Professions and Behavioral Standards

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Then you've never had a world-class lecturer. I've been lucky enough to have had a few, there are some lectures which stand out in my mind as having been among the best of my university experiences. I wouldn't have been able to have those experiences at all if our class sizes had only been small group discussion-based teaching, because if the greatest minds in their field on earth were made to provide "active learning" to groups of forty measly undergrads at a time, I know I sure as hell wouldn't be able to afford to get into those classes. To format a course like that would be completely illogical.

It's a combination of teaching methods which employs lecture, so you get small classes and large classes within the same course, two-in-one, inspiration from the big dogs and personal help from the up-and-comers. It just makes sense that way, how else would you organize it so that the largest number of students possible has access to the best education possible?

I agree, a combo of both is best. Maybe I've been a bit over-enthused/over-emphasetory when it comes to discussion based classes at my University, because there usually is some lecture. The professor still gives the students information, shares their points of view, etc. That's just not all the class is. Of course a professor needs to impart their knowledge on whatever the subject is.

I have had awesome professors when it comes to lecturing. One in particular lectures more than others, and he's awesome. He'll still get the class involved from time to time, though.

*shrug* That's the education I prefer, which is obviously why I buy it. If I wanted all small-class "active learning" courses, I'd go to a small college, I did for a few months. Thirty-five people per class, lots of discussion, they hold your hand the whole way and focus on instruction a lot more, but the instructors and the equipment and facilities aren't as impressive by half. The cost of a university vs. community college is comparable here, so you really do have a choice at least up until the end of your second year, in most cases. After second year you usually have no choice but to to transfer to a big university if you want a bachelor's. Anywho, what I'm saying is, given a choice and having experienced both, I found the teaching method which employs lecture much more enriching than your way.

35 students in a class isn't my way. That's way too many people to have an effective discussion--too many students will get overlooked, won't speak up, will be able to "hide" from the conversation, etc. I'm betting you never got into any real discussions--where you actually debate and exchange ideas with the professor and other classmates. In my English class, I have 22 students, and that's still a few too many, in my opinion.

Come on, no one else here hates classroom discussion? It's the most embarrassing thing in the world when someone is too stupid to know they're stupid and seeks attention in front of strangers. The instructor stumbles around trying to find some way to escape the situation, but sometimes the student won't shut up and keeps going and going. Sometimes they do it in every class for the entire semester, and when they raise their hand your brain just shuts off and you recede into yourself until it's over.

This is a risk, no doubt (the whole no risk, no reward thing, no?). I've had one in every class. Have one now. The teacher has to be savvy enough to pick something out of their tangents that can move the discussion forward. Sometimes (usually) I can, sometime's I can't. If I can't, I'll just fall back on "What do you guys think of what so-and-so said?" And then the conversation moves on. As for them talking so much, I just tell them, "Okay, so-and-so, I see some other people who want to talk, let's see what they have to say" (they never seem to get offended). Sometimes the class will just fall back on this person and let them do all the work, in which case I address the whole class, "Come on, guys, you can't let so-and-so do all the work."

[stlukesguild]

Then you've never had a world-class lecturer. I've been lucky enough to have had a few, there are some lectures which stand out in my mind as having been among the best of my university experiences. I wouldn't have been able to have those experiences at all if our class sizes had only been small group discussion-based teaching, because if the greatest minds in their field on earth were made to provide "active learning" to groups of forty measly undergrads at a time, I know I sure as hell wouldn't be able to afford to get into those classes. To format a course like that would be completely illogical.

I was lucky enough to go to a top-rated art school where we were exposed to the best of both approaches. At the time, such as education wasn't cheap... but it was far more affordable than today. Were I to attend the same school today, I'd be looking at nearly $50,000 US per year. Our Art History courses, for example, included two early morning lectures per week in a large auditorium with slides. We also met once or twice a week in small groups in what was termed Art History Review. At this time there was the possibility of discussion... as well as developing a personal relationship with the professor. Every other week the review session would meet at the art museum where we could explore and discuss works of art in real life.

I agree that lecturing is considered "outdated" as opposed to more "progressive" teaching strategies... however I'm not overly fond of a great many "progressive" teaching strategies... many of which have not been proven to be overly successful... and often seen like an effort to make education entertaining. This is especially true at the grade school level where there is a push to make education as fun as video games and watching TV... which I do not think is the greatest strategy for preparing students for the real world.

