How does one teach both efficiently and effectively?

[ygolo]

I am looking for ideas.

For Students:

• What are the things teachers have done for you that have really helped you learn?
• What are the things teachers have done that didn't do anything to help you learn?
• What are the things teachers have done that actually hindered your learning process?

For Teachers:

• What are the things that you have done that seemed most effective?
• What are things that you have done that have seemed like wastes of time?
• What are some things you done that seem to confuse or misinform students?

The tl;dr crowd can stop here, if you want. But if you want more details about context, see below.

------
Note, I want ideas, but I am also asking for practical reasons, so keep the following scenarios in mind.

Scenario 1
Say that you have only 20 hours a week to help about 45 students learn a quarter's worth of general chemistry concepts in about 11 weeks. (You have to keep it under that time limit because you have another 40 hour a week job, doing research, and are also taking 12 to 18 credits of coursework.) This is your first time being a TA for this class. You believe you have a decent mastery of the material, but you may not have thought about these things since high school.

Keep in mind many of the hours are dedicated already:

• You have to have 2 hours of discussion a week (one hour for each of two sections, where each section has 20-24 students). You don't get to decide when or where they are. The students are not required to attend. You get to decide the style and content of the discussions...and I suppose this is where your suggestions will be most helpful.
  
• You have to have 2 hours of office hours. You do get to decide when they are (assuming the room is open), but not where they are. Anyone can drop by to ask questions regarding chemistry (Well, they'll ask all sorts of questions you may be able to answer, but if others are waiting to see you, you need to keep it focused on chemistry)
  
• You have 6 hours of lab supervision (3 hours for each section). Lab is not usually a good time to teach concepts for many reasons:
  • The students are required to attend, and you need to keep track of attendance. This is easy once you know the students, but the first couple of weeks, especially since students often come in late, I at least, needed to keep an attendance sheet.
  • You are required to give an overview of the lab, which takes time, but the lab-work itself will usually take almost the whole three hours. If we don't give the presentation, invariably many students do the procedures incorrectly (even when we do, many still do weird things).
  • Students have to pass a pre-laboratory quiz (mostly geared towards safety during lab) before beginning lab. If they fail, I have to give them another one, and if they keep failing, I need to send them home because they would be a danger to themselves or others.
  • I have to make sure they are properly dressed and have the appropriate safety goggles without modification (some do try to modify them because they fog up). If there are problems regarding safety, again, I need to send them home.
  • Students need to have read and understood the lab procedure and written a summary in their notebook before lab. We don't send people home if this is incomplete, but we're supposed to dock major points (like 70% of the grade for that lab). Preparation is key for both safety and doing good science.
  • The lab is usually packed, with about 22 students, many doing things that could potentially harm themselves (despite warnings to not to do these things). You do not have time to answer in-depth question during lab, because your first priority is safety. You can answer simple conceptual questions, and simpler things like "where is the Sodium Thiosulfate?" But if you spend too much time to diagnose why an experiment is not getting expected results (something I really enjoy, BTW), someone else may be ready to spill acid on themselves or their lab partners.
  • You also have to make sure things are clean at the end of the lab-time because another lab starts in that room in 10 minutes.
• Every week, you have an hour long meeting with all the TAs discussing the lab for next week, what the MSDS says about the chemicals in use that week, the grading policies for that lab, and what students have typically been confused about regarding the lab in the past.
• Your own attendance of the main instructors lecture is not required. If you go, that is another 3 hours a week. However, I am not sure how you can really dovetail your discussions with what is taught in lecture if you don't go. How will you know if the main instructor glazed over something important, or stressed something you had previously thought as trivial? How will you know if (s)he is running ahead or behind schedule? How will you know if students were still confused about something in lecture that you also covered in discussion?

So that gives you 9 hours a week for preparation of materials for discussion/labs, thinking about or planning what you will do, grading, and responding to student e-mails (or, if you attend lecture, 6 hours a week).

Proctoring, grading, and handling regrades of midterms (2 midterms) is about a 6 hour commitment per midterm, and the final is about a 10 hour commitment.

Scenario 2
Similar to above, except you now have only 24 students, but only 6 weeks. It is a different quarter of general chemistry being taught so you cannot reuse/revise materials you've already made.

The committed hours per week are only slightly less, however.

You have a two hour discussion with just one section, and a 5 hour lab period for one section (the students do two labs per week). Again, 2 office hours for which you decide when, but not where. No weekly meeting with other TAs, but this means you have to look up the MSDS info, and coordinate fairness in grading yourself. The lecture, again, optional for TAs, is 6 hours a week.

