Undergraduate textbooks
Daniel Pick
Has anyone else noticed that the problems that beset secondary school texts
occur in undergraduate texts as well? For example, the text for the upper
division analysis course here at UCI is Ross' Elementary Analysis: The Theory
of Calculus. This book contains many exercises which depend on extensive
algebraic manipulations for their solution, in other words, busywork.
More often than not, these kinds of exercises obscure the author's points
and 'turn off' otherwise interested students. How do we get better
texts into the classroom, or conversely, how do we discourage publishers
from printing this stuff? I, for one, refuse to buy these kinds of texts.
--Dan 8^)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Pick
University of California, Irvine
Irvine, CA 92715
dp...@math.uci.edu
ri...@daffodil.tymnet.com
of them are shakey in their algebra skills. Sure they passed the class,
but it's been a whole semester since then. The result is that many of them
complain about the calculus teacher "going too fast" or "how did he get that
answer?" . It's because they aren't "fluent" enough in algebra (not to mention
basic math concepts such as adding unlike fractions) I believe that they
should be required to do the alebraic simplification because it helps reinforce
and strengthen their rapidly fading memories.
Learning math is like learning a foreign language, you have to con-
stantly use (practice) what you have learned or it will go away. One of
the problems with college courses is that you take them and forget them
after finals. Math stayed with me through the years because each course
used all the courses before it.
In teaching mathematics, you have the opportunity to show the student
how he/she can use calculus to add on tho their already proven ability
in algebra. It should not be taught as a separate concept because it is
simply a continuation in the process of being able to "speak" the language
of math!
---------------------------------------------------
"In the country of the blind, the one-eyed men are kings."
norman danner
>...How do we get better
>texts into the classroom, or conversely, how do we discourage publishers
>from printing this stuff? I, for one, refuse to buy these kinds of texts.
I think this is probably about the best way. Just don't buy them. AND
DON'T USE THEM IN YOUR CLASSES. I'm of the opinion that at my undergrad
institution, the vast majority of professors just used whatever book was
recommended by the dep't, instead of looking for something worthwhile
(the recommended ones were usually trash, like Ross). So maybe if all
professors were to spend a little time researching the possible books
for a course, and only used decent ones, publishers and potential authors
would get the idea. Yes, I'm aware that "decent" is very subjective,
but I think everyone probably gets the idea I'm trying to get across here.
And I'm also aware that this involves a time committment which some
professors may feel is too great. My response to that is that they shouldn't
be teaching (or their department shouldn't advertise itself as a
teaching institution).
--
Norman Danner | The only difference between mathematicians
The Semantic Nihilist | and philosophers is that mathematicians
nda...@indiana.edu | throw away their scratch paper.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Herman Rubin
>In article <2B1119...@news.service.uci.edu> dp...@math.uci.edu (Daniel Pick) writes:
>>...How do we get better
>>texts into the classroom, or conversely, how do we discourage publishers
>>from printing this stuff? I, for one, refuse to buy these kinds of texts.
>I think this is probably about the best way. Just don't buy them. AND
>DON'T USE THEM IN YOUR CLASSES. I'm of the opinion that at my undergrad
>institution, the vast majority of professors just used whatever book was
>recommended by the dep't, instead of looking for something worthwhile
>(the recommended ones were usually trash, like Ross). So maybe if all
>professors were to spend a little time researching the possible books
>for a course, and only used decent ones, publishers and potential authors
>would get the idea. Yes, I'm aware that "decent" is very subjective,
>but I think everyone probably gets the idea I'm trying to get across here.
>And I'm also aware that this involves a time committment which some
>professors may feel is too great. My response to that is that they shouldn't
>be teaching (or their department shouldn't advertise itself as a
>teaching institution).
Decent textbooks largely do not exist, at least with my definition of
decent. The few reasonable texts do not have good markets; the rush
to use plug-and-chug, do-not-think books is causing this. The mass
market is for junk, so much the case that few publishers will make
an effort to publish a good book. Also, a good book probably cannot
be written without several person-years of work, and this work is
not likely to be supported. So good books do not get written.