Personally, if there was ever a teaching strategy that I hated as a student it was group projects in which teachers intentionally placed higher achieving, highly motivated students with the lower achieving and the slackers. The concept was that the higher achieving students would help push and motivate the others... but from my experience, the result was that the slackers sat back and the higher achieving students did all the work... because they were not about to let some "moron" ruin their grade. This strategy has even been employed at the college level. During my second year of art school the school administration took the 5 students with the highest GPA and placed us in a class of essentially remedial students. Contrary to Alex' belief, I recognize that in most instances there is little difference between the level of teaching at the finest schools vs the state subsidized schools. The real difference lies in the resources (money), the connections you might make, and the quality of students. I, and the others involved in this little social experiment were more than slightly POed. The group of us all threatened to withdraw, and as a result they agreed that if we continued the year in the class we would be given our first choice for all classes for the remainder of our time at the school.

35 students in a class isn't my way. That's way too many people to have an effective discussion

Tell that to those responsible for all the cuts to public education. You think 35 is bad... try 45... or 52... including 10 "special education" students... 4 of whom are coded as having "severe behavioral/emotional disabilities". And don't even begin to imagine that the students as a whole are going to just sit there passively or be at all willing to participate in the discussion.

[Paulclem]

Lecturing is a good way to begin and inspire learning about particular topics in whatever field, and, as has been pointed out, a good lecturer makes a great impression. (I can remember sitting in really great lectures in the late 80s). But no lecture can give you what you need at university to learn the subject. The fact that it is a lecture means that discussion to facilitate clarification of points or expansion of various aspects is necessary to consolidate the thrust of the learning. That's what a seminar is for, and I agree that you can't have much of a discussion with 35 people. What you do is manage them into smaller groups. And manage is what you do with the know it all who drones on. This is basic class management.

Lectures and discussions are only a couple of the possible ways of encouraging learning because what lectures and seminars are for is to give pointers to new ideas and developments in the field. I was attending university before the summer and the lecturers there used a few methods. We were given tasks such as evaluation of resources, (it was a maths teaching course).
We were asked to solve problems and discuss how we could adapt and present the problem or a modified version.
We were given scenarios to develop teaching strategies and schemes of work for.
We were asked to investigate an educational aspect and report back to everyone else.
We were asked to learn a new skill/ method and teach it to each other.
We were asked to discuss and report back on the implications of recent educational developments.

All of these methods - investigations, learning and passing on, presenting, developing, constructing scenarios, considering the implications of something, reflecting upon learning can be done by small groups and/ or individuals. They are about meta-learning and the subject hardly matters. Most of them could be applied to any subject.( I suspect the nature of sciences requires a lot of this in lab work anyway), but I bet that there are some methods missing.

The point of them is not that you will remeber everything - that's what books are for - (not lectures) - It's about what you do with what you've gleaned whether it be an essay, a presentation, a theorem you develop, a set of data you present, your contribution to a discussion/ blog/ website/ forum or the research you take up and investigate. The feedback doesn't have to be in class time, but can be on a website of blog - as ours often was. It can be carried over into the next session or have a sheet produced for the other members of the class.

I suspect that universities are slacking on teaching methods. My wife attended our local uni a couple of years ago and the head of Department lectured them by reading his notes out verbatim and expecting them to write it all down. Disgraceful - especially considering what it costs these days. I think it's partly due to the old idea of academia in Scher's video. There was a palpable reluctance by some of the older lecturers to engage with the IT at the Uni, and thus the younger student were denied their probable preferred way of learning - online.

I think the reason for this in the UK is the lack of an inspection body that will ramp up standards. The idea that knowing a lot makes you a good teacher is rubbish. The two are skills that need developing. If your university is not making the most of teaching methods and the online opportunities, then i would start asking questions. It's you who are paying.

[COLOR="DarkRed"]Personally, if there was ever a teaching strategy that I hated as a student it was group projects in which teachers intentionally placed higher achieving, highly motivated students with the lower achieving and the slackers. The concept was that the higher achieving students would help push and motivate the others... but from my experience, the result was that the slackers sat back and the higher achieving students did all the work... because they were not about to let some "moron" ruin their grade. This strategy has even been employed at the college level.

