Prof-like Substance had an interesting post on teaching while on the TT at a research university. I am late to the discussion, since life has been kicking my ass lately, but I left a lengthy comment there that I decided should be a post on its own.
My first time teaching a large undergrad course was pretty demoralizing. The second time through was much better, and not just because I did a better job with more experience. The first time through, I had to spend a lot of time on prep and course mechanics. The second time through, I spent a lot less total time on the course, and a lot more of the time I did spend on stuff I found more interesting (how to convey my enthusiasm for science, how to incorporate modern research into a course on fundamentals discovered a long time ago, finding relevant short demo videos, etc). My students really enjoyed the videos a lot, and I was really happy to discover that there were a core group of students who got really excited that this required course turned out to be somewhat interesting, and let that 5-10% or so give me energy to deal with the 90+% who don't care at all about the material.
I want to be a good teacher for myself, and to fulfill my obligations to my students. I do what I can in the time I can allot to it, just as I budget my time in the other aspects of my job. I agree that as a TT prof, I can’t afford to spend the time to become truly outstanding in the classroom. To be honest, I am not that interested in being truly outstanding, otherwise I would be at a different type of institution. Students who want a truly outstanding classroom experience don’t (or at least shouldn’t) come to research universities in the first place. My undergrad course has 200 students in it for me and one TA to work with. There is no way to have a meaningful interaction with that many people.
I do the best I can to inspire the students I have, and I cheer for the small victories (the student who switches majors to my subject after my course, the students who come looking for research opportunities, the students who I have great conversations with about the implications of the material we cover in class). I try to let the demoralizing parts and the “is this on the exam” kids roll off of me. Good luck–it is a hard thing to balance, and you are not alone in struggling with it.
Predecessor Stressor
2 days ago
9 comments:
Students who want a truly outstanding classroom experience don’t (or at least shouldn’t) come to research universities in the first place.
I’m not sure that I agree with your opinion here, but let’s just say that you’re right for the sake of argument. Problem is, this bit of wisdom is *not* something that students are told when applying to college.
Should Harvard, Stanford, MIT, etc., warn applicants that they will get a so-so classroom experience because, in general, the faculty at these places are not that interested in doing a great job in the classroom? Having gone to one of these schools for undergrad, I’m very grateful that quite a number of profs went the extra mile to be spectacular in the classroom.
I think that for most people, it may be unrealistic to expect that they will be awesome in the classroom *and* the lab, especially when they are TT and schools seem to care so much more about the research component. But there are certainly outstanding individuals at top-notch research uni’s that make it possible for students to have the best of both worlds.
@Anon
I have no doubt that many professors at research Universities can provide an outstanding classrrom experience (which is something I have experienced as well). However, I suspect that is mostly due to talented people having lots of experience at it, and not people starting out. There is a big difference between the effort required to be outstanding and good, and for people on the TT at a research university, that effort is just not rewarded.
Actually, some of the best teachers I had were still pre-tenure. Some people are simply naturals at it … and just amazingly talented all around. But as I said above, I understand that this is not the norm.
Be that as it may, you don’t get to justify your choice(s) with:
Students who want a truly outstanding classroom experience don’t (or at least shouldn’t) come to research universities in the first place.
until your uni stops paying lip service to excellence in teaching. The students at your school most likely *did not* make an informed decision to sacrifice teaching quality in favor of research opportunities.
Be that as it may, you don’t get to justify your choice(s) with:
Students who want a truly outstanding classroom experience don’t (or at least shouldn’t) come to research universities in the first place.
Sure I do--it is the nature of the beast. There is a difference between an "outstanding classroom experience" and outstanding lectures. Many people can provide outstanding lectures, but in a classroom of 100+ students, there is no real way to do anything but lecture unless you are committed to teaching full time (which I have no interest in). My grad level course with 20ish students is a lot better for the students than my undergrad course with 200+ students. I don't think anyone expects anything other than lectures in such a large course at Prodigal U. Lecturing to 200+ students, no matter how excellent the lectures, is not an outstanding classroom experience for the students. There is no way to tailor the material to the students in the class, or even to realistically get a sense for how well the students are "getting it" outside of exams. Surveys self-select for the most interested/most upset, so they do not reflect the silent majority. Even clickers have their issues, since they are hard to incorporate well.
I think many people understand this trade-off, even at 18. Harvard, Stanford, and MIT have small student bodies, making it easier to have good courses with research focussed professors. If you went to a school like that, you have no idea what it is like to be in a class of 1000 students. Not everyone can get in/afford that type of education, but I know many people who did their first 2 years at PUIs or comminuty colleges so they would have a better classroom experience before transferring to a larger research University for the advantages there in upper level courses and research opportunities.
Lecturing to 200+ students, no matter how excellent the lectures, is not an outstanding classroom experience for the students.
If you don’t believe that it’s possible to give students an excellent classroom experience in a class of 200+ students, you should check out “Justice” at Harvard by Michael Sandel. Several years ago, enrollment for this course was 1000+. Students sign up because it is * an outstanding classroom experience,* not just great lecturing. I think many of the materials (lesson plans, recorded lectures, etc.) are online, so you might want to look there for ideas/inspiration.
