Professors vs graduate students and clickers???

[Teachin'Mine]

Very interesting article. How do students learn best?

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110512/ap_on_sc/us_sci_teacher_or_tools

[kalanamak]

What age student? And what subject. I've sat through some very good lectures, and feel very at home with them, as they are rather like my professor father "holding forth" in my childhood.

 

Most specifically, I recall an organic chemistry lecturer at Columbia who would describe a molecule as if you were looking along its axis. Then, after breath, he'd describe it in a second way. If you "got" the first bit, the second bit was reinforcement; if you didn't, you had a chance with the second bit. Then, he'd give a third bit. You'd certainly get one of the three, and often two.

 

I even remember where I was sitting as he lectured on the Fischer Proofs. It was beautiful. They are beautiful.

 

At the end of 2 semesters of lectures he got, and deserved, a standing ovation from 300 people, but we were all grown-ups.

 

I would lament the end of the lecture.

[cathmom]

"This is clearly more effective learning. Everybody should be doing this. ... You're practicing bad teaching if you are not doing this."

 

The study compared just two sections of physics classes for just one week, but Wieman said the technique would work for other sciences as well, and even for history.

 

 

:lol: I find the juxtaposition of those two paragraphs funny. We're going to change everything in every subject based on a one week experiment!?!

[MorganClassicalPrep]

What age student? And what subject. I've sat through some very good lectures, and feel very at home with them, as they are rather like my professor father "holding forth" in my childhood.

 

Most specifically, I recall an organic chemistry lecturer at Columbia who would describe a molecule as if you were looking along its axis. Then, after breath, he'd describe it in a second way. If you "got" the first bit, the second bit was reinforcement; if you didn't, you had a chance with the second bit. Then, he'd give a third bit. You'd certainly get one of the three, and often two.

 

I even remember where I was sitting as he lectured on the Fischer Proofs. It was beautiful. They are beautiful.

 

At the end of 2 semesters of lectures he got, and deserved, a standing ovation from 300 people, but we were all grown-ups.

 

I would lament the end of the lecture.

 

:iagree:

Also, what might work in science would not necessarily work in the humanities. I do see that some interactive classes are nice, but there is something to be said for listening to someone you respect really getting into their lecture- it becomes a performance.

 

I also believe that their results were skewed. College students love new "toys." I can't take a one week experiment as any sort of authority, because this is what I see happening: A new fun toy to play with, so everyone gets involved. But a couple weeks in, the people who in the lectures were not paying attention and generally not caring about their education will again not be paying attention and not caring about their education, and the grades will even back out. A student who wants to get their most out of a class, will. There are ways to be actively engaged with the material even during a lecture.

[In The Great White North]

A few questions:

 

1. Was the test at the end a multiple choice, computer administered test or were the open ended essay questions?

 

2. Were the" in-class "clicker" quizzes, demonstrations and question-answer sessions" using the exact same questions as the test?

 

In other words, were the students just regurgitating answers or did they actually understand?

 

I also believe that their results were skewed. College students love new "toys." I can't take a one week experiment as any sort of authority, because this is what I see happening: A new fun toy to play with, so everyone gets involved. But a couple weeks in, the people who in the lectures were not paying attention and generally not caring about their education will again not be paying attention and not caring about their education, and the grades will even back out. A student who wants to get their most out of a class, will. There are ways to be actively engaged with the material even during a lecture.

 

:iagree: Nothing like a new toy!

[mazakaal]

I don't know. I think they may be onto something. I agree that a one-week experiment is not enough to make everyone run out and change their teaching method, but a lecture with clicker interaction makes me think of learning styles. Someone who is an auditory learner will get a lot out of lecture only, but someone who has a more visual or kinisthetic learning style would probably benefit from having to 'do' something (ie - respond to questions with the clicker) and 'see' what is being taught on the screen in addition to listening to a lecture. I also think that someone's mind would be less likely to wander in the middle of the lecture if they're having to periodically respond with the clicker. I don't think that the magic is in the clicker per se, but in the fact that it forces the students to interact with the material being studied instead of just sitting and listening to a lecture.

[Rosie_0801]

This visual-kinesthetic learner would rather take notes. Pens and paper are quite cheap and paper can even be recycled at the end of semester. But I'm old fashioned like that.

