To continue from my previous post, I think people who advocate that college teachers must be involved in research, do not know what an average college student looks like, nor are they familiar with an average college teacher.
An average college student is not greatly interested in the subjects being taught. He just needs a degree and is willing to learn enough to pass his exams with good marks. He is not sure what any of the theories he learns actually mean. His verbal skills are not developed enough for him to take part in or even just follow complex arguments. He does not read anything except the prescribed textbook.
A successful student learns by reading lecture notes or textbooks many times so that the words "valence bond theory" automatically produce a set of six "points" in his mind that he can write down in the exam. If he recalls only four, he will go back to his books and see that he gets the missing two. THIS is the successful student who scores good marks in his BSc exams.
The not-so successful student reads the exam "guides" two days before the exam and manages a creditable 40% mark and completes his BSc.
The remaining students attend few classes and recognise the subject being taught only by the face of the lecturer-- Dr LS teaches General Chemistry and Inorganic Chemistry therefore this must be either the Gen Chemistry class or the Inorg Chem class. A few are unable to make even these deductions and vaguely think "this must be Chemistry''.
A few students who are skilled and interested and hard working, do come to our college. For these few, we sometimes have discussions.....may be one-on-one or in small groups to encourage them. Some of them do summer projects; some give talks on subjects of their choice. We organise external lectures where eminent scientists come and talk to them on a regular basis. We have a science club for discussions. (Years ago, I was totally impressed with a student talk on HIV, where I learnt a lot)
But the whole system cannot be tailored for these few. The system has to cater to the majority.......to be taught routinely, prepared for exams and given lecture notes. The skilled students will hopefully get interested by the extra-curricular activities and progress to a career in science.
By the way, this has happened many times and we have alumni doing very well in science.
I think this model where some people focus on teaching and others focus on research, is a good mix. Every class can then have research-based talks once or twice a week, to get a glimpse of what research goes on in different departments. The not-so-interested students can go to the cafeteria thus making everyone happy.
An average college student is not greatly interested in the subjects being taught. He just needs a degree and is willing to learn enough to pass his exams with good marks. He is not sure what any of the theories he learns actually mean. His verbal skills are not developed enough for him to take part in or even just follow complex arguments. He does not read anything except the prescribed textbook.
A successful student learns by reading lecture notes or textbooks many times so that the words "valence bond theory" automatically produce a set of six "points" in his mind that he can write down in the exam. If he recalls only four, he will go back to his books and see that he gets the missing two. THIS is the successful student who scores good marks in his BSc exams.
The not-so successful student reads the exam "guides" two days before the exam and manages a creditable 40% mark and completes his BSc.
The remaining students attend few classes and recognise the subject being taught only by the face of the lecturer-- Dr LS teaches General Chemistry and Inorganic Chemistry therefore this must be either the Gen Chemistry class or the Inorg Chem class. A few are unable to make even these deductions and vaguely think "this must be Chemistry''.
A few students who are skilled and interested and hard working, do come to our college. For these few, we sometimes have discussions.....may be one-on-one or in small groups to encourage them. Some of them do summer projects; some give talks on subjects of their choice. We organise external lectures where eminent scientists come and talk to them on a regular basis. We have a science club for discussions. (Years ago, I was totally impressed with a student talk on HIV, where I learnt a lot)
But the whole system cannot be tailored for these few. The system has to cater to the majority.......to be taught routinely, prepared for exams and given lecture notes. The skilled students will hopefully get interested by the extra-curricular activities and progress to a career in science.
By the way, this has happened many times and we have alumni doing very well in science.
I think this model where some people focus on teaching and others focus on research, is a good mix. Every class can then have research-based talks once or twice a week, to get a glimpse of what research goes on in different departments. The not-so-interested students can go to the cafeteria thus making everyone happy.
No comments:
Post a Comment