Yes - my wife experienced this at Uni. A good group with one student who expected to be carried by the others. I think they made their case known.

Another chap on the same course went round to one of the slackers in his group and stayed with him all night tomake sure he did the work for their presentation the next day. The lad in question was formidable when roused and so the work got done, but it is a completely unfair way to conduct assessments that contribute to grades.

[BienvenuJDC]

I've been here for about a week and you are just an irritating person. I'm not surprised to find that nobody likes you.

Everyone here is irritating at one time or another. But I don't think that there is anyone that isn't also liked sometimes too. We're like family...and we annoy each other just like family as well.

[Athenal]

I find this an interesting topic. I work in a factory that could be compared to a sweat shop. The other day a man came up and told a co-worker That he had been dropping the f-bomb alot in his conversation. The man stated that this could offend some of the people he worked with. I was thinking Dude this is a factory. Just for the record I know most of the people that work with us use the f-bomb frequently.

[Varenne Rodin]

I guess it's lucky for me that I'm an artist. I can be as passionate and strange as I want to be. If I want to paint a picture of tits using my tits while cussing and smoking and drinking, well that's peachy keen (I don't smoke). I can even wear a stupid hat if I feel like it. It's easy.

[Calidore]

If I want to paint a picture of tits using my tits while cussing and smoking and drinking, well that's peachy keen (I don't smoke). I can even wear a stupid hat if I feel like it. It's easy.

Well, now I know what all those how-to-paint programs on PBS are missing. Couldn't nail it down before.

Until they become more enlightened, however, we do have Youtube, should you feel the urge.

[BienvenuJDC]

I guess it's lucky for me that I'm an artist. I can be as passionate and strange as I want to be. If I want to paint a picture of tits using my tits while cussing and smoking and drinking, well that's peachy keen (I don't smoke). I can even wear a stupid hat if I feel like it. It's easy.

I'm glad you don't smoke. It's harmful for your health.

[Varenne Rodin]

Well, now I know what all those how-to-paint programs on PBS are missing. Couldn't nail it down before.

Until they become more enlightened, however, we do have Youtube, should you feel the urge.

Ha. It just might be the wave of the future.

I'm glad you don't smoke. It's harmful for your health.

That struck me funny for some reason.

I hear tell that sophisticated types vaporize herbs. I might give that a whirl someday. The worst detriment to my health was being forced into existence.

[Scheherazade]

~

W a r n i n g

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Off-topic posts have been and will be removed without further warning.

Meanwhile, please do not forget to visit our brand new "Freedom of Speech" thread.

~

[Alexander III]

I'm glad you don't smoke. It's harmful for your health.

An interesting side note, this current youngest generation in America is the first generation in the history of AMerica, who is expected to have a shorter lifespan than their parents. Not because of smoking, but because of diet. The way we consume food in the 21st century has outpaced medicine's ability to cure it. I am not saying smoking is good, just maybe equal emphasis should be placed on Mcdonalds and Philip Morris.

{edit}

[Shalot]

The other day, while teaching my English 101 class (all freshmen), I said, referring to an author's authority in an essay, "What the hell does he know?" I afterward heard several gasps and snickers of disbelief. I found this quite humorous myself, especially since I know several colleagues who aren't shy about throwing around ****s and ****s as they please.

I find it funny that people in some professions (well, really, any profession) are expected to uphold certain behavioral standards. The physical labor worker--rude and crude; the office worker--the normal Everyman; the scientist--straight-laced and nerdy; the teacher--proper and demure. Many find it surprising when people break these assumptions outside or in the work place, sometimes even becoming fiction tropes (the worldly, wise, and cultured janitor comes to mind). I find the surprise amusing.

When it comes to myself, I've found that me being a teacher makes people surprised by how I act out of class--cursing, political incorrectness, etc. Most people don't expect it--they either are surprised by my actions having known I'm a teacher beforehand, or knowing me and then finding out I'm a teacher. I've also found that authority figures, whoever they may be, hold me to a different, higher, behavioral standard than other people (and I mean outside of the classroom) which is just downright odd.

I'm curious if anyone else has experienced this sort of thing--other thinking your behavior just doesn't match your profession.

