Discussion: View Thread

I agree with Kenneth Brown about "Teaching".

My university has changed to a MODULAR SYSTEM like those in the U.S. 3
years ago.

Since the change ... communication between teachers and students are
increasingly becoming weaker.

We have two hours of lecture, followed by two hours of tutorials. A course
last for twelve weeks.

Each week we are rushing for time 'cramping' knowledge into students'
heads.

It almost seems like we are rushing to meet some 'datelines' - primarily
the exams.

Anybody out there experiencing the same problem?

How do you make the best of 'teaching and learning' given that the system
has to stay put?


THOMAS ANG

I am new to the listserv and have been encouraged by Charlie Wankel not to
lurk. So here goes.

I am not certain what is meant by "modular system" and I am not sure what
the lecture/tutorial format conveys when it comes to the actual process
involved. I do not know, for instance, whether the students are grouped
for the tutorials, what the format for the tutorial interaction is, etc. I
would say that your statement, "Since the change ... communication between
teachers and students are
increasingly becoming weaker," causes me to believe that your problem is a
process and not a people problem in the Deming sense. My suspicion is that
you are attempting to create a student-centered learning environment (guide
by the side) but you still want to have some control (sage on the stage).
Unfortunately, being "caught-in-the-middle" works no better for educators
then it does for business firms.

We are experimenting with action-learning in the delivery of our core.
Courses are clustered and then students are given problems which forces
them to migrate into the traditional content areas. They then must make
both preliminary and final presentations to faculty on a group-basis and
they then are given individual assessments on "what they have learned."
The students rave about it. It has been so successful that we have adopted
the format for our Global Competitiveness Program (formerly, a traditional
course-based transplantation) which we conduct during the first summer
session. We pre-identify companies overseas and problems with which those
companies would like some assistance. We work with a local university,
setup consulting teams and then turn the students loose. The first year
we adopted this methodology, we made our break by the last sign-up day.
The next year, we were oversubscribed within three days even though
students had to pay a considerable deposit to hold a seat.

Thomas, I don't know if I have been responsive to your original inquiry but
at least it can be said that I am not a perpetrator of the moral hazard of
"lurking."


John L. Keifer
Director
Center for International Business Education
and Development
College of Business
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701 USA
Telephone: (614) 593-9323
FAX: (614) 593-1388
http://www.cob.ohiou.edu


