[delayed post]
So day 2. Apparently this is a record cold day for Portland - it was about -7C this morning (worse with windchill) - needless to say I didn't go outside and certainly didn't join the conference attendees that were going for a jog - morons. I guess there are all types though - people like me who sleep til 7 then have breakfast, and those who don't but rather strap on their jogging suits and hop around in the freezing cold along a river bank.
I saw another interesting student talk this morning. Grad student this time. She spoke about college maths faculty at research 1 (ie top level research...like our Group of 8 kind of) universities and their efforts and interest in improving their teaching. She had just completed a pilot study and run into problems such as very low response rate etc. But it was interesting nonetheless to think about the fact that we really don't get training in how to teach. Basically you just get the *opportunity* to go in front of the class and you figure it out as you go. I know at QUT we have our tutor training day, but really, compare that with the years of training you need to be a teacher and you start to see what I mean. University students are just as diverse (if not moreso) than school students - it makes you think whether there should really be more training in how to teach. Still - while there are some absolutely shocking lecturers, some people do just fine without any training.
My talk was just before lunch. I think I mentioned yesterday it was almost the same as the CRA talk I gave at QANZIAM last year. Apparently it went well - Darryl said so, and I trust him :-) It was interesting to see the reaction to my (in my opinion friendly and not cynical) explanation of the policies and procedures that we are subject to when teaching at QUT (in particular, with regards to assessment, unit outlines, etc).
So...now to write the full paper.
Although most people do a good job without training, I think that we are inflexible in our methods and aren't exposed to different ideas about teaching large classes, accommodating people from NESBs and using alternative modes of delivery. The problem with this, at least in maths, is that there doesn't seem to be a lot of research done on these issues across all year levels (stronger focus on first year) and subject areas. The thing is that the aim of the course changes from first year (where it's imparting knowledge and good habits) to fourth year (where you're trying to foster independent thinking, critical skills, and a self-motivated interest in the course). Not really sure where I'm going her... babbling slightly, but you probably get my point.
ReplyDeleteYeah - true that. Your point at the end about the aim changing is so true. We were talking about this also - the difference between transmission of information/techniques etc and then the building or constructing of students' abilities to create their own mathematics.
ReplyDeleteInteresting comments about the teaching of lecturers on how to teach. Dann u are treading a well worn path as that has been talked about for at least three decades now and certainly back in the days when QUT was QIT! One day in the distance future someone may do something about it.
ReplyDeleteOn the other side of the coin, I've done some guest teaching at schools and some of the teachers I've worked with and listened to were worse than me and they have spent a year doing a Dip Ed!!
A correction "One day in the distance future..." should read "One day in the distant future...". Oooops.
ReplyDeleteQUT is introducing a GradCert in Academic Practice that all new staff have to take...I think it's at least partly about learning about teaching and students and undertaking at least basic research in teaching. It'll be interesting to see how it goes.
ReplyDeleteYes it will be interesting to see how that course goes. However there are no guarantees, which was my point above.
ReplyDeleteThere are good lecturers/teachers who haven't had any "teaching" education and there are bad lecturers/teachers who have completed a Dip Ed or similar course. For years I've tried to analyse why this happens. During my degree and now during the Masters I think one of the contributing aspects for a good lecturer is that they have a love for teaching. I wasn't mature enough to pick it during my degree many years ago, but looking back some years later I was able to evaluate them and work out who had that desire. I used to think about that when I sat through many boring IT courses during my working life. If u think Maths lecturers need a help, then sit through a 1- or 2- or 3-day IT course, most are as boring as batshit (and only a Zoologist would find the last item interesting :). The lecturers were technically competent, but woeful as teachers. In fact they were only giving the course because of their technical competence - they are the last people to give the talk! Also as much as it pains me to say it the younger the lecturer the poorer the teacher. Though of course there are exceptions.
When doing my Maths degree at QIT we had to complete a communications subject part of which was giving an oral presentation to the class. Well back then I hated talking in front of an audience, I couldn't do it. In the end I gave a dreadful talk because I was I told I would fail the subject if I didn't. However I do remember a talk to this day that one chap gave on "skinny dipping" and it was hilarious and he was just a natural presenter. He was younger than I at the time and was about 18. So there are exceptions.
Over the years I've developed a love for teaching and carried out a lot of it with QUT students as part of an industry exchange program that my employer was involved with from 1988-1999. I learnt a lot in those years.
Other teachers (though I think a minority) are just "natural born teachers" as opposed to "natural born killers", though some teachers would prefer to be the latter ;-). Michael Faraday had little formal education, no tertiary education, was an assistant in a laboratory and became one of the most distinguished lecturers of the London Scientific society in the early 19th century. I think he was a natural.
There are many other issues I believe (like learning, ability etc) , so perhaps we can talk about them sometime. That way it will stop my rambling now. :)
Hope that is of some help.
Gordon