--
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hru...@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Allan Adler
textbooks that emphasize busywork over concepts. It is very simple: stop giving
grades. As long as educators have to give grades, they will have a conflict
of interests: to be, on the one hand, educators and on the other hand
petty bureaucrats. That these are in fact in conflict is shown by the fact
that they present the student with a conflict of interests: to admit
ignorance, on the one hand and try with the teacher's help to over come it,
or, on the other hand, to conceal it.
The teacher's conflict of interests also emerges when he/she organizes the
course. If one is going to have to grade the students, then one has to
prepare them for the things they will be graded on and that tends to
turn a course on subject X into a course on how to pass the course. It is
unreasonable to expect students to regard the matter in any other ight
when their grades and economic future hang in the balance. If you want them
to see things differently put the gun away and just teach.
The purpose of busywork is to make it easier for a teacher to compute a
grade. That is why one sees so much of it.
I think that tests, homework and other devices can be quite useful in
teaching, but THEY SHOULD NEVER BE USED FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN
FOR THE EDUCATION OF THE STUDENT. They help give the student and the teacher
information about what strengths and weaknesses the student has and to
act accordingly. As for how the student did, that should be regarded as
confidential. The relationship of student and teacher should be priveleged,
just as the relationship of lawyer and client or doctor and patient is.
I guess in some sense, it is already treated as priveleged, since many
institutions keep the grades secret unless the student authorizes the release
of transcripts. But the student is under considerable pressure to authorize
their release: other institutions want to see the transcripts and so do
employers. Even universities hiring professors want to see transcripts
(more on this lunacy on another occasion).
I think that the records should not be kept in the first place and even
if kept, they should not be released. The grades do not mean anything
that one can interpret unequivocally. They convey no useful information
to anyone who might want them. All they do is provide an arbitrary
method of shortening a stack of applicants. And worse, it takes the place
of using real judgement to evaluate an applicant.
If it is really important to have the results of a test, let the employer
make up his/her own test, appropriate to his/her needs. Some places do this:
when I had dropped out of college for a year, I spent a summer working
as an actuarial trainee (I quit when I got depressed over having to compute
the miserable pittances that some people on obsolete pension plans were going
to have to live on for the rest of their lives). The way they determined
my competence was not by asking me for transcripts but by giving me the
first actuarial exam.
Yeah, I like that. The employers develop their own criteria and leave the
educational process in peace. Yeah...
Allan Adler
a...@altdorf.ai.mit.edu
Douglas West
>Daniel Pick wants to know how to discourage publishers from producing
>textbooks that emphasize busywork over concepts. It is very simple: stop giving
>grades. As long as educators have to give grades, they will have a conflict
>of interests: to be, on the one hand, educators and on the other hand
>petty bureaucrats. That these are in fact in conflict is shown by the fact
>that they present the student with a conflict of interests: to admit
>ignorance, on the one hand and try with the teacher's help to over come it,
>or, on the other hand, to conceal it.
>.....
>I think that tests, homework and other devices can be quite useful in
>teaching, but THEY SHOULD NEVER BE USED FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN
>FOR THE EDUCATION OF THE STUDENT.
This presumes more dedication than exists on the part of most students,
especially considering that they, like instructors, have competing demands
on their time. If the homework is not required for a grade, most students will
not do it. (I am speaking of homework requiring thought, not busywork.)
Although one may argue that this only hurts the student, the result
is frustrating for the instructor, both in personal terms and because the
instructor generally prefers an outcome in which the student does learn.
>.......
>I think that the records should not be kept in the first place and even
>if kept, they should not be released. The grades do not mean anything
>that one can interpret unequivocally. They convey no useful information
>to anyone who might want them. All they do is provide an arbitrary
>method of shortening a stack of applicants. And worse, it takes the place
>of using real judgement to evaluate an applicant.
This is an ideal solution. The instructor uses graded work to guide learning,
but the university keeps no official grades. Unfortunately, the result is
that all evaluation is by recommendation of individual instructors. I think
the result at large institutions would be that instructors would have no time
to do much besides write such evaluations. What is the experience at
Hampshire College?