At 10:17 AM 10/3/97 -0400, Kenneth Brown wrote:
>Thomas,
>
>I am not sure what you mean by a "modular system" but from
>your other words I assume the emphasis is on the efficient transfer
>of course content (conceptual knowledge) from the heads of teachers
>to the heads of students. If so, then you may find the following
>an alternative way to think about teaching and learning.
>
>I don't know what subject you are teaching but let's say it is
>_group leadership_ (substitute anything you like).
>
>Teachers of group leadership (or whatever) ought to be concerned with
>helping students acquire some level of competency in the subject area.
>Authentic competency has to do with being able to take effective action.
>For example, the graduate of a group leadership course ought to be able
>to lead a group.
>
>Skilled group leaders have a lot of conceptual knowledge.
>For example, they may understand that group processes have to do
>in part with the substance of the problem at hand (the TASK side)
>and in part with the interpersonal dynamics of the group at hand
>(the MAINTENENCE side). But skilled group leaders _also_ have
>a great deal of tacit knowledge - that is, they have knowledge that
>they can draw upon in practice (use in action) but they may not be
>able to put into words. For example, during a meeting someone may say
>with some emotion, "We are just wasting time here. Let's just decide
>and get out of here." A productive response to such a comment will
>depend on many things having to do with the context in which it was
>said, the people involved, the task at hand, and so on. A skilled
>group leader will be able to respond productively and yet may not
>be able to state precisely the complex rules followed to arrive at
>the response. That's because much of the leaders action knowledge is
>tacit.
>
>Bicycle riding provides a good analogy. If you ask a group of skilled
>bicycle riders whether one should steer to left or right to correct
>for an impending fall to the left, some will say "Steer to the right."
>This is the wrong answer and will have disasterous results if
>implemented in practice. If a skilled rider says, "... right." then
>her body "knows" something that her rational minds does not. And
>after all you don't have to know the rule conceptually to be able
>to respond correctly in practice.
>
>Now suppose I am trying to teach bicycle riding to a group of
>novices. Suppose further that I decide foolishly to lecture on
>the subject. During my lecture I say, "If you feel yourself
>falling to the left, steer to the left."
>
>In saying this, I have transmitted correct conceptual knowledge
>but it is hard to imagine anyone learning to ride a bike by memorizing
>such rules. Although, there is no doubt the rules can be memorized
>and written test scores might be very high.
>
>So how does one learn to ride a bike? By trying to do it, falling
>down a few times, and gradually discovering experientially and
>for oneself how to do it. It helps to have a coach (as opposed to
>a lecturer) and it helps to belong to a community of practice - that
>is, a group of others at about the same stage of skill development
>who can exchange tips and give demonstrations to each other as they
>acquire expertise.
>
>So what? Well, if you apply this analogy to teaching, say, group
>leadership, then we might guess that a good way to learn GL is to
>try leading a group. Of course, mistakes will be made, so the
>student needs a coach and a community of practice (the coach plus
>the other students) as well as some means to reflect critically on
>shared experiences.
>
>This is how I, and I imagine Ray Rasmussen and others who try
>to engage students in active learning and critical reflection,
>arrive at the idea of using email discussion as one of our
>teaching strategies.
>
>I hope this helps.
>
>Ken
>
>
>
>>I agree with Kenneth Brown about "Teaching".
>>
>>My university has changed to a MODULAR SYSTEM like those in the U.S. 3
>>years ago.
>>
>>Since the change ... communication between teachers and students are
>>increasingly becoming weaker.
>>
>>We have two hours of lecture, followed by two hours of tutorials. A course
>>last for twelve weeks.
>>
>>Each week we are rushing for time 'cramping' knowledge into students'
>>heads.
>>
>>It almost seems like we are rushing to meet some 'datelines' - primarily
>>the exams.
>>
>>Anybody out there experiencing the same problem?
>>
>>How do you make the best of 'teaching and learning' given that the system
>>has to stay put?
>>
>>
>>THOMAS ANG
>
>Kenneth M. Brown
>Professor of Forestry
>Lakehead University
>Thunder Bay, ON
>Canada P7B 5E1
>
> Voice: (807) 343-8114 (W)
> (807) 344-8638 (H)
> Fax: (807) 343-8116
>e-mail: kbrown@mist.lakeheadu.ca
> or: ken.brown@lakeheadu.ca
>

We (educators) are different from them (administrators,deans, school
boards) in that we are called to provide a safe place for students to
'learn', not just to be taught, at least this is what I thought the
ministry was about when I choose the profession so long ago. The
phenomenon of education has been modularized, standardized and
mediocritized to force fit it into a structure of measurement (a
Sanskrit based word that means 'illusion') that allows those in power
to offer to their constituents a 'return on investment'. This is done
through a process of quantifiable number crunching by a linear and
sequential application of scientific analysis producing numbers that
'make sense' to those with the wallet. We throw millions at sports
figures and pennies at those who dedicate their lives to others
through education. The lessons for us (me) is to learn for myself and
offer to others the skills/aptitude/ability to be graceful, effective
and forgiving in the face of hypocrisy and greed.

....other than that, life is indeed grand. It's all a matter of
perspective.

Rich Pernell
rich.pernell@faa.dot.gov


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: MODULAR SYSTEM - THE BAD SIDE OF THINGS
Author: <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> at SMTPgate
Date: 9/12/97 6:26 PM


I agree with Kenneth Brown about "Teaching".

My university has changed to a MODULAR SYSTEM like those in the U.S. 3
years ago.

Since the change ... communication between teachers and students are
increasingly becoming weaker.

We have two hours of lecture, followed by two hours of tutorials. A course
last for twelve weeks.

Each week we are rushing for time 'cramping' knowledge into students'
heads.

It almost seems like we are rushing to meet some 'datelines' - primarily
the exams.

