Teaching

[Marc_Abrams5]

[From Marc Abrams (961009 20:45 EDT)]

[From Bruce Gregory (961008.1010 EDT)]

(Bill Benzon 961007.1850)

I'm not anywhere near physics so I may be way off base. But how easy is it
to tell students what to perceive?

Not easy at all. In fact, it is the essence of the challenge of
teaching.

Bruce

Hi Bruce, How 'bout another view.

The "job" of a teacher is to find out "why" "anyone" (in this case
his/her students) would want to know or learn what the teacher "wants"
them to know/learn. The "learning" perception _must_ originate from the
learnee The teacher (in my mind) if Good, will try to find out how
to "reach" his or her students by trying to understand what they are
controlling for with regard to the material being presented.

[Bruce_Gregory9]

[From Bruce Gregory (961010.1005)]

Marc Abrams (961009 20:45 EDT)]

Hi Bruce, How 'bout another view.

The "job" of a teacher is to find out "why" "anyone" (in this case
his/her students) would want to know or learn what the teacher "wants"
them to know/learn. The "learning" perception _must_ originate from the
learnee The teacher (in my mind) if Good, will try to find out how
to "reach" his or her students by trying to understand what they are
controlling for with regard to the material being presented.

I only disagree on one point -- it is not another view. At
least not from my perspective. I share your views on what
should happen. It does, however, contain the assumption that
what the students want to control is compatible with what the
school administration wants the students to control. Whether we
like it or not, students clearly get the message that grades
are the goal. Understanding is much harder to achieve or even
to recognize. It is therefore understandably the first victim
to a goal-directed pursuit of grades. The only way I know to
alter the situation is to stop giving grades. This idea is so
unrealistic that not even I entertain it!

Bruce

[_Martin_Taylor]

[Martin Taylor 961010 15:15]

Bruce Gregory (961010.1005) to Marc Abrams

The teacher (in my mind) if Good, will try to find out how
to "reach" his or her students by trying to understand what they are
controlling for with regard to the material being presented.

I only disagree on one point -- it is not another view. At
least not from my perspective. I share your views on what
should happen. It does, however, contain the assumption that
what the students want to control is compatible with what the
school administration wants the students to control.

There seems to be a problem with this. Of course one would not expect
students to learn something they are uninterested in learning. But why
should they be interested in learning things they don't know will be
useful to them? The "school administration" (i.e. adults generally,
including parents) has experience that suggests things like learning
mathematics and foreign languages now will be easier than doing it later,
and will help later with learning specific things the students are likely
to want to learn. The students don't have that experience, and may not
_want_ to learn mathematics or Japanese, no matter how much such learning
is likely to ease their adult life.

There's a point where "It's for your own good" is highly likely to actually
be true, even if you don't think so at the moment. Later, you are likely
thank people who induced you actually to work on those things you didn't
want to work on--piano practice, arithmetic...

Surely one of the abilities of a good teacher is the ability to get a
student to want to learn X simply because the teacher says that to learn X
is good--"trust me." And one surrogate for that is to get the student to
want to get good grades in whatever the teacher assigns to be learned.

Whether we
like it or not, students clearly get the message that grades
are the goal. Understanding is much harder to achieve or even
to recognize. It is therefore understandably the first victim
to a goal-directed pursuit of grades. The only way I know to
alter the situation is to stop giving grades.

Well constructed grades reflect understanding. It is a teacher's convenience
that allows the correct answering of questions learned without understanding
to be a criterion for a high grade.

I don't think it matters that grades are the goal, provided that good
grades can't be achieved in the absence of good understanding. Later, the
student will appreciate the understanding and forget the grades.

I'm talking more about early schooling than later, and more about school
than about university.

Martin

[Bruce_Gregory9]

[From Bruce Gregory (961010.1700 EDT)]

Martin Taylor (961010 15:15)

There seems to be a problem with this. Of course one would not expect
students to learn something they are uninterested in learning. But why
should they be interested in learning things they don't know will be
useful to them? The "school administration" (i.e. adults generally,
including parents) has experience that suggests things like learning
mathematics and foreign languages now will be easier than doing it later,
and will help later with learning specific things the students are likely
to want to learn. The students don't have that experience, and may not
_want_ to learn mathematics or Japanese, no matter how much such learning
is likely to ease their adult life.

The problem with learning something that you really don't want
to learn is that you really don't learn it. Other people's
problems are always of only passing interest. Our own problems
are the one's we are really willing to solve. At some point we
have to make learning our goal if we are to learn.

There's a point where "It's for your own good" is highly likely to actually
be true, even if you don't think so at the moment. Later, you are likely
thank people who induced you actually to work on those things you didn't
want to work on--piano practice, arithmetic...

Surely one of the abilities of a good teacher is the ability to get a
student to want to learn X simply because the teacher says that to learn X
is good--"trust me." And one surrogate for that is to get the student to
want to get good grades in whatever the teacher assigns to be learned.

Well constructed grades reflect understanding. It is a teacher's convenience
that allows the correct answering of questions learned without understanding
to be a criterion for a high grade.

