an "academic approach". It is a difficult practice to once again be a student because I find myself questioning much of the rationale behind some teaching approaches. Largely, I find professors ineffective and out of touch with the reality of their students... and in some cases out of touch with the reality of reality.
It is hard not to have a biased approach to the issue and remain objective in being a student/ after having been a teacher. I keep reminding myself that there are many individual teaching styles and my own personal teaching methods are by no means traditional, but they have been overwhelmingly effective. Teaching from a computer science/ technology perspective should no doubt contain some degree of science. Yet the problem is that most classes are not being taught in a manner that inspires individual creative thinking and facilitates and fosters greater learning.
The fact is that the student of today has evolved and is not the same student of 20 years ago. The methods that were effective then are not going to be effective today. The traditional method of a monotone lecture for 50 minutes is falling on deaf ears as student minds of today have grown accustomed to multiple stimuli input. We need to make a hyperjump from multi-tasking to multi-learning. We are supposed to be teaching technology, but are not using technology to teach.
Slightly farther up the scale is the teacher who reads from slides for the entire class while students attempt to scribble notes and may ask a question or so when prompted. Such limited interaction seldom entails mastery of the material covered and largely involves rote memorization of key phrases the teacher has deemed and noted to be of importance.
Few and far between do you find the teacher who is able to capture the attention of students and actually integrate them into a learning process beyond a textbook, where they can actually use their mind to solve problems in a method that involves thinking outside the box. I consider this far different that the textbook problem solving of equations and formulas that will never be experienced in a real world application.
QUALITY- how do we define that? We know what it is when we experience it. How many pieces of cake do you have to eat to know it is good? Similarly, you know from the first class the quality of a teacher. While it may be hard to define, hard to quantify, it is very easy to recognize.
More later, this is only about 1/20th of what I have to say on this subject.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)