Marcum's musings

So, now that I’ve committed to spicing up my class (the easy first step), I must take the next step (plunge) and think of something to top my successful oral test.  My students and I have formed a Facebook group dedicated to designing a “project” which will involve everyone in class.  So far, this has been a relatively painless procedure.  Now comes the tricky part – the students have to come up with an idea for their project.  They are (understandably) hesitant to venture into the unknown, scary wilderness of being involved with their own education.  Oh how much easier it is for them to sit in class, pretend to pay attention, day dream and wait for class to be over.  It is infinitely harder for them to decide upon a concept they are interested in learning about, and then pursue the course that will get them to their goal.  I have to confess that it is easier, much easier, for me to follow the same formula.  I have my notes ready, I have my presentations and tests ready, and can step into class with very little preparation.  For the past couple of weeks, though, I’ve been mulling over their project.  I find myself thinking about it while doing chores, or driving, or trying to sleep.  It’s an exciting concept, but extremely hard to put into play.  Sometimes I wonder why I’m bothering, putting more work on my plate.  Then I think of how excited the students become when they become part of the learning process – when they own their education.  So, I just have to get back in the game and see where this ride takes me (and, if it doesn’t work out, I can always polish off my old powerpoints!)

After reading Steven Strogatz’s 2 blogs on math, I simply must comment.  In his first blog (from fish to infinity) Strogatz explains how math confounds, confuses and contorts some (most?) people.  My feelings about math are perfectly echoed in the statement that math excludes people – to me, math has never been enthralling (rather, it has been laborous, tedious, dull, and boring – never playful). He explains how the concept of numbers replaces concrete objects – fish six times becomes the number “6.”  The most interesting part of this blog occurs when he asks if humanity invented or discovered numbers.  I believe that humanity did NOT invent numbers – many animals can count, at least to a few numbers (Alex the parrot is the most famous example).  (on an interesting sidenote – note how Alex repeatedly makes requests – he wants water, he wants to leave – Irene ignores his requests – pretty rude to me!).  Strogatz’s second blog (rock groups)  does an excellent job of leading the reader through a basic understanding of “square numbers (they make a square!) and odd numbers (they have an odd appendage sticking out) – this is interesting stuff (not that I could have figured this out on my own – I’m just not that into math).  Despite this novel way of explaining math, some, like poor Melissa, still don’t get it.  In her comment, she asks how 7 is different from 15 regarding their ability to form rectangles (7 is a prime number, 15 isn’t – which is illustrated by the fact that 7 cannot be made into a rectangle).  She misses the point completely – 15 CAN be made into a rectangle (5 X 3), while 7 has that odd tail – which is exactly what Strogatz explains.  She merely needs to re-read what she wrote, and forget about trying to muddy the water with words like odd, and prime (vs. odd but not a prime).  Do what Strogatz explains: draw the rectangle! Maybe this is what is wrong with math – we try to make it too complicated!

As I was eating lunch today, I glanced through the Lariat to see what was going on around campus.  On page 4, an article titled “NASA scientist gives fresh perspective on global warming” discussed the presentation by Dennis Bushnell, the chief scientist for NSAS Langley Research Center.  According to the article, Bushnell (who has worked for NASA for 47 years) spoke about climate, energy, species extinctions, human population and what should be done (but isn’t).  He places humans squarely at fault for climate change, and made suggestions about future energy sources (biomass and biofuels).  According to the article, he gave facts, figures, problems, and solutions.  The ultimate problem with global warming is….. people!  He stated that people “don’t want to change – we really don’t want to change.  We know how to do it but we refuse to do it.”  From what I read in the article, Bushnell goes beyond discussing climate change, and exhorts people to (gasp) change!  Now, here’s evidence supporting my prior post that many of today’s students lack humility and revel in their unlimited, perfect knowledge.  Two students were interviewed about this presentation.  One, a Waco senior  had “objections” to his presentation.  The student didn’t agree with Bushnell’s predictions and some of his thoughts (Bushnell went “a little overboard with some things”).  A graduate student wanted to know Bushnell’s religious beliefs (??!!) because he (Bushnell) is a “very science-focused person who takes his material a little too seriously … to where he gets caught up in his research.”  Give me a break! On the one hand, we have a scientist, with 47 YEARS of experience, presenting information and (shudder) calling for action.  On the other hand, we have 2 students (BTW, is either one a chemistry major? Environmental science major? Climate change major?) questioning Bushnell – not from a scientific perspective, but from an emotional or non-religious point of view.  Why in God’s name (pun intended) would someone have an issue with a SCIENTIST getting caught up in his research?  Anyway, why should a SCIENTIST share his or her religious viewpoint?  Would a student take issue with a physicist discussing gravity from a non-religious viewpoint?  What gives?  Bushnell is an expert (he’s CHIEF scientist, for goodness sake) – but his call for people to change  does not sit well with students who are satisfied with their life style, and unwilling to change it (especially to prevent climate change – which they clearly do not “believe” in).  When did some students become such experts?  Why didn’t they QUESTION Bushnell’s during his presentation – ask him to clarify, explain, expand?  What data do they have to refute him?  They have nothing – except the self-satisfaction that they know more than the expert – so why even go to college?