So, this time, you have 11 hours a week of unassigned time dedicated for teaching duties (or 5 hours/week if you attend lectures).

Scenario 3
Similar to scenario two, but for Organic Chemistry. Consider, in addition, that you are not a chemist by training, and may have just been assigned there because you passed a test and the university is really short on people.

--------
To provide the context of why I am asking, I give part of a couple of my blog posts:

[...]My students said they found my discussions disorganized, hard to follow, too high-level, overly complicated, impractical, or not very useful (Though they did appreciate that I genuinely cared about them and their learning, and believed I was very knowledgable).

[...]
Teaching.
This is frankly what cratered me last quarter. It is nominally supposed to be a 15-20 hour/week job. I spent 30+ hours/week on it. I realize that I am not the actual instructor for the class, but simply an "assistant". However, I was leading discussion, and supervising labs for two of the sections. When I was in undergrad, I really found the problem solving and labs to be much more instructive than lecture. I felt a responsibility to actually teach and have students understand. However, I think most of the students were in the "i don't care about learning. Just tell me what hoops to jump through to get the right answers on the exam" mode.

This is troubling for two reasons:

• I have never, ever, in my entire time as a student, been the type of student that simply asked "So what do I do to get the correct answer?" without first trying my best to figure it out myself. I simply cannot relate to a student who takes that stance. For what possible reason would you want to become an automaton? It is both less fun, and less effective to memorize algorithms before conceptual understanding. Sure, practicing an algorithm is necessary, but only after you've understood why it works.
• I don't know how to motivate my students to think for themselves. I have some ideas, and I read Jennifer Cromely's report, and I may try a few things in there. I've even read up on Lev Vygotsky's ideas on scaffolding and the Zone of Proximal Development. But I need to come up with a concrete plan. In fact, I may even start a thread on it. I really need to figure how to teach well, and be able to do it in under 20 hours/week.

Then there is the amusing prospect of being a TA for second quarter Organic Chemistry in summer session II having never even officially taken first quarter Organic Chemistry. I guess that's what I get for learning on my own and being a good test taker. Haha.

One challenge at a time though

 

[Metamorphosis]

My input mostly applies to the tl;dr part, as I have pretty much no lab experience.

1. Assume that everyone is not genuinely interested in learning what you have to teach.
2. Also note that, most likely, not everyone will have done whatever required work you assigned outside of class.
3. Always have some key points. "If you take away nothing else from this class, remember this..." kind of thing.
4. Summarize key points at the end of class because people will have forgotten any number of the minor details already, especially by the next class.
5. Show why what you are teaching is important. A lot of people will be wondering why they need to know what you're teaching, and they won't make any attempt to remember it unless you can tell them why they should. Getting a good grade normally isn't a good enough reason.
6. Praise the people that perform and call out the people that clearly don't care. If people are afraid that you will call them out on things they should have done, in front of everyone, they'll be more likely to at least give the work a cursory glance, because no one likes looking incompetent.
7. Unless you want everyone to hate you, don't get long winded, especially towards the end of class.
8. Involve the class in discussion as much as possible.

#3, #5 and #8 make the biggest difference for me

 

[Usehername]

I can't relate to someone who doesn't try to problem solve it first on their own...

I'm a college instructor and I started out as a chemistry undergrad. A really important piece of research I'd ask you to consider is this:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-science-success/201101/the-trouble-bright-girls

[Research has found that] bright girls believe that their abilities are innate and unchangeable, while bright boys believe that they can develop ability through effort and practice.

How do girls and boys develop these different views? Most likely, it has to do with the kinds of feedback we get from parents and teachers as young children. Girls, who develop self-control earlier and are better able to follow instructions, are often praised for their "goodness." When we do well in school, we are told that we are "so smart," "so clever, " or " such a good student." This kind of praise implies that traits like smartness, cleverness, and goodness are qualities you either have or you don't.

Boys, on the other hand, are a handful. Just trying to get boys to sit still and pay attention is a real challenge for any parent or teacher. As a result, boys are given a lot more feedback that emphasizes effort (e.g., "If you would just pay attention you could learn this," "If you would just try a little harder you could get it right.") The net result: when learning something new is truly difficult, girls take it as sign that they aren't "good" and "smart", and boys take it as a sign to pay attention and try harder.

We continue to carry these beliefs, often unconsciously, around with us throughout our lives. And because bright girls are particularly likely to see their abilities as innate and unchangeable, they grow up to be women who are far too hard on themselves - women who will prematurely conclude that they don't have what it takes to succeed in a particular arena, and give up way too soon.