Anybody out there experiencing the same problem?

How do you make the best of 'teaching and learning' given that the system
has to stay put?


THOMAS ANG

Thomas,

I am not sure what you mean by a "modular system" but from
your other words I assume the emphasis is on the efficient transfer
of course content (conceptual knowledge) from the heads of teachers
to the heads of students. If so, then you may find the following
an alternative way to think about teaching and learning.

I don't know what subject you are teaching but let's say it is
_group leadership_ (substitute anything you like).

Teachers of group leadership (or whatever) ought to be concerned with
helping students acquire some level of competency in the subject area.
Authentic competency has to do with being able to take effective action.
For example, the graduate of a group leadership course ought to be able
to lead a group.

Skilled group leaders have a lot of conceptual knowledge.
For example, they may understand that group processes have to do
in part with the substance of the problem at hand (the TASK side)
and in part with the interpersonal dynamics of the group at hand
(the MAINTENENCE side). But skilled group leaders _also_ have
a great deal of tacit knowledge - that is, they have knowledge that
they can draw upon in practice (use in action) but they may not be
able to put into words. For example, during a meeting someone may say
with some emotion, "We are just wasting time here. Let's just decide
and get out of here." A productive response to such a comment will
depend on many things having to do with the context in which it was
said, the people involved, the task at hand, and so on. A skilled
group leader will be able to respond productively and yet may not
be able to state precisely the complex rules followed to arrive at
the response. That's because much of the leaders action knowledge is
tacit.

Bicycle riding provides a good analogy. If you ask a group of skilled
bicycle riders whether one should steer to left or right to correct
for an impending fall to the left, some will say "Steer to the right."
This is the wrong answer and will have disasterous results if
implemented in practice. If a skilled rider says, "... right." then
her body "knows" something that her rational minds does not. And
after all you don't have to know the rule conceptually to be able
to respond correctly in practice.

Now suppose I am trying to teach bicycle riding to a group of
novices. Suppose further that I decide foolishly to lecture on
the subject. During my lecture I say, "If you feel yourself
falling to the left, steer to the left."

In saying this, I have transmitted correct conceptual knowledge
but it is hard to imagine anyone learning to ride a bike by memorizing
such rules. Although, there is no doubt the rules can be memorized
and written test scores might be very high.

So how does one learn to ride a bike? By trying to do it, falling
down a few times, and gradually discovering experientially and
for oneself how to do it. It helps to have a coach (as opposed to
a lecturer) and it helps to belong to a community of practice - that
is, a group of others at about the same stage of skill development
who can exchange tips and give demonstrations to each other as they
acquire expertise.

So what? Well, if you apply this analogy to teaching, say, group
leadership, then we might guess that a good way to learn GL is to
try leading a group. Of course, mistakes will be made, so the
student needs a coach and a community of practice (the coach plus
the other students) as well as some means to reflect critically on
shared experiences.

This is how I, and I imagine Ray Rasmussen and others who try
to engage students in active learning and critical reflection,
arrive at the idea of using email discussion as one of our
teaching strategies.

I hope this helps.

Ken



>I agree with Kenneth Brown about "Teaching".
>
>My university has changed to a MODULAR SYSTEM like those in the U.S. 3
>years ago.
>
>Since the change ... communication between teachers and students are
>increasingly becoming weaker.
>
>We have two hours of lecture, followed by two hours of tutorials. A course
>last for twelve weeks.
>
>Each week we are rushing for time 'cramping' knowledge into students'
>heads.
>
>It almost seems like we are rushing to meet some 'datelines' - primarily
>the exams.
>
>Anybody out there experiencing the same problem?
>
>How do you make the best of 'teaching and learning' given that the system
>has to stay put?
>
>
>THOMAS ANG

Kenneth M. Brown
Professor of Forestry
Lakehead University
Thunder Bay, ON
Canada P7B 5E1

Voice: (807) 343-8114 (W)
(807) 344-8638 (H)
Fax: (807) 343-8116
e-mail: kbrown@mist.lakeheadu.ca
or: ken.brown@lakeheadu.ca

-- [ From: Lynda Rogerson * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] --

Hello Thomas,

Last year I began teaching with a university system that holds five week
sessions. Each class meets from 5:30-9:30 at night. And, I've been
teaching survey courses...this means a two, sometimes three different
topics every week. At first, it was really a ZOO! I couldn't figure
out how I was ever going to "cover" all the material in the text.