In an ideal world this is no doubt true. In the world we live in
the situation is more complex (where have I heard that before?)
I just came from teaching a class in which many students
acknowledged that they had understood very little of the physics
they studied even though their grades were very good. Their
teachers did not know that one could get an A and still feel
that one didn't understand the material. (I had that experience
in my undergraduate course in classical mechanics.) Many of us
have expressed the feeling that we never really understood a
topic until we taught it.

I don't think it matters that grades are the goal, provided that good
grades can't be achieved in the absence of good understanding. Later, the
student will appreciate the understanding and forget the grades.

Grades are a reward. Rewards are either disturbances or
substitute goals. (Medical students, perhaps unfairly, are held
up in this country as the paradigm of goal-directed grade
getters. What they care most about is getting only A's since
they see this as the necessary precursor to their "real" goal -
getting into medical school.)

Bruce

[_Martin_Taylor]

[Martin Taylor 961015 11:50]

Bruce Gregory (961010.1700 EDT)

The problem with learning something that you really don't want
to learn is that you really don't learn it. Other people's
problems are always of only passing interest. Our own problems
are the one's we are really willing to solve. At some point we
have to make learning our goal if we are to learn.

Quite so. I never argued otherwise. I argued for the position that it may
require learning X to be a subgoal (a way of achieving a higher goal) of
something else, if the utility of X to the student is not imemdiately
apparent to the student, but is apparent to the outside adult observer
(such as, but not necessarily, the teacher). To achieve the _student's_
goal, such as receiving the approval of the teacher, requires the student
to have a reference of learning X.

One method the teacher can have of controlling his/her perception that the
student is learning X is to take advantage of the student's goal to get
good grades. If the student has a reference for perceiving the teacher to
smile, then the teacher could use smiles instead of grades.

I just came from teaching a class in which many students
acknowledged that they had understood very little of the physics
they studied even though their grades were very good. Their
teachers did not know that one could get an A and still feel
that one didn't understand the material.

Certainly. but surely that's a problem with the teachers rather than with
the idea that grades can be useful in inducing the students to learn
stuff that doesn't seem immediately relevant?

Grades are a reward. Rewards are either disturbances or
substitute goals.

No, I wouldn't say "substitute" unless that's exactly what they are. In the
situation we are discussing (at least I am trying to discuss), they are
an existing goal, for which the teacher provides a possible feedback
function that involves the learning of X. But there are always many means
to an end. Cheating, for example, can lead to good grades; and, as you
say, if the tests are inadequately designed, so can rote learning of the
ways to answer specific questions.

···

-------------

Let's turn the question back to where it started.

How does one induce a student with little experience of the world to learn
a constellation of stuff that is likely to be of great benefit in later
life, though the student cannot know what may be useful from his/her life
experience to date?

---------------

And let's add a separate comment: most kids, if not all, start with an
extraordinary appetite for learning and trying to understand just about
everything. Most kids, after they have experienced a little school, come
to hate learning much of anything. What can we do to sustain the initial
thirst for learning?

Martin

[Bruce_Gregory9]

[From Bruce Gregory (961015.1345 EDT)]

Martin Taylor (961015 11:50)

I argued for the position that it may
require learning X to be a subgoal (a way of achieving a higher goal) of
something else, if the utility of X to the student is not immediately
apparent to the student, but is apparent to the outside adult observer
(such as, but not necessarily, the teacher). To achieve the _student's_
goal, such as receiving the approval of the teacher, requires the student
to have a reference of learning X.

No, the student must have the goal of getting a good grade in X,
since that is all the student can perceive.

One method the teacher can have of controlling his/her perception that the
student is learning X is to take advantage of the student's goal to get
good grades. If the student has a reference for perceiving the teacher to
smile, then the teacher could use smiles instead of grades.

See above.

Let's turn the question back to where it started.

How does one induce a student with little experience of the world to learn
a constellation of stuff that is likely to be of great benefit in later
life, though the student cannot know what may be useful from his/her life
experience to date?

I know of no way to accomplish this. If what I am trying to
teach does not address a present goal of a student, the best a
student is likely to be able to do is to memorize the material.

---------------

And let's add a separate comment: most kids, if not all, start with an
extraordinary appetite for learning and trying to understand just about
everything. Most kids, after they have experienced a little school, come
to hate learning much of anything. What can we do to sustain the initial
thirst for learning?

Students learn that grades are important. Those who want to
please either teachers or parents work for good grades. The
students are not averse to understanding, but since they cannot
perceive understanding there is no way for them to control for
understanding. They can control for grades. They do this largely
by memorizing since they can control for memorization. If we
want students to love learning we have to stop making it clear
to them that what we _really_ want is whatever leads to good
grades.