 

Rosie

Edited May 13, 2011 by Rosie_0801

[kalanamak]

I I also think that someone's mind would be less likely to wander in the middle of the lecture if they're having to periodically respond with the clicker. I don't think that the magic is in the clicker per se, but in the fact that it forces the students to interact with the material being studied instead of just sitting and listening to a lecture.

 

Call me old-fashioned, but my father once told me, after I'd complained about a boring teacher, that I should be a fool not to use this opportunity to learn to focus even when bored. Sure shut me up.

[twoforjoy]

I do think that, at the college/university level, a more interactive approach tends to be more effective than just lecturing. Part of the problem is that often lectures just reiterate material found in the textbook and course readings. So, students either do the reading and tune out the lecture (or skip class), or use the lecture as a replacement for doing the reading. IME, really excellent lecturers--while they are out there--are few and far between. Most professors who lecture just stand up in the front of the class and summarize the textbook readings. It's very frustrating for students who actually did the reading (I know I stopped attending a number of lecture classes in college because that's exactly what happened), and it discourages other students from doing the reading at all.

 

But I'd be very hesitant to read too much into these results. For one thing, short-term retention of information doesn't necessarily mean more learning has occurred. I'd want to see what would happen if they checked back in with the students at the end of the term. For another, I totally agree that novelty could have been a big part of the results. A longer-term study would definitely be needed.

[regentrude]

In a subject that does not require memorization, but conceptual understanding and problem solving, it is rather obvious that you don't learn it by listening to one person lecture, even if the person works examples on the board. I am a physics professor, and that is something I tell students time and time again: they learn by working problems and by engaging in discussions about conceptual questions. Not by watching me do stuff. (Even though this is what they would prefer, because it is less work ;-)

 

This said: it is irrelevant HOW that interaction is accomplished. You don't have to use clickers (I don't, because there is too much technical malfunction to make it worth while.) You can pose a question and give the students a few minutes to discuss with their neighbors before moving to a class discussion. You can add a recitation component to the lectures which focuses problem solving and discussions - this breaks a 300 student class into smaller groups which favors interaction. Involving the students in teaching each other is a valuable tool, because trying to teach a subject greatly enhances understanding - or shows you where you have gaps.

 

There has been a lot of research, not just this one study. And it all confirms that, for physics, a pure lecture is not the best vehicle for learning. So, nothing new here.

If you are interested in this, a name you could look up is Eric Mazur form Harvard; he is a pioneer for learning innovation and has worked extensively on this.

 

Now there are certainly subjects where the situation is different and where a lecture may not require an active component. There are subjects where understanding plays little role and memorization is very important. l don't know about these. But for physics, the article is stating the obvious.

 

ETA: The title is unfair. There is nothing inherently better about using a graduate student. In fact, even for an interactive format, a more experienced teacher is preferable because he will be better able to clear up misconception and conduct the in-depth discussion that arises form the clicker questions. Because some of those conceptual misunderstandings are extremely tricky.

[regentrude]

Based only on my non-scientific personal experiences I'd argue that isn't always true. What I enjoyed about having graduate students is that they often put a lot more energy and creativity into their lectures/classes/assignments. Sometimes seasoned profs just do the same stuff they have always done and put very little effort into any of it. I've had some that just stood at the front of the class and read from a book the entire time (not even stopping to look up at the class).

 

I agree, I have heard this happen.

OTOH, I had often students tell me about bad experiences with graduate TAs teaching calculus - they are in over their depth and are reading the book, and are not really able to answer complicated questions.

Very complex material in math and science requires a little distance and knowledge above what is taught, to put things into perspective. (Our department will only very rarely let a graduate student teach anything besides introductory labs, for good reasons.)

[twoforjoy]

Based only on my non-scientific personal experiences I'd argue that isn't always true. What I enjoyed about having graduate students is that they often put a lot more energy and creativity into their lectures/classes/assignments. Sometimes seasoned profs just do the same stuff they have always done and put very little effort into any of it. I've had some that just stood at the front of the class and read from a book the entire time (not even stopping to look up at the class).

 

It really depends on the grad student. Some love teaching, and dive in with enthusiasm. Others absolutely loathe teaching, and since they both loathe it and have no experience or training, end up teaching really terrible classes.