I understand that you are not Sandel, with his experience and/or resources. But take a moment to really think about what is or is not possible, what does or does not happen at places like Harvard, before you go pronouncing certain things not doable.
And finally, I disagree that students (and their parents) are knowingly making the trade-off you claim, so please stop rationalizing your choices with that.
To anon: Prodigal's choices to do research at a research university are nothing out of the norm. And you probably have no idea of the quality of the student body she is dealing with.
Undergrads at MIT/Harvard/etc are typically the cream of the crop, which means they are usually well-prepared, motivated, and likely independent learners (and typically well-off too). At a large state university, that it typically not the case, the quality of students is much different, and the professors are paid much less than at private schools. Tuition is kept low so as to keep the doors open to the state's students.
So please don't go dismissing Prodigal's "choices." Professors at research universities are there to be scholars and teachers, with the emphasis on scholars. Those at public ones are supposed to be excellent scholars with *significantly scarcer* resources than at private universities. The fact that Prodigal is doing exactly her job -- research first, then teaching -- is nothing to be condemened.
And finally, I disagree that students (and their parents) are knowingly making the trade-off you claim, so please stop rationalizing your choices with that.
This enitlement never ceases to amaze me. The students even at my public R1 where tuition is very cheap think that someohow the pittance they pay entitles them to have their asses kissed by faculty. Well, it doesn't. Research funds brought in by research active faculty greases the wheels of this university to a larger degree than tuition. I wish someone would tell the students that, if they want their asses kissed, they should have 4.00 GPA, shell out $50K/year for tuition, and go to Harvard. Then they can grow up to be as condescending as Anon.
@GMP: Talk about condescending! Because of the generous financial aid packages available to low-income students at places like Harvard, it was actually cheaper for me to go there than my state uni. But please, keep talking out your ass about matters that you know nothing about.
The fact that Prodigal is doing exactly her job -- research first, then teaching -- is nothing to be condemened [sic].
The problem is, as I have said several times above, this is *not* how her uni advertises/explains her job to its students and the parents who fork over what little they have to satisfy the “pittance” that state uni’s require of them.
If you or Prodigal are unhappy teaching students at state schools, don’t accept a faculty position at one. There are plenty of people out there who would happily trade places w/you, and who would never dream of telling themselves, “Well, this is not Harvard, so my students don’t deserve the very best.”
I was going to stay out of it, because I am not sure why Anon is so upset at the revelation that not all professors at research intensive Universities have a burning desire to be outstanding teachers. Thanks for the support GMP.
Anon,
1) You don't know where I have been in the past. You assume I am unfamiliar with how things are at private universities. This may or may not be true.
2) Your example is a well-experienced professor working in collaboration with WGBH (a TV station!) I would certainly hope that they could put something nice together with those resources!
3) While you assume that the needs of students in an introductory course on justice/ethics are the same as the needs of introductory courses on Biology/Chemistry/Physics/Math, I can assure you that this is not my experience AT ALL. If you don't understand a topic in a course on justice, you leave it out of your paper. If you don't understand a point in Math, you might fail the next course in the sequence. Science and engineering students so better in smaller classes. This point has been demonstrated by education researchers many times. My University cannot afford to offer smaller introductory courses, so we do what we can. We do not hide this from potential students or their families.
4) Just because you didn't consider class size and its impact on your education, doesn't mean other people don't. At PhD U, it was very common for students to transfer in from smaller campuses, community colleges, or other PUI schools for their last 2 years.
5) I never said I was unhappy teaching--that is your assumption. I just said that I do the best I can in the time I can afford to allot to it. I actually enjoy teaching, or I would have stayed at National Lab (where I didn't teach).
I don't know why you are so angry at me, or by extension professors at public universities. This post was about how I do my best for my students given the limitations of my job, not a lament that I have to teach undergrads. I am done discussing this with you.
Your example is a well-experienced professor working in collaboration with WGBH (a TV station!) I would certainly hope that they could put something nice together with those resources!
That course existed in its present state long before WGBH came to film it. The point is that despite having 1000+ students in his class, Sandel manages to do what you claim is impossible.
Science and engineering students so better in smaller classes.
That may be, but guess what: the intro math and physics courses at Harvard (and other similar schools) are quite large. That fact alone doesn’t prevent those courses from being excellent classroom experiences. Sandel was just the first name that came to mind; there are certainly science-specific examples of people who teach large classes very well, like Eric Mazur.
…I am not sure why Anon is so upset at the revelation that not all professors at research intensive Universities have a burning desire to be outstanding teachers.
What upsets me is to hear a prof telling themselves: “My students knew they were not in for great teaching when they came here, so I don’t feel bad about not providing that.” That is very different from saying: “I’d like to do an excellent job, but I don’t have the time or the resources.” Or at least being honest with yourself and others and saying: “I don’t really care that much about being outstanding, and it’s too bad if my students feel short-changed for that.”
But no … the system is broken, and in your mind, the students knew (or should have known) what they were getting themselves into when they came to your school. Bullshit!! And bullshit that your school is up front w/parents and students about that.
Post a Comment