I am a hard worker and I'm bright and I value education, but it legitimately never occurred to me that if I tried to think through a problem I might solve it. I used to be able to just "see" and just "know" things without having to cogitate on them in any sort of effortful way. Then I got to a certain level of difficulty, and I logically assumed I had maxed out my intelligence and everyone around me must be smarter.

Given the unconscious socializing going on in the quoted above, I would encourage you to consider the kind of explicit deprogramming you're going to have to do for your girls (I'm sure there are some boys in that category too). It makes logical sense that they think they can't do it, and it's not an attitude problem, it's the unconscious socializing.

Tell them it's hard, and that you are certain every single one of them in the class can do it. Tell them that you have failed to understand things and found a way through them, and you expect this same effort from them, ***because this kind of knowledge is not inherent***.

Then I'd make a caveat that every office hour visit must be accompanied with some evidence of having tried the problem on your own, and affirm that this is the work that needs to be done to get to the goal. I used to feel ashamed that I couldn't "see" it and it didn't occur to me that my professors would value the work process that necessarily includes failure. I thought they would recognize that I didn't have what it takes to succeed in their class. Tell them that you actually want to see failure because this is part of the process that they need to learn to trust.

 

[ygolo]

My input mostly applies to the tl;dr part, as I have pretty much no lab experience.

1. Assume that everyone is not genuinely interested in learning what you have to teach.
2. Also note that, most likely, not everyone will have done whatever required work you assigned outside of class.
3. Always have some key points. "If you take away nothing else from this class, remember this..." kind of thing.
4. Summarize key points at the end of class because people will have forgotten any number of the minor details already, especially by the next class.
5. Show why what you are teaching is important. A lot of people will be wondering why they need to know what you're teaching, and they won't make any attempt to remember it unless you can tell them why they should. Getting a good grade normally isn't a good enough reason.
6. Praise the people that perform and call out the people that clearly don't care. If people are afraid that you will call them out on things they should have done, in front of everyone, they'll be more likely to at least give the work a cursory glance, because no one likes looking incompetent.
7. Unless you want everyone to hate you, don't get long winded, especially towards the end of class.
8. Involve the class in discussion as much as possible.

#3, #5 and #8 make the biggest difference for me

Makes sense. But I think this is more applicable to a lecture. I suppose that I can make discussion a second lecture, but I think that way is ineffective.

They are not required to attend, so I am not sure why they would show up and not be interested.

I can't assign work, so there is nothing to call people out on it.

I tell them that is absolutely essential that they work problems from the book and come in with questions about what they cannot solve or have trouble with. Otherwise, I am just guessing at what they don't understand.

My first discussion session, I gave only a small overview of the course (10 minutes, the subjects we'll cover, and how to think about chemical equilibrium and thermodynamics as one subject), then a little bit of an overview of heat capacity, and calorimetery (again, about 10 minutes) and then had them work in groups to solve a very basic calorimetery problem, one they would need to solve for their post-lab (but with actual data) and should have been able to solve based on what was covered in lecture. It took them a long time, while I gave hints, and only one group actually solved it. I then asked one from the group that did solve it, to go to the board and explain it to the rest of the class.

Apparently, they disliked this, and thought it was impractical. Half of them did not show up the next-time.

The second discussion, I geared towards emphasizing dimensional analysis. All the questions I was getting in office hours showed that students didn't understand dimensions (you know, that volume is length cubed, speed is a unit length per unit time, and so on). To them, dimensional analysis, seemed like throwing random unit conversion factors on the page, till they could cross things out. (Which parallels the problem solving strategy many use of trying random equations that have the variables they think they need in it). I emphasized to them that there is systematic way that these things are related, and that one system of units, for instance, the SI, should be use as their main set of units that they think in, and that even within that there are base and derived units, and that whenever they encounter a new unit, they should be able to convert it onto the ones they know, so that it is familiar to them. I showed them that being able to think this way, makes more than half of the formulas in the class too obvious to even be worth remembering. I even told them that this will be useful to them no matter which field of science or engineering the go into. I had them solve one simple problem, which the students were able to do fairly easily (I mentioned that I knew grad students who couldn't solve it). Then I gave them a problem to ponder based on estimates, and said, if you can do that one, that they have probably understood dimensional analysis fairly well.

Apparently, this was too high-level, overly complicated, confusing, and again, impractical.

Anyways, I experimented with methods, and the style that the students said they liked the most, was me just in front of the board, solving lots of problems. One session, I got the impression they were just picking random problems form the book or practice exams.

I had mixed feelings about this. I was happy the students finally liked what I was trying. But I don't think people learn how to solve formal problems by watching other people do it. Humans are generally good observational learners, but formal problem solving involves understanding and reasoning to get a solution. Most of what needs to be done isn't observable...it needs to be experienced personally.