Douglas West
we...@math.uiuc.edu
Steven E. Landsburg
>
>The grades do not mean anything
>that one can interpret unequivocally. They convey no useful information
>to anyone who might want them.
I suppose this depends on the instructor. I believe that *my* grades
*do* convey useful information. [On the other hand, I do agree with the
far weaker statement that they "do not mean anything that one can
interpret unequivocally", which is true of most valuable information
sources.]
Steven E. Landsburg
land...@troi.cc.rochester.edu
.
Charles Lin
In article <ARA.92No...@camelot.ai.mit.edu>, a...@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Allan Adler) writes:
[about education, and the elimination of grades]
Why have grades? Two reasons, I can think of. One is to let other people
(schools, employers) know how good the student is. The other is to provide
students motivation to study. For example, how does one measure how far
a student has progressed? Grades have the effect that if some student
feels he or she is doing poorly, then he/she will work harder to correct
it. Of course, they also have the adverse effect of making some people
just not care about grades.
The process of studying, to some, is sometimes a painful one because
it means trying to comprehend (esp. in math and science) concepts that
are difficult. By removing, grades, teachers will eventually have
to think up better ways of motivating students to study some area
which they may not see the immediate relevance of. So, what is to
motivate a student to study something that they may not want to study?
Grades are one method, though possibly not the most effective one.
Still, the thought is an intriguing one. I am not sure what the
negative consequences are, though you have outlined some of the more
positive ones.
--
Charles Lin
cl...@eng.umd.edu
Charles Yeomans
>In article <2B1119...@news.service.uci.edu> dp...@math.uci.edu (Daniel Pick) writes:
>>...How do we get better
>>texts into the classroom, or conversely, how do we discourage publishers
>>from printing this stuff? I, for one, refuse to buy these kinds of texts.
>
outline book for linear algebra as the "text".
Charles Yeomans
Michael Branton
writes:
>
> In article <ARA.92No...@camelot.ai.mit.edu>, a...@zurich.ai.mit.edu
(Allan Adler) writes:
> [about education, and the elimination of grades]
>
> it means trying to comprehend (esp. in math and science) concepts that
> are difficult. By removing, grades, teachers will eventually have
> to think up better ways of motivating students to study some area
> which they may not see the immediate relevance of.
Yes, that's a problem alright. It would certainly be an unreasonable
expectation on the part of the teacher to think that the student might
actually have some responsibility to motivate him(or her)self.
---
-Michael
m...@moksha.UUCP
m...@stetson.BITNET
NeXT mail welcome !
--
-Michael
Charles Lin
In article <1992Nov27....@moksha.uucp>, m...@moksha.uucp (Michael Branton) writes:
>In article <1992Nov24.2...@eng.umd.edu> cl...@eng.umd.edu (Charles Lin)
>writes:
>>
>> In article <ARA.92No...@camelot.ai.mit.edu>, a...@zurich.ai.mit.edu
>(Allan Adler) writes:
>> [about education, and the elimination of grades]
>>
>> The process of studying, to some, is sometimes a painful one because
>> it means trying to comprehend (esp. in math and science) concepts that
>> are difficult. By removing, grades, teachers will eventually have
>> to think up better ways of motivating students to study some area
>> which they may not see the immediate relevance of.
>
>Yes, that's a problem alright. It would certainly be an unreasonable
>expectation on the part of the teacher to think that the student might
>actually have some responsibility to motivate him(or her)self.
As it's difficult to detect sarcasm in the printed form, I will
assume that you do, in fact, think that students ought to motivate
themselves to study, and that you conclude that I do not believe that
students can motivate themselves, even if that's what they should do.
If this is not your point of view, then you can probably ignore what
I am about to write.
In my opinion, many students are not, in fact, self-motivated. It seems
to me that there will always be some group of people, and perhaps, even a
large number, who, if not given proper incentives, will not do something
just because it may be for their own good or for the betterment of the
group. For example, communist societies, such as China and the former
Soviet Union, had implemented collective farms. Now since everyone was
to be treated as equal, people got paid the same. When this happens,
people begin to realize that there is no need to work as hard as possible
because there are no incentives to do so. Some will work hard because
they believe in the virtue of hard work, and perhaps also believe that
working hard will ultimately help the country as a whole, but others
might say, if I work hard, and the next person doesn't, then they are
doing nothing and getting the same benefits I am.
