3 ms·

Two comments: 1) There are good teachers and there are bad teachers. Please don't tar all teachers with the same brush. (I know you said "tend" not "all" but

by blahedo 15y ago

Two comments: 1) There are good teachers and there are bad teachers. Please don't tar all teachers with the same brush. (I know you said "tend" not "all" but every other part of this post implied a broad brush.) 2) Sometimes we really do need to teach process. If I wait until the programs are complicated and the algorithms can't be held in your head to teach test cases and documentation and encapsulation for the first time, then they're hard. If I step my students through the design process on something simple like is_equal_to or even get_x, then they can start to build good habits so they're ready when they need them. "But I can just write this method and know it's correct just by looking at it." "Well, I should hope so. Fortunately, that's not the point here."

tptacek 15y ago
If you're teaching the process, teach the process. Don't set up a project with a clear objective, force students to rigidly follow exactly the steps you yourself took to get to that objective, and assume the process transfers to the students through osmosis. This is a sore point with me; I'm in a minor conflict with one of my 7th grader's over an assignment he aced in which he's being dinged for (bogus) process faults. What's worse is, my 7th grader has generally excellent teachers. I don't buy that this is a "good teacher / bad teacher" issue. I think it's a methodological flaw common to all standard secondary schooling programs.
- blahedo 15y ago
  > If you're teaching the process, teach the process. I do, thanks. > Don't set up a project with a clear objective, force students to rigidly follow exactly the steps I really do not understand what you're saying here. You want me to teach the process but then not evaluate whether students can do the process? > you yourself took to get to that objective, and assume the process transfers to the students through osmosis. With your "you yourself" comment you sound like you're objecting to the very idea of teaching process; and why are you assuming that I'm attempting some sort of osmotic transfer?
  - tptacek 15y ago
    Here's a project: write a research paper. This paper accounts for 2/3rds this semester's English grade; in other words, it's the major learning objective of the class this semester. What we're going to do is, here's a project rubric. It breaks the research paper into a series of steps. You make little cards for sources. You organize the cards to "brainstorm". Your turn your brainstorm into an outline. And so on. You're going to follow all these steps, and most of our class time will be spent with you working on these steps and then me, the teacher, evaluating your progress on the steps. In the end, your grade will be 50% based on the outcome of the paper, and 50% based on your timely adherence to the rubric. What's wrong with this teaching method? It prioritizes the "research process" in the assessment, but does not actually explain what the research process is or why it works that way. It presumes that standing up in class spending 5-10 minutes saying "here's why we make little cards, so we can brainstorm" provides adequate context so that combined going through and following the steps, students are learning a research process. That it allows for no other alternatives to the process of organizing a paper is of secondary concern; the primary concern is, it doesn't sell the process, it simply mandates and then grades on it. An alternative method to teach the research process: have the students pick a research topic and then write a paper on it without following a formal process. Evaluate the papers; they're poorly organized, they don't make coherent points, they lack sourcing, their sources are inadequate, &c. Now do another paper, focusing on how the research process is a corrective for the flaws in the first paper. This seems strictly better than "You didn't turn in a printed outline in the correct format before handing in a fully cited first and then final draft of the research paper. 50 points on the paper. 10 points on the process. C- for you." This example extends to every other process-focused assignment I've seen my kid deal with in school: "here's an ambitious outcome, here's a rigidly specified process, and here's a grading system that assesses each individually". This is a great scheme for teaching smart kids why not to take "process" seriously. I am 1000% sure you do things better than this. This is a message board. Everyone is always the exception to the rule.
    - noahc 15y ago
      I had to go through this exact same process in High School. I almost shot my self. I ended up getting a D- on the paper. The process is so deeply flawed here is one example. I have my sources, my note cards, and my outline. Each note card had on the front of it a single sentence and on the back of it the source written perfectly according to some standard (I lost many of my points because I would forget a period or comma). Each note card then had to be perfectly ordered (and wrapped with a rubber band and with each paragraph having a paper clip on it) and have the corresponding number written on the back and then circled. If I wanted to change the 2nd sentence in my paper, I would have to completely renumber all the note cards. If I wanted to change a word in my paper I had to cross out the word on the note card with ONE line through it and then rewrite it on the notecard and then change it on the computer. If I wanted to change the structure of my paper, I had to go back and rewrite the outline. I've always considered the outline the "black dot" of a painting. It's hard to start painting on a blank canvas, but as soon as you put a black dot on it you have something to fix, build off of, whatever. The outline puts the first 2 -3 paragraphs on the paper and the rest of the time you ignore it. Retyping this and thinking about it has made me literally feel physically sick.