 

[ygolo]

I'm a college instructor and I started out as a chemistry undergrad. A really important piece of research I'd ask you to consider is this:



I am a hard worker and I'm bright and I value education, but it legitimately never occurred to me that if I tried to think through a problem I might solve it. I used to be able to just "see" and just "know" things without having to cogitate on them in any sort of effortful way. Then I got to a certain level of difficulty, and I logically assumed I had maxed out my intelligence and everyone around me must be smarter.

Given the unconscious socializing going on in the quoted above, I would encourage you to consider the kind of explicit deprogramming you're going to have to do for your girls (I'm sure there are some boys in that category too). It makes logical sense that they think they can't do it, and it's not an attitude problem, it's the unconscious socializing.

Tell them it's hard, and that you are certain every single one of them in the class can do it. Tell them that you have failed to understand things and found a way through them, and you expect this same effort from them, ***because this kind of knowledge is not inherent***.

Then I'd make a caveat that every office hour visit must be accompanied with some evidence of having tried the problem on your own, and affirm that this is the work that needs to be done to get to the goal. I used to feel ashamed that I couldn't "see" it and it didn't occur to me that my professors would value the work process that necessarily includes failure. I thought they would recognize that I didn't have what it takes to succeed in their class. Tell them that you actually want to see failure because this is part of the process that they need to learn to trust.

Actually, I was quite familiar with the Mind Set research, and the difference between "be good" and "get better" motivations.

However, I had forgotten that there was a gender difference, but I do remember it now, because Carol Dweck's book is what got be introduced to the notion. Funny you should mention it, because I had formed a study group which had some rather bright women in it (one was the high scorer on the entrance diagnostic exams for our year). But she also seemed like the type that gave up too easily despite being hardworking, disciplined, and very bright. She was concerned that she didn't have the "heart" to do well in grad school, which I found troubling. I tried to convince her that it was just a simple matter of mindset. Hopefully, I convinced her of it.

I am not really sure what the student's motivations were. Many were definitely hard working. Many showed up consistently to office hours and discussions.

But, I also got the feeling that despite what I told them, their troubles with the subject matter were exactly the same as when I started.

Keep in mind that these are the good students, who showed up to office hours and discussions, and at least seemed to be working hard, but I believe they represent the problems many of the students were struggling with, and I wasn't effective in helping with...

• One, always wanted the full algorithm for finding a solution to a problem. I tried hard to impress upon her that although you need an organized approach, that there is never going to be a handbook to solve all types of formal problems in the course, and that the professors make up these problems to test understanding, not to see if you have memorized a solution process.
  
• Another, though very diligent and hard-working, could not get dimensional analysis straight. I am not sure what more I could have done, or how I can explain how important it is.
  
• Another, could not get stoichiometry (not understanding stoichiometry almost guarantees doing poorly in chemistry). I gave her a technique of visualizing smaller amounts to see if she can figure out what was the limiting reagent, and how much of one compound is produced or used in a reaction. This seemed to be a 100% successful technique for her to use in matters of stoichiometry, but every time she came across a problem that required it, she'd struggle, and I would have to remind her about visualizing smaller amounts.
  
• Pretty much all my students didn't like mental estimation/calculation. I tried to tell them, that they really need to know what to expect from their calculator before they get it, and that the chances that they would make the same mistakes mentally as when using the calculator are much smaller than if they do just one or the other (not that any of them do mental estimation). I hope none of these students grow up to design things that people's lives depend on. Or at least would have gotten used to checking the answers of computational devices before they get to that point.

 

[Eileen]

Ugh. First of all, it sounds like you simply don't have enough time to teach--but I may not be very efficient (or teaching chem may be different from teaching English). In any case, to be effective, I am SURE--as you are--that students have to be working problems themselves in front of you.

Usehername has good points, particularly about creating a supportive environment that acknowledges that it doesn't come automatically and also holding students accountable for practicing on their own and coming in having engaged with the material. Funny, this is the second time this summer I've come across Dweck's name; I was hoping to work on a writing project with a guy who uses her research a good deal in helping people prepare for standardized tests.

Sometimes when I had a limited time with students, I'd have a list of concepts or issues and I'd just ask them to assess how much they needed help on those and help them through exercises related to their needs as they identify them. This didn't always work because sometimes the kids were clueless about everything or didn't know what they didn't know. I hope that is less the case in an undergrad chem class than it was in a ninth grade English class, though.