 

IME, students tend to have much better experiences with graduate instructors in the humanities (most of whom are in grad school because they want to teach at the university level) than with graduate instructors in math and science.

[texasmama]

As an adjunct professor, I found the article interesting. It supports my teaching style, which is very interactive. A big caveat to this is that my field is clinical social work/therapy so it is not a surprise that students learn better by doing than by hearing.

 

In the classroom, I will often do a role play in which I am the therapist and a student plays the client. I have no idea how one would implement this in other subjects, though.

 

From a professor's perspective, lecturing tends to put students to sleep or get them daydreaming. If they are interacting in some way, whether it is to answer questions, debate a point, do a roleplay, give feedback or click a remote for a screen, they are forced to stay engaged. An engaged student is clearly going to retain more information than a daydreaming one.

[Snickerdoodle]

Sometimes seasoned profs just do the same stuff they have always done and put very little effort into any of it.

I wonder if some seasoned profs are just jaded from years of shenanigans from the students. I think a lot of profs put up with an unbelievable amount of drama.

[mazakaal]

Yes, note taking is important, but so is interaction. Isn't that what the Socratic method is all about? He certainly didn't just lecture. Having a Socratic discussion would be near to impossible in a lecture all with 300 kids. Maybe this guy's method is just an attempt to make that type of lecture more interactive. I'm not saying it's the end-all and be-all. I'd need a lot more information about it as the article doesn't really describe what the clicker was all about. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand.

[Teachin'Mine]

In a subject that does not require memorization, but conceptual understanding and problem solving, it is rather obvious that you don't learn it by listening to one person lecture, even if the person works examples on the board. I am a physics professor, and that is something I tell students time and time again: they learn by working problems and by engaging in discussions about conceptual questions. Not by watching me do stuff. (Even though this is what they would prefer, because it is less work ;-)

 

This said: it is irrelevant HOW that interaction is accomplished. You don't have to use clickers (I don't, because there is too much technical malfunction to make it worth while.) You can pose a question and give the students a few minutes to discuss with their neighbors before moving to a class discussion. You can add a recitation component to the lectures which focuses problem solving and discussions - this breaks a 300 student class into smaller groups which favors interaction. Involving the students in teaching each other is a valuable tool, because trying to teach a subject greatly enhances understanding - or shows you where you have gaps.

 

There has been a lot of research, not just this one study. And it all confirms that, for physics, a pure lecture is not the best vehicle for learning. So, nothing new here.

If you are interested in this, a name you could look up is Eric Mazur form Harvard; he is a pioneer for learning innovation and has worked extensively on this.

 

Now there are certainly subjects where the situation is different and where a lecture may not require an active component. There are subjects where understanding plays little role and memorization is very important. l don't know about these. But for physics, the article is stating the obvious.

 

ETA: The title is unfair. There is nothing inherently better about using a graduate student. In fact, even for an interactive format, a more experienced teacher is preferable because he will be better able to clear up misconception and conduct the in-depth discussion that arises form the clicker questions. Because some of those conceptual misunderstandings are extremely tricky.

 

I agree!!! I think the ideal is an experienced professor who engages the class and encourages discussion, etc..

 

I also think it's a heck of an assumption they're making based on one week in a physics class. One of the things I love about college classes is that they're taught by people who not only know their subject well, but who have a love for it and their enthusiasm shines through and is contagious. (As has been noted, this isn't always the case.)

 

I just thought this article was interesting. I think about the lack of group discussion my dd has right now because of the way we homeschool. She likes to learn independently from me, and there really isn't anyone else to create that group dynamic. But this article addresses more the interaction which is the way her math and science texts are set up. They are written to the student and show samples and she'll work them herself along with the text checking her work. I don't think she could possibly learn from the text if she wasn't willing to do the problems herself.

 

Regentrude thank you for the info on Eric Mazur. I guess I've been out of the loop on what's going on in colleges and had never heard of "clickers" being used before. I did recall the movie about the California math teacher who taught the students calculus in a highly interactive way. As you said, it makes sense for these types of subjects.

Edited May 13, 2011 by Teachin'Mine

[Teachin'Mine]

I'm sure there's some great articles on Eric Mazur out there, but I found this video showing his class in action. Very impressive!!!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBYrKPoVFwg

 

 

"You can forget facts, but you can not forget understanding."