In a similar fashion, some people find schoolwork difficult because
they see themselves as being forced to go to school everyday, and often
be kept in the uncomfortable position of trying to deal with something
they don't understand. Now, some students are self-motivated, and
are so because, either they are stubborn to not have some problem
stump them, or they find the material easy, and like the idea that
they understand more than their fellow neighbor. Some, however, will
be motivated because their parents insist that they learn the material,
and who may have otherwise, not been disciplined enough to learn the
material on their own.
Now if a teacher presents the material in a dull or confusing manner,
and if a student hasn't been properly trained to deal with this, then
the immediate reaction might just be to tune what is said out. Personally,
I think that the more people that can be "conned" or cajoled into
learning, the better, and that having teachers that make the subject
interesting will result in more student who will be more self-motivated.
If this could be done, and grades removes, then I would be in favor of
this because then people would be learning because they wanted to learn.
Still, the one idea that is intriguing about grades is that those
who buy into the idea that good grades is important, will study material
that may seem irrelevant, or even that they don't like. This, I feel,
is the one redeeming aspect of grades, because there are times when
something ought to be studied that isn't easy or enjoyable, but
that is necessary for further understanding. Otherwise, if you
only choose to do what seems fun, you may ignore a lot of important
information.
So, it would be nice if students had to bear, and would be willing
to bear, the responsibility of self-motivation, and by the time they
get to college, they should, in fact, be shifting this way, but until
then, and even in college, teachers ought to, if they can, motivate
students into learning. At that point, it will seem as if the
students are really motivating themselves.
--
Charles Lin
cl...@eng.umd.edu
Randall Sharpe
The problem I see, as an instructor, with this reasoning is grade
inflation. Grades do not neccessarily reflect the ability nor the
aptitude of a student. Also "C" does not mean average ability anymore.
Students who do average work expect a "B" as that is the reward they
have received in the past. If they are suddenly exposed to a "true"
grading scale they are unable to adapt. Also, higher institutions have
already adjusted to this grade inflation by making entrance GPA's
higher. So if you locally institute a more rigid grade structure you in
fact hurt the student rather than help. The only "reasonable solution to
this that still will incorporate grades is to institute a national
standards committee that will oversee a program to implement an
adjustment to the grade scale beginning with those entering kindergarten
in a particular year and progressing upward as THESE students progress.
That way, at the end of say 20 years the grading system will be back on
track. There are alternatives to the grading system but since this was a
discussion of the existing system I will refrain from further comment.
Michael Branton
>
> In article <1992Nov27....@moksha.uucp>, m...@moksha.uucp (Michael
Branton) writes:
> >In article <1992Nov24.2...@eng.umd.edu> cl...@eng.umd.edu (Charles
Lin)
> >writes:
> >>
> >> In article <ARA.92No...@camelot.ai.mit.edu>, a...@zurich.ai.mit.edu
> >(Allan Adler) writes:
> >> [about education, and the elimination of grades]
> >>
> >> The process of studying, to some, is sometimes a painful one because
> >> it means trying to comprehend (esp. in math and science) concepts that
> >> are difficult. By removing, grades, teachers will eventually have
> >> to think up better ways of motivating students to study some area
> >> which they may not see the immediate relevance of.
> >
> >Yes, that's a problem alright. It would certainly be an unreasonable
> >expectation on the part of the teacher to think that the student might
> >actually have some responsibility to motivate him(or her)self.
>
> As it's difficult to detect sarcasm in the printed form, I will
> assume that you do, in fact, think that students ought to motivate
> themselves to study, and that you conclude that I do not believe that
> students can motivate themselves, even if that's what they should do.
