I'm organizing a course on teaching for first-time economics department TAs in the fall so I've been thinking more about teaching lately. Besides getting over the initial nerves, I think the biggest challenge is in getting undergrads to participate. Here are a few scattered thoughts on the issue:
- Try to start getting participation beginning with the first class. It's a lot easier for students to join in after their peers have already done so. And it can be hard to recover if a non-participatory environment is the status quo.
- I find it helpful to ease the class into participating. For example, I usually begin the first meeting of the quarter by asking about their background. "Raise your hand if you're a first year. Raise your hand if you've taken such-and-such level math. Raise your hand if you're from out of state." I often use this approach on a class by class basis as well. For example, I'll begin the class with "raise your hand if you think minimum wages always reduce employment. Now raise your hand if you disagree" to start the class before moving on to open-ended questions later on.
- Reward participation with enthusiasm.
- When someone gives a wrong answer, move on quickly so they don't feel bad and so others aren't intimidated. I like to give the correct answer right away. I understand why some may disagree with this approach because it takes the challenge away from other students.
- The 10 second rule. After you ask a question, be patient and look the class over while waiting for a response. It will get uncomfortable if no one answers. Stick to it. Before 10 seconds are through a student will likely break the silence. Now that you've committed to getting feedback, they will usually answer subsequent questions more quickly. Second, now that (at least) one person has participated, others will feel more comfortable joining in. If the 10 seconds pass without an answer, it's probably time to move on. Try again with a different question after a few minutes.
- Don't ask questions that are too easy. If you do and your students give you the "are you serious?" stare, just give the answer yourself and move on.
I'd love to hear your thoughts/suggestions in the comments.
10 comments:
I know something you shouldn't do. You shouldn't play the joker and get extra friendly with the students, early on, because then they lose respect and it's much harder for you to control the process.
Hate it or love it, but there's a rank/status/hierarchy point to teaching.
I've seen a lot of teachers trying to be buddies with their students and ending up with noisy classes and unable to seriously do the material. -- This is not to say that you should be an asshole.
I like putting students in small groups. The rhythm of my sections is for me to ask each group to do slight variations on a problem (e.g. analyze policy x in the IS/LM framework) and then have the groups share their results after working on the problem for 5-10 minutes. This combines active learning with lots of repetition.
I rarely "lecture" in section.
Also, the small groups create smaller ponds for people to be big fish in and everyone in the group can celebrate the success of getting a question right, etc.
I also advertise heavily for students to visit me in my office hours and to send me emails. I haven't done rigorous econometric studies or anything, but my impression is that students that participate outside of class also participate inside the class.
Will, what is it that you like about putting students in small groups? It seems inefficient to me--I would think a substantial share of time would go into within group icebreaking before the actual work begins. And then there's the dead time after some groups are done and others are not.
On the other hand, the obvious benefit is that it forces students to think about a problem on their own. But this can be achieved in less time by putting a problem on the board and telling them to work through it individually. That said, this situation puts less pressure on them to think about the problem. Perhaps a mixed approach would have them do the problem on their own, check their answers with their neighbor, then ask who agrees with their neighbor and have them share.
Definitely agree with your last paragraph.
My other concern with the approach you describe is that I think it may actually put too much weight into student involvement. To me, participation is important because it means that the students are engaged with the material and it gives you feedback about how well they understand it. I don't think the students benefit a great deal from hearing each other explain the concepts/solutions. Better for me to explain it after giving them a chance to think about it on their own.
Or maybe I just like to hear myself talk and this is a rationalization for my behavior.
I think the biggest barrier to learning is the hesitation students feel because they are afraid of being wrong.
Learning happens when you screw up. Something about the emotion of feeling like a dufus makes it easier to rewire neurons.
Hearing other students be wrong makes it ok for them to be wrong.
Of course, its important to go over the results on the black board.
On the inefficiency issue... I agree. There's usually about 5 minutes for introductions/get to know yous. In the long run, I suspect this is a wash because it makes the group problem solving more efficient.
That said, I really believe one of the most valuable aspects of University is meeting people. As Frank has found, most economics students forget what they learn in class 6 months post. People take intimates, business partners and best friends with them for the rest of their lives.
I completely respect your last reason. The "right" approach depends on what you're maximizing. A benevolent social planner should take such things under consideration to some degree. Should a self-interested TA? In other words, I wonder which approach yields better student evaluations. (Also, another benefit of the "lecture" approach to the TA is that it's good practice in public speaking.)
I enjoy producing externalities... especially when I'm paid to. :-)
What Jason is talking about is what elementary teachers call a think-pair-share. In credentialing and in my own experience I have found that it is extremely important to allow at least 15-20 seconds for students to think through a problem before they even begin sharing. If this time is not given students are less likely to share their ideas.
On the TA eval front: I tend to get good evals and I think that's a result of students feeling like section wasn't a waste of time.
This doesn't mean that section doesn't waste their time, it just means they should *feel* like section didn't waste their time. :-)
It helps, of course, if section isn't a waste of time.
Post a Comment