Personally, I really believe in having students learn from each other as much as possible--so maybe identifying your strong/motivated students and grouping the others around them? Again, I'm not that efficient a teacher--this is a principle of mine, that classrooms are communities and students learn from each other. However, it seems like it *should* be efficient, in my opinion. You could be circulating during that time and observing patterns where they get stuck, and then you could address those patterns.

Hmm. Good luck.

 

[Such Irony]

Having been on both sides of the student-teacher spectrum I'll answer both sets.

For Students:

[*]What are the things teachers have done for you that have really helped you learn?

Allow me to ask questions and not feel stupid.

Encourage me to follow my interests. If there is a research paper, I have alot of leeway as to the kind of topic to choose.

Clear on what I'm supposed to learn and why its important.



[*]What are the things teachers have done that didn't do anything to help you learn?

Busywork
Not allowing for questions
Humiliating students
Not knowing the significance of the stuff being taught
Presenting material too fast or too slow


[*]What are the things teachers have done that actually hindered your learning process?

See above question



For Teachers:

[*]What are the things that you have done that seemed most effective?

Allow students to ask questions

Allow students time for reflection and to practice material being learned

Try to make the material interesting- use a variety of approaches such as audio-visual, lecture, discussion, group work, reflection, etc.


[*]What are things that you have done that have seemed like wastes of time?

Tendency to lecture too much.

Unrealistically high expectations. Hate having to explain the same things over and over.

I spend waaaay tooo much time grading assignments.


[*]What are some things you done that seem to confuse or misinform students?

I didn't do it deliberately but I think the biggest criticism students had of my teaching was that they thought I went over their heads. I presented the material too quickly, was too theoretical without enough real-world examples. Sometimes I didn't spell out the expectations clearly enough.

 

[Orangey]

• One, always wanted the full algorithm for finding a solution to a problem. I tried hard to impress upon her that although you need an organized approach, that there is never going to be a handbook to solve all types of formal problems in the course, and that the professors make up these problems to test understanding, not to see if you have memorized a solution process.

I don't have any constructive advice to offer here, but I can sympathize with the frustration that comes when you run into these types of students...the ones who act like they need guides for everything or else they won't be able to function in the world. I would usually just buckle and give them stricter instructions/parameters/rules to memorize, because I honestly think they might need some sort of cognitive re-training to rid them of that kind of need for security, but you can't really do that with your subject. Then again, I wasn't a great teacher, so there's probably a simpler solution.

Sometimes I didn't spell out the expectations clearly enough.

Perhaps it's true that you were bad about this, but often I find that the students are just stupid and either don't listen or have some sort of mental deficiency. I mean, spelling out expectations is one of the simpler things that you do as a teacher, and usually it's required that you lay them out in written form AND talk about it extensively, so unless you were highly incompetent - which I doubt - then I tend to blame the students for simply being (bafflingly) dumb.

I mean, honestly, when you distribute syllabi with assignment expectations and grading policies on them (which most likely have to be approved by a supervisor/advising professor/some such superior), talk about them in class, THEN distribute individual assignment sheets and talk about them again, you really shouldn't be getting a constant stream of emails asking about expectations (which happened to me and most of my fellow TAs on a regular basis, to the point that I decided to modify my email policy so that it basically said, "do not contact me unless for X, X, or X reasons. Anything else will be ignored.")

As Student:

• What are the things teachers have done for you that have really helped you learn?

The most effective thing for me was the teacher's ability to relate the course material to broader contexts. So, I liked when they would go on tangents and really stress the grandeur of the subject. It made me understand the importance of what I was learning and inspired me to learn about it independently. Also, whole-class discussions were very effective for me because (1) they demystified everyone else's levels of knowledge (so that I could no longer reasonably think that I was unprepared for the class, or somehow behind or slow), and (2) they kept me accountable - I had to make sure that I fully understood something well enough to articulate myself in front of a large group.

• What are the things teachers have done that didn't do anything to help you learn?

PowerPoint and small group activities.

• What are the things teachers have done that actually hindered your learning process?

I don't know, I never allowed teachers to have that much influence over my own learning process. But I suppose the usual would be bad...prejudice, "playing favorites," being incompetent in general.

As Teacher:

• What are the things that you have done that seemed most effective?

Mostly things which stressed group accountability. Stuff like organizing physical space such that the students had to look at one another when they spoke, and immediate peer-evaluation (it seems harsh at first, but kids really do like to impress one another.) I've never seen kids so well read as when they knew they would have to otherwise face humiliation in front of their peers.

• What are things that you have done that have seemed like wastes of time?

Small group activities. Sometimes deliberately (yes, I'm guilty of that shit.)

• What are some things you done that seem to confuse or misinform students?