It was sarcasm, however, I make no assumption that you believe students are
incapable of motivating themselves, even if that is what they should do. I
have taught many motivated students. I have taught many unmotivated students
as well. I do intend, however, to make a cautionary statement. At some point,
a person must take responsibility for her(or him)self. In particular, this
means growing out of the attitude that it is the responsibility of the teacher
to make the material interesting TO EACH AND EVERY STUDENT. This is similar to
my going to an art gallery and demanding that the artist communicate to me so
that I will appreciate what the artist had to say, no matter my attitude or
background. In fact, it may take a great deal of work on my part before I can
appreciate what the artist was saying. I am not arguing here for tolerance of
bad teaching (or bad art). I don't care for either. I am arguing that learning
should not (and cannot) be a monologue. The teacher is a facilitator. The
teacher is not doing the student a favor by learning for the student, which is
often done by predigesting material for the student, nor by making everything
entertaining, so that the student thinks that everything worth studying is
easy and entertaining. Many things are hard and their beauty hidden until you
have put in a lot of work.
Further than that, though, people must at some point learn that actions and
attitudes have consequences. If we have a society in which people won't
motivate themselves to do something whose benefits they can only see logically
and in the future, and not emotionally and right now, we will, as a society,
and as individuals, be much the poorer for it. This is behavior for children,
not adults. By not asking students (and here I am thinking of college students
or high school students) to contribute self-motivation, we are maintaining
their childhood. This is not a good thing.
>
> In my opinion, many students are not, in fact, self-motivated. It
seems
> to me that there will always be some group of people, and perhaps, even a
> large number, who, if not given proper incentives, will not do something
> just because it may be for their own good or for the betterment of the
> group.
.
.
.
> In a similar fashion, some people find schoolwork difficult because
> they see themselves as being forced to go to school everyday, and often
> be kept in the uncomfortable position of trying to deal with something
> they don't understand. Now, some students are self-motivated, and
> are so because, either they are stubborn to not have some problem
> stump them, or they find the material easy, and like the idea that
> they understand more than their fellow neighbor. Some, however, will
> be motivated because their parents insist that they learn the material,
> and who may have otherwise, not been disciplined enough to learn the
> material on their own.
Well, now you've put your finger on it. What is the PROPER MOTIVATION ? This
is an extremely important question. I maintain that motives such as parental
displeasure or grades (mentioned below) are absolutely wrong if the goal is
learning. Human behavior is very much driven by rewards. People are very good
at optimizing their behavior to achieve rewards. If the reward is parental
approval or a good grade, behavior will be optimized toward getting parental
approval or a good grade. The goal is then to get a good grade, not to learn.
Learning has become incidental to the process; a spin-off. By employing
motivators such as grades, it is HOPED that learning will occur. What happens
in most cases, however, is that learning to get good grades occurs, but true
learning does not. The principle at work here is that the reward process and
evaluation to determine who is rewarded drives the system. This is applicable
in many situations other than the one we are discussing. Behavior will be
optimized to get a good evaluation and achieve the reward (by all sufficiently
socialized individuals, anyway; there are always those "radical" exceptions
who just don't care what other people think (thank goodness.)) This is the
central reason why I deplore grades as they are currently used in most
educational systems. They prevent many people from truly learning.
> Now if a teacher presents the material in a dull or confusing manner,
> and if a student hasn't been properly trained to deal with this, then
> the immediate reaction might just be to tune what is said out. Personally,
> I think that the more people that can be "conned" or cajoled into
> learning, the better, and that having teachers that make the subject
> interesting will result in more student who will be more self-motivated.
> If this could be done, and grades removes, then I would be in favor of
> this because then people would be learning because they wanted to learn.
We agree somewhat on this point. You do no one a favor, however, if you con or
cajole him forever.
>
> Still, the one idea that is intriguing about grades is that those
> who buy into the idea that good grades is important, will study material
> that may seem irrelevant, or even that they don't like. This, I feel,
> is the one redeeming aspect of grades, because there are times when
> something ought to be studied that isn't easy or enjoyable, but
> that is necessary for further understanding. Otherwise, if you
> only choose to do what seems fun, you may ignore a lot of important
> information.
At what point do you think the individual should take responsibility for this,
rather than the teacher or the system(the giver of grades) ?
>
> So, it would be nice if students had to bear, and would be willing
> to bear, the responsibility of self-motivation, and by the time they
> get to college, they should, in fact, be shifting this way, but until
> then, and even in college, teachers ought to, if they can, motivate
> students into learning. At that point, it will seem as if the
> students are really motivating themselves.