Edited May 13, 2011 by Teachin'Mine

[ChristineW]

One of the moms in my Mommy and Me class is a grad student at Cal. As a TA, she loves the clickers--she talked about one lecture where in the middle she asked what she was a simple question and 64% of the class got it wrong. She was able to go back and explain the concept in a different way and then 96% of the students answered correctly.

 

Also, I don't have it on hand, but recent research seems to indicate that short practice tests are an effective learning tool.

 

Clickers allow the professor to see what the students understand in real time rather than waiting for the final exam. Students learn through answering the questions. Clickers will never replace discussion in small classes, but they are wonderful for large lecture type classes.

 

Christine

[twoforjoy]

One of the moms in my Mommy and Me class is a grad student at Cal. As a TA, she loves the clickers--she talked about one lecture where in the middle she asked what she was a simple question and 64% of the class got it wrong. She was able to go back and explain the concept in a different way and then 96% of the students answered correctly.

 

The nice thing about clickers, too, is that they would allow a student to give a wrong answer or admit they don't know something without the entire class knowing.

 

Being afraid to appear stupid in front of their peers is a huge issue for many students. I can ask a classroom of students if they were following what I said, and I'll NEVER get anybody shaking their head or admitting they didn't. I have to try to rely on body language. It's very rare for me to have a student who will admit, when the whole class is present, that they don't understand something. I'll occasionally have a student who will come up to me after class or e-mail a question, and I always think how beneficial it would have been for th entire class if they'd asked it in class.

 

I can see a big benefit of the clickers being that an instructor can get immediate, honest feedback, and clear up understanding issues right there. Because if I get a great question asked after class, addressing it in class the next meeting doesn't have the same impact, I don't think, as if I'd been able to answer the question right when I was covering that material. The anonymity of the clicker would free students up to give wrong answers and admit misunderstandings without worrying about what their classmates and instructor will think of them.

[Nan in Mass]

I always think that I would do a better job of teaching if I had experience with the most common misconceptions. I manage with my children but that is because they will talk to me at the first hint of confusion and because my children can be especially imaginative with their misconceptions, but for more ordinary students, there is something to be said for having a teacher who has taught many students and is familiar with the most common mistakes.

 

Some of my big-lecture-hall professors were pretty interactive. They would ask a question or give us a problem and then, after everyone had had a chance to work on it, they would give possible answers and ask for a show of hands. Fairly early on, there were some problems that only a few people in the class answered correctly, so I think most of us were truthful even if it meant not following the herd. Some had us check with our neighbor first, and some had us work with our neighbor. I don't think the interactive lecture being better than droning on completely ignoring the students is a very controversial or new thing.

I'm sure it depends on the subject.

I think a new toy (clicker) and possibly a new teacher would definately wake up a class and make them pay attention for a little while, in any case.

What does graduate student versus professor have to do with this experiment? The experiment appears to be poorly designed. Or at least, poorly represented by the article.

-Nan

[regentrude]

I always think that I would do a better job of teaching if I had experience with the most common misconceptions. I manage with my children but that is because they will talk to me at the first hint of confusion and because my children can be especially imaginative with their misconceptions, but for more ordinary students, there is something to be said for having a teacher who has taught many students and is familiar with the most common mistakes.

 

That is an excellent point, Nan!

I often pose conceptual questions with multiple choices answers in my class. Having taught similar courses for ten years to a few thousand students, I am able to predict with great accuracy which wrong answers will be chosen by a majority of my students, and what exactly is wrong with the reasoning. (And it happens every single semester ;-)

Starting by discussing the WRONG thinking, having students try to defend the wrong point of view, we end up clearing up the misconception - and it is much more efficient than starting by explaining the CORRECT reasoning , because students will simply nod and think they understand.

 

Experience also comes in handy with fully worked examples - because, after several semesters, one has a pretty good idea which mistakes students will make. The typical mistakes are always the same ;-)

[JennyD]

Starting by discussing the WRONG thinking, having students try to defend the wrong point of view, we end up clearing up the misconception - and it is much more efficient than starting by explaining the CORRECT reasoning , because students will simply nod and think they understand.