When I first started, I (rather stupidly) thought it would be a good idea to draw out nifty little diagrams to help explain some of the more difficult concepts. I was even so generous as to use my personal printing allotment to print out fancy ones to use as a study aid for the big exams. Apparently, not everyone was able to follow, despite my long explanations. In fact, I would say most were not able to follow, so I concluded that I was wrong and they were a retarded idea.

 

[Trunks]

i'll make it short. i like to give supports and inspire to my ex student, I follow manual when teach them (depends on the situations). Plus, I do listen to their problem. there were few ways to gain their interest, by demo, charts and music.

 

[FDG]

Well, from my lazy-european-POV, it sounds like you simply don't have enough time to do what you're supposed to do. I know 2 people who work as a research and teaching assistant and they have to teach 20hrs per month. Why is the US so hard on its scientists?

 

[Eileen]

When I first started, I (rather stupidly) thought it would be a good idea to draw out nifty little diagrams to help explain some of the more difficult concepts. I was even so generous as to use my personal printing allotment to print out fancy ones to use as a study aid for the big exams. Apparently, not everyone was able to follow, despite my long explanations. In fact, I would say most were not able to follow, so I concluded that I was wrong and they were a retarded idea.

Orangey, what do/did you teach? Also, I did this "nifty little diagrams" business too. I loved doing it. I took great joy in it. But they didn't work.

 

[Orangey]

Orangey, what do/did you teach? Also, I did this "nifty little diagrams" business too. I loved doing it. I took great joy in it. But they didn't work.

Haha! I did teach public speaking and mass communications process (basically intro to history of media and media criticism.) The latter required more diagrams - or so I thought. It's so sad after you spend several hours making a really awesome, completely logical (if perhaps overly-detailed) diagram only to have it thrown back in your face as "not helpful" and "too confusing." Especially after you've just spent two class sessions trying to verbally explain the same thing to no avail...usually some cursory/abridged version of a Gramsci/Althusser/Baudrillard/McLuhan/some other nutbag paper that the prof - from the safety of his detached position - thought would be a good idea to assign the muddle-headed children as reading. You just start to despair!

From experience, I think the maximum number of elements you can reasonably expect the kids to understand at one time is three. If you have a diagram, it can't be more complicated than a triangle. If you have an outline, no more than three bolded categories. And if you have instructions, no more than three steps can be involved.

 

[Usehername]

From experience, I think the maximum number of elements you can reasonably expect the kids to understand at one time is three. If you have a diagram, it can't be more complicated than a triangle. If you have an outline, no more than three bolded categories. And if you have instructions, no more than three steps can be involved.

I agree.

Also: if you give verbal instructions, 1/3 of the class will not hear it. Yet if you talk to them one on one and give them direct guidance, they'll say, "oh, I remember you saying that, I just didn't see how it applied to me, but now I do."

So I've found it helpful to give these anecdotes as pre-emptive past experiences in a "haha you guys aren't this clueless, are you?" way. They're extra motivated to give the required attention that will help them link things together.
If you give them a direct benchmark and expect them to be better than your past students, most will rise.

I've learned to not be afraid of what seems to be excessive repetition, especially from multiple mediums.

 

[ygolo]

Well, from my lazy-european-POV, it sounds like you simply don't have enough time to do what you're supposed to do. I know 2 people who work as a research and teaching assistant and they have to teach 20hrs per month. Why is the US so hard on its scientists?

It varies from department to department. My friend who TA's in the physics department only has to grade homeworks and exams. No labs. No discussions.

I just so happen to work for one of the biggest (if not THE biggest) Chemistry programs in the country. We're like the WalMart/McDonalds of teaching chemistry.

 

[ygolo]

I've learned to not be afraid of what seems to be excessive repetition, especially from multiple mediums.

I guess that's the main thing to remember.

 

[ygolo]

Ugh. First of all, it sounds like you simply don't have enough time to teach--but I may not be very efficient (or teaching chem may be different from teaching English). In any case, to be effective, I am SURE--as you are--that students have to be working problems themselves in front of you.

Well, it was my first time.

I had read-up on what was most effective, and asked people who had TA'd before what they did, and started off doing the small group thing, based on those suggestions. That actually felt like it would have been most efficient and effective, if the students did not seem to hate it.

One of my friends followed the same format and the students seemed to love him. Granted, he is also much closer to their age.

Usehername has good points, particularly about creating a supportive environment that acknowledges that it doesn't come automatically and also holding students accountable for practicing on their own and coming in having engaged with the material. Funny, this is the second time this summer I've come across Dweck's name; I was hoping to work on a writing project with a guy who uses her research a good deal in helping people prepare for standardized tests.

