Read the whole review; the “not so fast” refers to the fact that experimentation need not be carried out by the individual professor reading the review–this is a review of a book that presents a variety of different approaches to non-lecture learning. At the end, Gazzale says that he uses and endorses ‘active learning’ methods. Can anyone who has taken his courses comment?

I took Math 209 (Diff. Eq.) with Professor Devadoss last semester. He’s a great teacher who gives great lectures, and I learned a lot and really enjoyed the class. You seem to be asserting that it would have been better as a discussion section. Can you clarify how that would be?

Sorry that I don’t have time for a full response, but I make most of my arguments in the Record op-ed linked above. Short version is that every minute that Devadoss spends lecturing is a minute that he doesn’t spend discussing, working with students as individuals, addressing them specific questions/problems.

Prof. Gazzale taught my Micro Principles course. While he deployed some effective “active learning” tools (online discussion boards, etc.) there was a lot of chalk and talk going on. In fairness, it was a Principles course, and therefore the sections were way too large and the class was way too dead for any other method to be used. Ultimately, I don’t think the shortcomings of the course were Prof. Gazzale’s fault. And the Muppet Show-themed problem sets were amazing.

I’ll agree that such courses would be better done as small sections where there’s actual learning going on. Most people just plod through the 100-level Econ courses because they are so badly structured and taught that there’s no real way you’re going to actually learn as much as you should. It’s not the profs’ fault; lectures are just a terrible way to learn the material, IMO. I suspect with far smaller sections you could do much better, much quicker, with less grunt work and fewer problem sets.

That said, David: as the anonymous oh-ten (that’s never gonna get old!) points out above, some subjects are better done via lecture, and some profs can do things with lectures that others can’t. Just gotta assess them as they are, rather than declaring oneself universally in favor of one teaching paradigm in all circumstances.

Short version is that every minute that Devadoss spends lecturing is a minute that he doesn’t spend discussing, working with students as individuals, addressing them specific questions/problems.

Well, the purpose of a math class (at least, this particular class) is to understand a method for solving a certain type of problem, and when one person (the professor) understands that method infinitely better than anyone else in the room, it makes sense to let them do most of the talking. If someone has a question in a lecture class, they’ll generally ask it, unless they know it’s a stupid question that would waste everyone else’s time, in which case they save it for the TA session. Devadoss is certainly receptive to questions, and he’ll often call out an individual student to ask for their intuition on a specific point, usually developing their thoughts on the board to illustrate why they were right or wrong. But the format of the class is still very much “chalk-and-talk”, and I don’t see how introducing more discussion would make it better. Really, what is there to discuss? It’s a math class; in the end, there’s still only one right answer.

I’m not saying the discussion format isn’t optimal for a lot of classes. Perhaps the large Econ intro classes would be much better taught as discussion sections. But it’s stupid to generalize that into claiming that every class should be a discussion.

Really, what is there to discuss? It’s a math class; in the end, there’s still only one right answer.

‘10 I take serious issue with the spirit of that comment, while it is true that there is empirically one right answer, there are usually at least 10 distinct approaches to that solution, each of which helps illuminate different aspects of the problem. So if different people have different thoughts on approaches, while it is only necessary to cover one, having an excuse to discuss what the pros and cons of each approach and what each approach illuminates can be an extremely useful excercise. Good professors like Devadoss will generally do this anyway, but that can be of an exception.

Exhibit A: Dead horse.

Commence flogging.

JLev, I agree completely with that; sorry if my phrasing failed to convey that spirit. I think I can safely say, though, that the purpose of an undergraduate math class is generally not to discover new truths but to convey existing ones, whether it’s one approach or ten different approaches to a problem. It’s rare that a student comes into class with a truly novel approach, especially when the professor is as knowledgeable as Williams profs are (it did happen to me a few times in HS). When they do, of course, they should be encouraged to share their thoughts, but I don’t think that requires refactoring the entire course into a discussion section.

Professor Gazzale taught my senior seminar, and it is quite accurate to say that he kept the “chalk and talk” to a minimum. In fact, he kept his own “talk” to very limited sections in the class, basically forcing the rest of us to carry discussion of the paper/assigned reading for the day on our own. It was a good learning experience, if uncomfortable at times, to have a professor who remains totally silent despite the fact that no one is saying anything. I really liked him as a prof*.

*In the interests of full disclosure, he and I went to the same high school and earns extra points for that fact.

I’m going to take issue with David’s categorical assertion that “chalk and talk,” or lecturing, is the “worst way to teach.” As someone who teaches at a university with undergraduates at a considerably lower level than those who enter Williams, I can assure you that “chalk and talk” is just about the only way to teach certain coures, such as the survey. In such a class the point is to convey a great deal of information, and a good lecturer, contra David’s blanket generalization, can convey that information well and compellingly. A great lecturer can, in fact feed the flame if we assume that the fire lasts beyond more than one class, and that a good lecturer can provide a foundation that can serve as kindling. As someone who lectures a great deal in my lower classes, and who also leads discussions with and grad students I frankly find such categorical ipse dixit assertions to be unjustifiable and insulting to those of us who use lectures with some success.

dcat