Dear Tipsters,
Jim Clark considers the case of learning APA format.
I think that this raises the interesting question about the best and worst
teaching styles for different kinds of content and different learning goals.
Surely a structured approach is better for highly structured content (e.g., APA
format, statistics). On the other hand, a more open-ended and possibly even
"confusion" approach may be better when the goal is to help students be
original and come to personal conclusions about controversial issues.
I wonder whether Fish considers disciplines beyond his own. In psychology, we
have to teach a wide variety of things: for example, straight facts (e.g.,
nervous system), theories, statistical reasoning, writing style/format and
applications to solve practical problems about others and yourself.
I think that the Fish confusion model would only apply only in a small number
of places in psychology.
Sincerely,
Stuart
___________________________________________________________________________
"Floreat Labore"
"Recti cultus pectora roborant"
Stuart J. McKelvie, Ph.D., Phone: 819 822 9600 x 2402
Department of Psychology, Fax: 819 822 9661
Bishop's University,
2600 rue College,
Sherbrooke,
Québec J1M 1Z7,
Canada.
E-mail: [email protected] (or [email protected])
Bishop's University Psychology Department Web Page:
http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy
Floreat Labore"
___________________________________________________________________________
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Clark [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: June 23, 2010 12:59 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: Re: [tips] Deep in the Heart of Texas - Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com
Hi
First, I strongly agree that the proposed Texas policy is deeply misguided.
Giving $10k on the basis of course evaluations would produce all kinds of
nefarious behavior on the part of unscrupulous faculty (not any of us, of
course!), even if those behaviors are NOT the primary or even a major
contributor to evaluations. The mere belief that they increase evaluations
would be enough. And of course some unsavory things do help (e.g., giving out
chocolates during the evaluations). Of course, once everyone practices such
things or the practices are disallowed, any differential effect is lost.
Second, Fish is factually incorrect about a number of things (for the things I
cite here and below, Harry Murray from Western Ontario where I did my graduate
work is the primary source ... Harry is a former learning person who early on
turned his interests and talents to course evaluations). University student
evaluations obtained AFTER graduation correlate very highly with evaluations
obtained in class. It is perhaps worth remembering that Fish's earlier
article, the basis for the second article, were comments from people about the
High School level. Even there, I am not as confident as Fish appears to be
that properly designed student evaluations would fail to identify accurately
teachers who better taught material that students were less than thrilled with
(parsing sentences anyone?). Murray also trained graduate students to sit in
on classes and rate the teachers (no grades or other biases involved for them).
The graduate student ratings correlated highly with the in-class ratings. I'm
always surprised by hyper-critics of course evaluations (not that the
evaluations are flaw-free), especially psychologists. It would almost seem to
be an ideal situation for the evaluation of psychological traits (like clarity,
organization, stimulating interest, ...) ... you have a relatively large number
of individuals with multiple exposures to the target person (and multiple
comparison individuals carrying out the same activity, teaching) generally
asked to assess a number of relatively concrete traits (aptitudes, behaviors,
whatever). Wouldn't it be great to have similar situations in which to
evaluate a whole host of psychological traits? Often the best we can do is
seek peer or family evaluations.
Third, on Scott's question about the trajectory of course evaluations. One
perhaps relevant observation that Murray (and I presume others) have observed
is increased evaluations across repeated teaching of a course. So certainly
experience appears to help. Things do get more complicated when different
stages of career are considered, as one may be teaching different courses,
student cohorts change with time, content may change, and so on. I don't know
if anyone has tried to tease these things apart.
Fourth, I agree strongly that a balanced approach to "confusion" is essential
for what university students should be learning. As one perhaps
over-simplified example that pops up here now and then, consider APA writing
style. At what point should university students be simply told "use APA style"
and then left to their own devices to find out what it entails and to adopt the
requisite practices? Is an opportunity to develop some higher competency lost
if we elegantly structure a series of steps and exercises that lead to proper
APA style in our students? It is an interesting question how these two
approaches would impact course evaluations ... perhaps differently for some
items (clarity) than others (helps to learn skills)? Another pressure to
provide clear instructions and steps is that it is often easier for us, as well
as the students. That is, explicitly teaching proper APA style is probably
more efficient than having students try to figure it out and providing them
with guidance and corrective feedback. One great benefit of the internet is
undoubtedly the ready access to a huge storehouse of information about numerous
skills students need to acquire, perhaps (because of all the "wrong"
information available) making the delegation of responsibility to students more
feasible.
Take care
Jim
James M. Clark
Professor of Psychology
204-786-9757
204-774-4134 Fax
[email protected]
>>> "Christopher D. Green" <[email protected]> 22-Jun-10 12:36:56 PM >>>
Stanley Fish tells us why student course evaluations (and other
immediate forms of teacher "assessment") are of limited value.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/21/deep-in-the-heart-of-texas/?hp
Socrates got it right: Before you can figure out what is true, you have
to first dismantle what you think you know.
Put another way, there are no blank slates. Students come into classes
with beliefs and assumptions. They may not like you challenging those --
and may mark you down on evaluations for trying -- but that's your job.
If you're a real teacher, it may be your calling.
Chris
--
Christopher D. Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
Canada
416-736-2100 ex. 66164
[email protected]
http://www.yorku.ca/christo/
==========================
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a891720c9&n=T&l=tips&o=3224
or send a blank email to
leave-3224-13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a89172...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13510.2cc18398df2e6692fffc29a610cb72e3&n=T&l=tips&o=3253
or send a blank email to
leave-3253-13510.2cc18398df2e6692fffc29a610cb7...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=3256
or send a blank email to
leave-3256-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