Unfortunately, we had a professor for the class who would talk about these things, and many students were annoyed and wanted him to spend more time on subject matter than on "life lessons". I think one main problem is that his tone came off as bitter rather than helpful.

I think when I said similar things, they saw me as an extension of the professor, and wasting their time.

Sometimes when I had a limited time with students, I'd have a list of concepts or issues and I'd just ask them to assess how much they needed help on those and help them through exercises related to their needs as they identify them. This didn't always work because sometimes the kids were clueless about everything or didn't know what they didn't know. I hope that is less the case in an undergrad chem class than it was in a ninth grade English class, though.

Well, that's why I asked people to work problems ahead of time. Very few did.

Personally, I really believe in having students learn from each other as much as possible--so maybe identifying your strong/motivated students and grouping the others around them? Again, I'm not that efficient a teacher--this is a principle of mine, that classrooms are communities and students learn from each other. However, it seems like it *should* be efficient, in my opinion. You could be circulating during that time and observing patterns where they get stuck, and then you could address those patterns.

I tried to get people to form study groups outside of class. Many did that. I think that was one place I succeeded.

Hmm. Good luck.

Thanks.

 

[ygolo]

Sorry about the multiple posts in a row.

I wanted to respond yeterday, but I had other things I needed to finish first.

For Students:
What are the things teachers have done for you that have really helped you learn?

Allow me to ask questions and not feel stupid.

Encourage me to follow my interests. If there is a research paper, I have alot of leeway as to the kind of topic to choose.

Clear on what I'm supposed to learn and why its important.

I hope I did a good job on the first part. I do try to ask leading questions to have them answer their own question through reasoning. But that should not be interpreted as them being stupid. Perhaps I should clarify that.

I tried to get a survey of what student's majors were and wanted to try to connect what we learn into that. But there really wasn't much time, and students found it "impractical."

What are the things teachers have done that didn't do anything to help you learn?

Busywork
Not allowing for questions
Humiliating students
Not knowing the significance of the stuff being taught
Presenting material too fast or too slow

Hmm. I wonder what would constitute "busywork". Because it is absolutely essential that students practice.

Unfortunately, what is too slow for some is also too fast for others. I tended to error on too slow.

For Teachers:
What are the things that you have done that seemed most effective?

Allow students to ask questions

Allow students time for reflection and to practice material being learned

Try to make the material interesting- use a variety of approaches such as audio-visual, lecture, discussion, group work, reflection, etc.

Do you have any concrete examples of how you did they second two things?

What are things that you have done that have seemed like wastes of time?

Tendency to lecture too much.

Unrealistically high expectations. Hate having to explain the same things over and over.

I spend waaaay tooo much time grading assignments.

I really, really dislike the idea of lecturing. I preferred to just help people learn how to solve problems and understand concepts.

However, as things turned out, just doing problems in front of the class became the defacto discussion session. The students' feedback was that they really liked this a lot better than my earlier attempts.

To be honest, I think I made the problems seem too simple. Maybe that's why they liked it. Because it felt like I was showing them how to do problems they didn't know how to before.

But, if that's why they liked it, then they failed to understand the importance of doing things themselves.

What are some things you done that seem to confuse or misinform students?

I didn't do it deliberately but I think the biggest criticism students had of my teaching was that they thought I went over their heads. I presented the material too quickly, was too theoretical without enough real-world examples. Sometimes I didn't spell out the expectations clearly enough.

Hmm, I did get some of this also. But more when I was trying to stress the importance of things, and telling them how it will relate to things they'll need to do in the future.

 

[ygolo]

I don't have any constructive advice to offer here, but I can sympathize with the frustration that comes when you run into these types of students...the ones who act like they need guides for everything or else they won't be able to function in the world. I would usually just buckle and give them stricter instructions/parameters/rules to memorize, because I honestly think they might need some sort of cognitive re-training to rid them of that kind of need for security, but you can't really do that with your subject. Then again, I wasn't a great teacher, so there's probably a simpler solution.

Well, I pretty much ended up doing what you did. With the amount of time she was putting in for this class, she was barely learning anything. I almost resigned to the fact that each new problem for her need a new procedure to follow.

Perhaps it's true that you were bad about this, but often I find that the students are just stupid and either don't listen or have some sort of mental deficiency. I mean, spelling out expectations is one of the simpler things that you do as a teacher, and usually it's required that you lay them out in written form AND talk about it extensively, so unless you were highly incompetent - which I doubt - then I tend to blame the students for simply being (bafflingly) dumb.