Were they snickering in disbelief at the word **** or at what you said? Probably, it was the use of the word **** and not at your statement, since the assumption would be that they hadn't heard of whomever or whatever you were discussing in your classroom before that day and they couldn't possibly know enough to snicker in disbelief at something you'd said other than the word ****.

I am an office worker and I have a foul mouth, and I was amused by my coworker's face when I dropped the "F" bomb in conversation a couple of years ago. Now that coworker has been promoted twice in the holier-than-thou setting that we work in and I have received only 1 job "promotion" if you could even call it that. I'm not the only one to drop the "F" bomb at work because that word is often called for in that place but those of us who dare drop it stay right where we are. I guess if you can keep your cool and not cuss, then you can be promoted.

In an academic setting, I would think that swear words would be more tolerated than they are in an office setting for some reason. I guess it depends though on whether you're educating thinkers or training producers.

Personally, when I was in college, I liked having an instructor or professor who had a human side and didn't have a stick up his or her arse in the classroom. But, if the professor was just using a "h e l l" or a shart or an F bomb to get the attention of some college students, I was more turned off then interested. In fact, I lost interest in the buffoon professor who thought he was cool because he used those words in his classroom. A professor who knows how and when to use certain words is certainly preferable. But maybe those snickering students in your class were just dumb, hick students from the sticks who had never heard the word **** used in what they believed should be a more formal setting.

Also, you said that you find it funny that people in any profession are expected to uphold certain behavioral standards. The definition of the word professional is (copied and pasted her from Merriam Webster online) is:

"c (1) : characterized by or conforming to the technical or ethical standards of a profession (2) : exhibiting a courteous, conscientious, and generally businesslike manner in the workplace

In other words, they are expected to be professional.

But then you went on to describe stereotypes of professions, like the rude and crude laborer, and the straight-laced nerdy scientist, and then the educated janitor who shocked everyone because he didn't fit the stereotype. Isn't there also a stereotypical "hip" college English professor who has a ponytail and grades his 101 compositions after partaking of the kind bud, and who throws a "****" or a "****" around in his classroom because he is afreethinker who doesn't conform to the traditional norms?

I'm sorry, I've dated myself with that stereotype. What is the new "cool" English professor wearing and doing these days?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Yes, but a key to that definition is the part where it says "in the workplace." Everyone should be professional in their workplace, to a certain extent. A professor cursing moderately in a classroom isn't necessarily seen as unprofessional by the majority of professors and administrators working at a university. It's all about context.

I'm not sure what you mean with your comment about stereotypes. Of course a college professor has a stereotype, just like most any profession, or any thing, for that matter. I wasn't attempting to belittle those various professions, just pointing out what the stereotypes are--not claiming that they're true. The opposite, actually.

And, my favorite English professor has a ponytail. Take from that what you will.

[Shalot]

Yes, but a key to that definition is the part where it says "in the workplace." Everyone should be professional in their workplace, to a certain extent. A professor cursing moderately in a classroom isn't necessarily seen as unprofessional by the majority of professors and administrators working at a university. It's all about context.

I'm not sure what you mean with your comment about stereotypes. Of course a college professor has a stereotype, just like most any profession, or any thing, for that matter. I wasn't attempting to belittle those various professions, just pointing out what the stereotypes are--not claiming that they're true. The opposite, actually.

And, my favorite English professor has a ponytail. Take from that what you will.

Oh, well thanks for clarifying that.

[Paulclem]

I don't swear in my adult classes, and nor do the learners. It's not because none of us swear, but there seems to be an unspoken code that - in its own mysterious unspoken way - goes through all the adult classes. It's really quite interesting because no-one has laid this law down. I think there's a sense of mutual respect, and it's rather nice.

Having said that, the team I'm working with at the moment have been together over a year now, ( we often get moved around the city to various venues).We began quite naturally not swearing, but there has been a bit of a sea change. Perhaps - as we're all the same grade - we've relaxed in each others company more. The five of us do sit around a fairly small office for long periods, and all sorts of weird conversations take place. We've discussed swearing, and since, we've all felt a lot less inhibited - though it is by no means gratuitous, but is often a reflection of frustration. I tend to say "bugger" a lot but I have occaisionally ejaculated a "bollocks". Still none of us woud swear in front of the learners - even though they know that we swear, and we know that they know that we swear, and no doubt they know that we know that they know that we swear and vice versa.