Finally I decided that I was not. So, I began looking for the common
themes and the "essence" of what was important in each of the chapters.
Once I did that, then, I was able to come up with several options: (a)
discussion topics for small groups or case studies that illustrated the
chapter concepts; (b) an experiential activity that illustrated
physically what the chapter was talking about. (c) "situations" that
they could participate in....on 'compensation for teams' we had created
a "bowling" team and identified all the performance expectations, and
team recognition awards. For a class on improving profits through
empowerment, my class became the workers in a "Macy's" type department
store and were charged with coming up with a plan to improve our profit
margin through customer service. We have also created a choir in order
to illustrate the importance of leadership in teams. In business ethics
and decision making, I had them look at things in their lives that were
significant decision issues....so they could relate.....

The point is, that the students can read the chapters and really don't
need their instructor to "go over" the material in class. AND, like
Ray's dialoging with his students, getting the students emotionally
involved makes the essence of the material stick.

The other thing that I do is give open book, open note exams. I have
found that giving them several 'thinking" and 'synthesizing" questions
challenges the students to rummage through the chapters and work with
the material. (You can't do questions like: list the four.....) So,
question preparation on the part of the instructor is a little more
challenging, but the students really like the research and they also
learn the material!!

Hope this helps.

Lynda Rogerson, Ed.D.
hxbg65a@prodigy.com
www.lynco.com

On Thomas Ang's comment on modular system:
The modular system does pose problems of coordination and cramming
knowledge especially when absorption has to be faster. Students who are
not used to modular system, will suffer in the beginning. But
administrators are also often to blame . Three things, I think should be
clarified to faculty and students before changing over to modular
system:

1. The traditional year system (the age old British system) does
not place much self-learning responsibility on the student. The students
must be clearly told that some of the burden for the routine stuff is
now on them and that the twelve or thirteen weeks is for treatment of
topics which cannot be read on their own. Of course, this is an
unpopular move so they do not clarify. Of course, giving some runin
time is useful.
The faculty also must be told the same, and secondly, the
obsession with examinations (which is predominant under year long
system) has to shift to evaluation focus- evaluating the students for
learning through internal assessment throughout the semester. That way,
the semester can be prolonged to fourteen weeks or fifteen weeks without
allocating a whole lot of weight or time to the final examinations.
2. Tutorials are a carry over and I personally do not think they
mesh very well with modular system. Instread, it is better to use
sectional teaching with two periods per week and reduce class sizes.
3. Strict sequencing of courses has to be replaced by more flexible
alternatives for students and faculty.
Thomas, I do not know if your school adopted these measures, and still
having problems. It could be the "getting used to it" kind of period?
Regards, Rao
N. Rao Kowtha
Department of Organisational Behavior
Faculty of Business Administration
National University of Singapore
10 Kent Ridge Crescent
Singapore 119260, Singapore
Tel: (65) 8743049
Fax: (65) 775 5571



-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Ang [SMTP:thomasang@POST1.COM]
Sent: Friday, September 12, 1997 6:26 PM
To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
Subject: MODULAR SYSTEM - THE BAD SIDE OF THINGS

I agree with Kenneth Brown about "Teaching".

My university has changed to a MODULAR SYSTEM like those in the
U.S. 3
years ago.

Since the change ... communication between teachers and students
are
increasingly becoming weaker.

We have two hours of lecture, followed by two hours of
tutorials. A course
last for twelve weeks.

Each week we are rushing for time 'cramping' knowledge into
students'
heads.

It almost seems like we are rushing to meet some 'datelines' -
primarily
the exams.

Anybody out there experiencing the same problem?

How do you make the best of 'teaching and learning' given that
the system
has to stay put?


THOMAS ANG