by blahedo 15y ago

tptacek 15y ago

If you're teaching the process, teach the process. Don't set up a project with a clear objective, force students to rigidly follow exactly the steps you yourself took to get to that objective, and assume the process transfers to the students through osmosis. This is a sore point with me; I'm in a minor conflict with one of my 7th grader's over an assignment he aced in which he's being dinged for (bogus) process faults. What's worse is, my 7th grader has generally excellent teachers. I don't buy that this is a "good teacher / bad teacher" issue. I think it's a methodological flaw common to all standard secondary schooling programs.

blahedo 15y ago
> If you're teaching the process, teach the process. I do, thanks. > Don't set up a project with a clear objective, force students to rigidly follow exactly the steps I really do not understand what you're saying here. You want me to teach the process but then not evaluate whether students can do the process? > you yourself took to get to that objective, and assume the process transfers to the students through osmosis. With your "you yourself" comment you sound like you're objecting to the very idea of teaching process; and why are you assuming that I'm attempting some sort of osmotic transfer?
- tptacek 15y ago
  Here's a project: write a research paper. This paper accounts for 2/3rds this semester's English grade; in other words, it's the major learning objective of the class this semester. What we're going to do is, here's a project rubric. It breaks the research paper into a series of steps. You make little cards for sources. You organize the cards to "brainstorm". Your turn your brainstorm into an outline. And so on. You're going to follow all these steps, and most of our class time will be spent with you working on these steps and then me, the teacher, evaluating your progress on the steps. In the end, your grade will be 50% based on the outcome of the paper, and 50% based on your timely adherence to the rubric. What's wrong with this teaching method? It prioritizes the "research process" in the assessment, but does not actually explain what the research process is or why it works that way. It presumes that standing up in class spending 5-10 minutes saying "here's why we make little cards, so we can brainstorm" provides adequate context so that combined going through and following the steps, students are learning a research process. That it allows for no other alternatives to the process of organizing a paper is of secondary concern; the primary concern is, it doesn't sell the process, it simply mandates and then grades on it. An alternative method to teach the research process: have the students pick a research topic and then write a paper on it without following a formal process. Evaluate the papers; they're poorly organized, they don't make coherent points, they lack sourcing, their sources are inadequate, &c. Now do another paper, focusing on how the research process is a corrective for the flaws in the first paper. This seems strictly better than "You didn't turn in a printed outline in the correct format before handing in a fully cited first and then final draft of the research paper. 50 points on the paper. 10 points on the process. C- for you." This example extends to every other process-focused assignment I've seen my kid deal with in school: "here's an ambitious outcome, here's a rigidly specified process, and here's a grading system that assesses each individually". This is a great scheme for teaching smart kids why not to take "process" seriously. I am 1000% sure you do things better than this. This is a message board. Everyone is always the exception to the rule.
  - noahc 15y ago
    I had to go through this exact same process in High School. I almost shot my self. I ended up getting a D- on the paper. The process is so deeply flawed here is one example. I have my sources, my note cards, and my outline. Each note card had on the front of it a single sentence and on the back of it the source written perfectly according to some standard (I lost many of my points because I would forget a period or comma). Each note card then had to be perfectly ordered (and wrapped with a rubber band and with each paragraph having a paper clip on it) and have the corresponding number written on the back and then circled. If I wanted to change the 2nd sentence in my paper, I would have to completely renumber all the note cards. If I wanted to change a word in my paper I had to cross out the word on the note card with ONE line through it and then rewrite it on the notecard and then change it on the computer. If I wanted to change the structure of my paper, I had to go back and rewrite the outline. I've always considered the outline the "black dot" of a painting. It's hard to start painting on a blank canvas, but as soon as you put a black dot on it you have something to fix, build off of, whatever. The outline puts the first 2 -3 paragraphs on the paper and the rest of the time you ignore it. Retyping this and thinking about it has made me literally feel physically sick.