When I attended college, particularly as a freshman, I was both intimidated and awed by my professors.  I was in awe of their academic accomplishments, and intimidated by their vast knowledge of their field.  Most, but not all, of my professors deserved both feelings – they worked hard in their field, and tried equally as hard to  make that field relevent and interesting to us students.  Some professors fell far short of these goals, but I still respected them as professionals.  My professors taught controversial topics, and I usually sat there, took notes, and learned the material.  Was my mind always changed after hearing the professor?  No, but I listened and tried to see the other point of view.  I often see something very different when I observe how my students react to controversial topics. To begin with, I teach in a very controversial field -  environmental science.  During the course of the semester, I teach evolution, climate change, overpopulation, animal management, and other hot topics.  Most of my students are attentive and interested in the material.  I see a few, however, shutting down during discussions – they sit there, stony faced, plainly unhappy about the material.  When I ask if anyone has an opinion, or question, they do not respond – but I can see that they are not happy.  I also learn of their unhappiness while reading their evaluations.  Most discontent involves me presenting current information on issues – particularly environmental protection and climate change.  For example, some students do not want to hear anything negative about their particular political party, or politician. My job is to present facts – and sometimes these facts are not what students want to hear.  The student’s job is to learn, question, and try to understand.  But when they sit in their chairs, shutting down because I’ve said something they don’t personally like, I see this as a failure in their role as students. If they don’t like what they hear, challenge me! Ask questions – confront the issue.  Be open about learning something new – that’s why they are in higher education.  It does me no good to simply parrot what they’ve heard their entire lives.  If they accept what I say, fine – if not, at least they should have examined the issue and drawn their own conclusions.  There is a lack of humility in many students – they come to class convinced that what they know is the Truth – and nothing the professor says can change their mind.  How can a student become a well-rounded citizen if the only things that are accepted are those already believed?

After a nice, not-quite-long-enough Christmas break, I’m back in my office.  I just completed my last class of the day, a class which I thoroughly enjoy.  The students this semester are attentive, seemingly interested in the information, and exceedingly polite.  In short, they are a joy to be with.  I often wonder, however, if the students are enjoying themselves as much as I am.  Probably not – I get to move around, talk, become animated (I have promised to show them my Prairie chicken dance) – but, what do my students get to do? They get to sit there – taking notes and letting their blood congeal in their veins.  I get frustrated at this situation – learning is much easier when the learner actively participates.  How ironic – the teacher is active, while the pupil is passive.  Hence, it is probably the teacher who is doing the most learning! I diligently attempt to  actively engage students (beyond asking them questions), but first they must have a grasp of the fundamentals – how can I get them involved in higher levels of  learning if they do not have the conceptual tools – the basics?  This, then is my dilemma: I must get students up to a certain level of knowledge for the course, so they can actively engage, but to do that, they are often more passive than I want.  Things were much easier in the past, when I could shock the students – keep them on their toes.  They never knew what I would bring to class – a snake, a pigeon, my dog….. What fun we had when I would be lecturing, and a pigeon would pop its head out of my jacket.  Now, with rules and regulations, that spontaneity has come to an end.  Of course, I break class up with various small activities, videos and stories – so I can’t be too depressed.  The next step, however, is to find additional  ways to impart information  in a vibrant, dynamic manner.  Aaah, the Holy Grail of higher education!

After listening to Dr. Brenda Gourley’s presentation “Dancing with history: a cautionary tale,” I was both inspired and more than a little scared.  Her 30 minute presentation was filled with wonderful stories, advice and cautionary tales.  Her humorous style of talking often hid deep messages, and it is easy to be lulled into listening to her presentation just to be entertained, but she has a much deeper message to impart.  She eloquently discusses how academia is changing – leaving the traditional lecture format (when did that become the way academia functions?) to the creation of an Open University.  She discusses how web information must be easy to find, how the lines between the public and private sector are becoming blurred (much to the dismay, I’m sure, of many in both parties!), and how higher education is undergoing a metamorphosis of great proportions.  It’s gratifying that Dr. Gourley does not discuss only theoretical ideas, though – she gives great details on strategies that can help a person move through changing strategies, and focus on what’s important – not only what to do, but what NOT to do.  As I sat listening to her speak, I was reminded that I could become part of this dynamic, changing atmosphere – and play a significant role in introducing my students to the challenging, exciting time we are in.