 

 

Years ago I went to a lecture by a social psychologist who had studied preschool and early elementary education in Japan (Catherine Lewis). She showed a video she had taken of young children doing a science lesson about pendulums -- the teacher just stayed back and gave them a remarkable amount of latitude to pursue a wrong answer. After a great deal of time the kids ultimately figured it out on their own, though, and I can only imagine how much more they learned that way.

 

I usually teach small college classes, but my husband teaches big lecture classes and he is very enthusiastic about the possibilities of the clickers. He calls on students constantly (Socratic-style) but he thinks that the clickers might open up some new and interesting pedagogical possibilities.

[Rosie_0801]

Yes, note taking is important, but so is interaction. Isn't that what the Socratic method is all about? He certainly didn't just lecture. Having a Socratic discussion would be near to impossible in a lecture all with 300 kids.

 

You guys don't have tutorials after your lectures? I took a lot of night classes, so many of my tutes were right after the lecture. In other cases, they were at some other time during the week.

 

I feel sorry for the older professors. They are definitely burnt out from feeling as though the back wall is listening no less than the students. I had one old chap jump through piles of bureaucratic paperwork to be allowed to run a class he hadn't run for years and years during his last year because I asked him to. But he was running lectures that mostly didn't have textbooks and he had written the courses himself.

 

 

Rosie- ex humanities student :tongue_smilie:

[mazakaal]

I didn't have any tutorials at university. I didn't have a lot of 300 student lectures either, though. Most of my classes were smaller and so were interactive. I expect the clickers would be completely unnecessary in those classes.

[Dana]

I didn't have any tutorials at university. I didn't have a lot of 300 student lectures either, though. Most of my classes were smaller and so were interactive. I expect the clickers would be completely unnecessary in those classes.

 

I know a math instructor who uses the clickers in classes that are capped at 30. He likes them because he uses the clickers for quizzes (immediately graded) and for quick checks of student understanding.

[Nan in Mass]

How did your tutorials work? A typical class here (well, the ones I've had) will have three 50 minute lectures a week or two 85 minute lectures. You have a textbook, usually, or a reading list. If the class has a lab, that is run separately, in smaller groups, by a graduate student. If it is a huge class of hundreds, and it is something the students typically have trouble understanding, you might have the option of signing up for a discussion section, an extra class one evening a week led by a grad student who goes over the homework or reading with you and answers questions, usually with 15 or 20 students in it. How does it work where you are?

[Nan in Mass]

Sigh. As I suspected. One of the things I liked best about NEM math was that there were sometimes class excersizes that hit many of the different ways a lesson could be interpreted. By the time we had worked through them, we had covered most of the possible misinterpretations. That made my job so much easier.

[Rosie_0801]

If you're talking to me, Nan, our humanities classes were a 2 hour lecture and an hour tutorial per week. How the tute ran depended on the professor or grad student in charge. We were expected to have done our reading prep. Some gave multiple choice quizzes in the first few minutes which added up to 10% of our grade. The good teachers directed the discussion, more or less extracting thoughts out of the students, or filled up the silence with an interesting lecture. I think it was very difficult for them because most of the students, particularly the first years were sitting there very quietly because they hadn't yet figured out what exactly they were there to learn. Few knew how to discuss anything, so there really were some very silent lectures and I had one jerk of a tutor who really would just sit there and do nothing to stimulate conversation. Thank goodness he was the only bad tutor I ever had! In larger tutes, the tutor usually divided us into groups (noisy!!) assigned a question to discuss we related back to the whole class afterwards. That made it easier because most people find it easier to talk to half a dozen than a class of 30 (tute sizes varied a lot.) In tutes where there really wasn't anyone cleverer than myself, I usually talked just to fill up space. I was a few years older than most of the others and was past caring whether I sounded like an idiot. Someone talking is a relief to tutor and other students alike :lol:

 

I would say nearly all students were stuck in grammar stage learning through first year and into second. Classes had a mixture of second and third year students so I'm not sure if third year students were still operating that way because I wouldn't know what year they were unless I'd had classes with them before. By third year, I was choosing subjects based on the professor because I was completely over subjects where I was obliged to choose essay questions from a list and was not allowed to write my own.

 

Rosie