It would be more than nice. It is an important step in truly becoming a
student or learner and an adult.
--
-Michael
Charles Lin
In article <1992Nov30....@moksha.uucp>, m...@moksha.uucp (Michael Branton) writes:
>
>It was sarcasm, however, I make no assumption that you believe students are
>incapable of motivating themselves, even if that is what they should do. I
>have taught many motivated students. I have taught many unmotivated students
>as well. I do intend, however, to make a cautionary statement. At some point,
>a person must take responsibility for her(or him)self. In particular, this
>means growing out of the attitude that it is the responsibility of the teacher
>to make the material interesting TO EACH AND EVERY STUDENT. This is similar to
>my going to an art gallery and demanding that the artist communicate to me so
>that I will appreciate what the artist had to say, no matter my attitude or
>background. In fact, it may take a great deal of work on my part before I can
>appreciate what the artist was saying. I am not arguing here for tolerance of
>bad teaching (or bad art). I don't care for either. I am arguing that learning
>should not (and cannot) be a monologue. The teacher is a facilitator. The
>teacher is not doing the student a favor by learning for the student, which is
>often done by predigesting material for the student, nor by making everything
>entertaining, so that the student thinks that everything worth studying is
>easy and entertaining. Many things are hard and their beauty hidden until you
>have put in a lot of work.
I agree with this. Actually, my first criteria of a good teacher is not,
in fact, entertainment. I realize few people can ever be truly entertaining.
My first criteria is clarity. Like entertainment, clarity of presentation
can be just as elusive.
I also agree that a teacher should encourage interactive discussion, and
even that understanding the material presented can be difficult and to suggest
ideas on how to tackle difficult concepts. For example, if I have a good
understanding of the material, I should be in the position of attempting to
see why you have problems comprehending some idea. By being aware of what
kinds of problems students have comprehending some concept, a teacher can
greatly reduce some of the time it takes to understand an idea. By building
up the base of fundamental concepts, then students (hopefully) have
something to draw from for more difficult ideas. This is why I think
sometimes an introductory course can be more difficult than an upper level
college course, since the student doesn't have as much to draw on.
The problem I was suggesting is that sometimes a teacher just lectures
on a material in a manner that is either confusing, or sometimes even boring.
Being confusing is a bad problem because it leaves the student confused and
makes them wonder why they should bother attending classes, and not just
read the book instead. Boring is not as bad, as long as clarity is maintained,
but it indicates to the student that if the prof. isn't interested, why should
they?
If a teacher can, in fact, tell the student how to learn, and how to think,
(kind fo a "meta-teaching") rather than just feed the content of a lecture,
then this would be most effective. Sort of the "teaching the student to fish"
rather than getting the fish for him. If a teacher can tell students how
to think, and the kind of time it will take to figure the ideas out, then
this is, by far, the best way to teach, given a large format. (It's still
better on a one-to-one format, where there is constantr feedback on both
sides, and therefore, one can advance more quickly or slowly as needed).
>
>Further than that, though, people must at some point learn that actions and
>attitudes have consequences. If we have a society in which people won't
>motivate themselves to do something whose benefits they can only see logically
>and in the future, and not emotionally and right now, we will, as a society,
>and as individuals, be much the poorer for it. This is behavior for children,
>not adults. By not asking students (and here I am thinking of college students
>or high school students) to contribute self-motivation, we are maintaining
>their childhood. This is not a good thing.
Agreed. However, where do we provide this motivation to obtain something
whose goal is not immediately visible? If you are suggesting that children
(and possibly even adults) can learn this idea on their own, I tend to disagree.
If, however, you suggest that teachers or parents can imbue their kids with
this idea, then I would probably be in favor of it. At some point, having
a goal, even a goal that isn't as concrete and materialistic as getting a job
(the common complaint of "what will I ever need this for?", "will it ever
get me a job?"), but more like the thrill of just knowing is helpful. Otherwise,
I think you end up getting the idea of inertia where something is done because
it has always been done, and therefore you ought to do it, too. This kind
of thinking can lead to a lack of thinking when what we ought to foster is
more inquistiveness. Therefore, what schools ought to teach (if parents can't)
is the obtaining and appreciation of other kinds of goals which are not materialistic.
