Following the syllabus
How quickly do we need to teach a subject?
Our tutoring consultant recently received an email from a former student, now in her second year of college. She is doing all right so far, but is almost overwhelmed by the pace of two of her courses (one on low-lever computer programming, the other on related mathematical theory). We think she’ll be successful; she is capable, organized and diligent; but the experience is stressful. It made us wonder about why some college courses, at least, have to go so quickly.
Our astronomer recalls teaching introductory Physics at this level. He and his fellow teachers, were always on the alert for new techniques and ideas that would make it easier for students to learn. They were aware that not all students learn well from books, or from the standard lecture-quiz-test format. Great results were reported for one technique in particular (whose official name he doesn’t recall). The teacher would project a multiple-choice question on the screen in front. Each student had a little clicker that would choose one of the answers. There would be a first round of voting. Then there was a period of maybe five or ten minutes when each student would try to convince neighboring students of the merits of his or her choice, followed by a second round of voting. It was an effective technique; but it took time. It was difficult to get through as many as three questions in a class period, a tiny fraction of the material required for the day.
It turns out that the wonderful results reported for this and other new methods were all accompanied by a reduction in the curriculum. Students learned better, but learned less. There is nothing wrong with that in principle, but it was not an option at our astronomer’s institution. Certain topics had to be covered because they were required by follow-on courses in several Departments. The same situation no doubt applied, and applies, in introductory courses everywhere. And not only there; granting a BS degree in some subject requires a certain level of mastery of material in the more advanced courses. There are organizations that enforce this.
Could we just extend the time students spend in college? To some extent, this already happens. But college is expensive. And a prospective employer would no doubt prefer a quick learner to one who took extra years to master the same material. At any rate, this is the system we have, and it would take an enormous effort to change it; plus it’s not terribly clear what it should be changed into. Quick learners are preferred.
But are quick learners necessarily better learners? Certainly there are professions and situations where absorbing a lot of new material quickly is vital. And perhaps there’s some overall correlation between the pace a student can tolerate and overall mastery of the field. But some of the great advances in science (maybe all the greatest) came from spending an extended time on one question. Perhaps there should be a path for those who take longer but understand more deeply.