Bruce

[_Martin_Taylor]

[Martin Taylor 961015 1510]

Bruce Gregory (961015.1345 EDT)

Martin Taylor (961015 11:50)

I argued for the position that it may
require learning X to be a subgoal (a way of achieving a higher goal) of
something else, if the utility of X to the student is not immediately
apparent to the student, but is apparent to the outside adult observer
(such as, but not necessarily, the teacher). To achieve the _student's_
goal, such as receiving the approval of the teacher, requires the student
to have a reference of learning X.

No, the student must have the goal of getting a good grade in X,
since that is all the student can perceive.

The student must discover _how_ to get a good grade in X. That's done by
reorganization. If the teacher allows the student to get good grades by
rote memorization, the student may discover that method. If the teacher
finds a way to determine whether the student is developing understanding
of X, and bases the grades on that perception, then the student may discover
_that_ method of getting good grades. The student doesn't have to have a
perception of understanding, so much as to have the perceptions that _are_
understanding. It's not a meta- perception.

If all the student can perceive is the grade, and cannot control any
perceptions whose control would lead to actions the teacher can grade,
then the student will not be able to control the "grade level" perception.

How does one induce a student with little experience of the world to learn
a constellation of stuff that is likely to be of great benefit in later
life, though the student cannot know what may be useful from his/her life
experience to date?

I know of no way to accomplish this.

Well, I know of one way. Someone the student trusts tells the student that
to learn X will be useful.

Provided that the student trusts the teacher, the fact that the teacher
is willing to teach and to give grades is evidence that the student can use
for the value of developing the reference for the perception of having
learned X, and as a perception of the current degree to which X has been
learned, separate from the internal meta-perception of "level of understanding"
X. When that meta-perception begins to develop, through the reorganization
that _is_ learning, then control of the "grades" perception may begin to
conflict with control of the "perceived understanding" perception, and
grades become a problem rather than a useful aspect of the environment.

If what I am trying to
teach does not address a present goal of a student, the best a
student is likely to be able to do is to memorize the material.

Why should the student do even that, if what you are trying to teach does
not address a present goal of the student? From whose point of view are
you evaluating memorization as "best"?

Students learn that grades are important. Those who want to
please either teachers or parents work for good grades. The
students are not averse to understanding, but since they cannot
perceive understanding there is no way for them to control for
understanding. They can control for grades. They do this largely
by memorizing since they can control for memorization.

If teachers allow memorization by itself to affect grades, then this will
be a viable environmental feedback path for the control of "grades"
perception. That's up to the teacher.

If we
want students to love learning we have to stop making it clear
to them that what we _really_ want is whatever leads to good
grades.

You forgot the end of your sentence, which should conclude "...and can
be done without learning the subject." Then I would agree with you.

Martin

[Bruce_Gregory9]

[From Bruce Gregory (961015.1645 EDT)]

(Martin Taylor 961015 1510)

The student must discover _how_ to get a good grade in X.

True.

That's done by reorganization.

Not necessarily true.

If the teacher allows the student to get good grades by
rote memorization, the student may discover that method. If the teacher
finds a way to determine whether the student is developing understanding
of X, and bases the grades on that perception, then the student may discover
_that_ method of getting good grades. The student doesn't have to have a
perception of understanding, so much as to have the perceptions that _are_
understanding. It's not a meta- perception.

As I said, true of ideal world. Most physics teachers are only
concerned with whether students can solve the problems at the
end of the chapter. The teachers _assume_ this requires the
students to understand the material. This assumption is often
groundless. One can do very well in a physics course by
memorizing the formulas and plugging numbers into same. This
time-honored process is called plugging and chugging. A good
student learns how to do this and rarely even realizes that he
or she does not understand the principles behind the equations.
This lack of understanding often only emerges when carefully
constructed qualitative questions are posed. This does not
happen in most physics courses since instructors believe it is
more difficult to answer quantitative questions. Students
quickly learn that they must use all the information provided
in the problem (ask them what information is superfluous and
they will look dumb-founded). They then indentify the
equations that contain these numbers and the appropriate
unknowns.

If all the student can perceive is the grade, and cannot control any
perceptions whose control would lead to actions the teacher can grade,
then the student will not be able to control the "grade level" perception.

True.

>> How does one induce a student with little experience of the world to learn
>> a constellation of stuff that is likely to be of great benefit in later
>> life, though the student cannot know what may be useful from his/her life
>> experience to date?
>
>I know of no way to accomplish this.

Well, I know of one way. Someone the student trusts tells the student that
to learn X will be useful.

My students trust me. They want to learn. They don't know how to
learn.

Why should the student do even that, if what you are trying to teach does
not address a present goal of the student? From whose point of view are
you evaluating memorization as "best"?

If you are desperate, you memorize. The truth is in the text. If
you can recall the text, you have access to the truth. At least
that is how it seems to the students.

>If we
>want students to love learning we have to stop making it clear
>to them that what we _really_ want is whatever leads to good
>grades.

You forgot the end of your sentence, which should conclude "...and can
be done without learning the subject." Then I would agree with you.

Students think they _have_ learned the subject. They know Newton's
laws. The can perform the manipulations associated with the
equations. They simply lack the ability to solve problems which
have not been put together to test what they know.

Bruce