If you believe that grades are detrimental to learning (and I can see
arguments supporting your idea), then surely you must have a replacement
for such a problem. We can not merely get rid of grades and have nothing
to replace it. Otherwise, rather than getting students motivated to
study for grades, you may end up replacing it with not having students
motivated for anything. It's my opinion that you ought to replace
grades with something else, be it retraining teachers to offer proper
motivation for learning.
As an analogy, consider a child who does not want to eat spinach
(or should we make it broccoli?) and the parent who make the motivation
to eat spinach, the reward of having a sweet desert. Now one could claim
that the child still despises spinach, but is willing to eat it to get the
reward of the dessert, and in the end the sweet desert may be bad for the
child, and perhaps offset the fact that the kid ate the spinach. What
might be preferred is that the child eventually acquires a liking
for spinach, or at least sees that despite the pain of eating spinach,
the reward is good health, and therefore the goal of good health, one
that a child might not accept, but an adult could, is what the child
should eventually aim for. However, you seem to suggest that the
child should come to this conclusion on his or her own.
To bring back the analogy, while the prospects of good grades is
not perhaps as appetizing as a cake, it may nevertheless satisfy the
parents, which may in turn satisfy the child. The risk is that the
child then only studies for the good grades, and not for the understanding
of the material.
The problem that students have with learning is that learning can
be painful. Especially in the areas of science, math, and engineering.
After you learn something difficult, there is always something more
difficult to replace it. Humans, in general, don't like pain, and
so some will reject it, and hence not learn. Others who like to learn
have made the realization that learning is not always a fast process,
but they also feel that, given enough effort, enough time, and enough
thinking, they will eventually perservere, and even the reward for
understanding compensates for the period of confusion prior to
understanding. This is like the child who eventually discovers that
spinach is healthy, and being healthy is good, and therefore, the healthy
feeling one gets is reward for the somewhat painful time it takes to eat
spinach. (Perhaps the child also learns that spices make spinach taste
better, and hence discovers Indian cooking. But that's an aside).
So, getting students to want to learn requires
(1) learning for its own sake, and hopefully feeling rewarded once
some learning has occurred.
(2) being patient about learning.
(3) being able to question and try to find ways of answering those
questions, i.e. some kind of philosophy or method of learning.
It also requires being able to look more deeply at a topic. For example,
it may be common to skip all the proofs or the definitions of some math book
because it's too hard to understand, and therefore one needs to build up
the idea, not only to study the proofs and definitions, but to know *why*
one should study them. There, a teacher or even a text can attempt to motivate
why this ought to be looked at, rather than assume that it will be, and the
student not only comes away with being able to look at other books and
try to study definitions and proofs, but more importantly knowing why
to study them.
>We agree somewhat on this point. You do no one a favor, however, if you con or
>cajole him forever.
At some point, the teacher (could be parents, fellow students, etc.)
will eventually have to present to the student reasons why he or she
should learn on their own, and the kinds of tools needed to do that.
>At what point do you think the individual should take responsibility for this,
>rather than the teacher or the system(the giver of grades) ?
I don't know. I agree at some point this has to be done, but I am
not sure as to how it should be done. I do think that we can't start
out assuming that students will be responsible, but must wean them
onto this idea. Sometimes, it seems college does this by saying "You're
now in college, and therefore, you have to be self-motivated". How
one teaches self-motivation is, to me, a big question. Still, you do
often see that the more a student likes a class, the more motivated that
student is to learn the material. It is a harder task to convince the
student to be self-motivated. If you have ideas as to how this might
be accomplished, I'm listening.
--
Charles Lin
cl...@eng.umd.edu
Duy-Minh NHIEU
One of my friend in the creative art department ask me for the equation of
seashells and related object. (The ones you see on many Mathematica books but
without the equation). Ofcourse I can sit down and figure it out but why
reinvent the wheel anyway! Well, if any of you out there can point me to
some reference, please email me.... Thanks...