I mean, honestly, when you distribute syllabi with assignment expectations and grading policies on them (which most likely have to be approved by a supervisor/advising professor/some such superior), talk about them in class, THEN distribute individual assignment sheets and talk about them again, you really shouldn't be getting a constant stream of emails asking about expectations (which happened to me and most of my fellow TAs on a regular basis, to the point that I decided to modify my email policy so that it basically said, "do not contact me unless for X, X, or X reasons. Anything else will be ignored.")

Well, I don't think "dumb" is as accurate as not being self-reliant.

Some of these students are smart, and hard-working. But haven't figured out how to read actively, and get the information they need from materials they are presented.

To some, it is just a mountain of reading material from different classes that they are not sure how to tackle.

As Student:
The most effective thing for me was the teacher's ability to relate the course material to broader contexts. So, I liked when they would go on tangents and really stress the grandeur of the subject. It made me understand the importance of what I was learning and inspired me to learn about it independently. Also, whole-class discussions were very effective for me because (1) they demystified everyone else's levels of knowledge (so that I could no longer reasonably think that I was unprepared for the class, or somehow behind or slow), and (2) they kept me accountable - I had to make sure that I fully understood something well enough to articulate myself in front of a large group.

What I worry about with large groups is that many students just stay quiet and don't participate.

PowerPoint and small group activities.

Prior year TAs had told me that small group activities worked well. So that is what I tried to do initially. What, specifically, did you find wasteful about small groups?

Also, to make sure all the TA's cover at least the basics, we are given a stock power point presentation for each lab.

I don't know, I never allowed teachers to have that much influence over my own learning process. But I suppose the usual would be bad...prejudice, "playing favorites," being incompetent in general.

I suppose that is the basic problem. Those of us who become grad students are the ones who like to learn and see teachers as people who only help in that process.

But, I think the majority of freshman are very passive learners. They just don't take responsibility for their own education, and may see school more as a process of jumping through hoops to get grades and certifications.

As Teacher:
Mostly things which stressed group accountability. Stuff like organizing physical space such that the students had to look at one another when they spoke, and immediate peer-evaluation (it seems harsh at first, but kids really do like to impress one another.) I've never seen kids so well read as when they knew they would have to otherwise face humiliation in front of their peers.

Hmm. I don't know if I like the humiliation idea. But I do think, somehow, they need to know that they aren't going to do well without doing some work.

Small group activities. Sometimes deliberately (yes, I'm guilty of that shit.)

So you deliberately wasted time?

When I first started, I (rather stupidly) thought it would be a good idea to draw out nifty little diagrams to help explain some of the more difficult concepts. I was even so generous as to use my personal printing allotment to print out fancy ones to use as a study aid for the big exams. Apparently, not everyone was able to follow, despite my long explanations. In fact, I would say most were not able to follow, so I concluded that I was wrong and they were a retarded idea.

Funny, I just found out where I am assigned and who is teaching lecture. The main instructor has a reputation of doing these sort of things. Hopefully, the students do not get completely lost.

 

[Coriolis]

I really, really dislike the idea of lecturing. I preferred to just help people learn how to solve problems and understand concepts.

However, as things turned out, just doing problems in front of the class became the defacto discussion session. The students' feedback was that they really liked this a lot better than my earlier attempts.

Of course they liked it. You did all the work, and they didn't have to do anything. This may be the path of least resistance for you, but not necessarily the path of greater learning for them. Doing problems for them can be useful IF the students are engaged in the process, asking questions as you go, and answering questions you put to them. Ask them what the next step is, or if they can explain why you did a particular step of the solution they way you did it. Do something wrong on purpose and see if they catch it (be sure to reveal it if they do not). It's passive "listening" that should be avoided.

 

[ygolo]

Of course they liked it. You did all the work, and they didn't have to do anything. This may be the path of least resistance for you, but not necessarily the path of greater learning for them. Doing problems for them can be useful IF the students are engaged in the process, asking questions as you go, and answering questions you put to them. Ask them what the next step is, or if they can explain why you did a particular step of the solution they way you did it. Do something wrong on purpose and see if they catch it (be sure to reveal it if they do not). It's passive "listening" that should be avoided.

I tried to keep them as involved as possible by asking questions as I went, and a lot of the things you mentioned. Like I said, I really don't think passively watching someone do problems is very effective, so I tried my best to see if I can get them thinking.

One little trick I used was to not use a calculator and telling them to check to make sure I am doing things correctly. They seemed to then enjoy catching my mistakes then (or at least getting to the answer before I did). They didn't just catch simple math errors when I did this. It seemed like they were trying to check everything.

But this time, my sessions are going to be two hours long. I may try the group work thing again. I am not really sure why that was so bad.