Group items tagged

Increasingly, undergraduates are not prepared adequately in any academic area but often arrive with strong convictions about their abilities.

It has become difficult to give students honest feedback.

As the college-age population declines, many tuition-driven institutions struggle to find enough paying customers to balance their budgets. That makes it necessary to recruit even more unprepared students, who then must be retained, shifting the burden for academic success away from the student and on to the teacher.

Although a lot of emphasis is placed on research on the tenure track, most faculty members are not on that track and are retained on the basis of what students think of them.

Students gravitate to lenient professors and to courses that are reputedly easy, particularly in general education.

It is impossible to maintain high expectations for long unless everyone holds the line in all comparable courses—and we face strong incentives not to do that.

Formerly, full-time, tenured faculty members with terminal degrees and long-term ties to the institution did most of the teaching. Such faculty members not only were free to grade honestly and teach with conviction but also had a deep understanding of the curriculum, their colleagues, and the institutional mission. Now undergraduate teaching relies primarily on graduate students and transient, part-time instructors on short-term contracts who teach at multiple institutions and whose performance is judged almost entirely by student-satisfaction surveys.

Contingent faculty members, who are paid so little, routinely teach course loads that are impossible to sustain without cutting a lot of corners.

Many colleges are now so packed with transient teachers, and multitasking faculty-administrators, that it is impossible to maintain some kind of logical development in the sequencing of courses.

Students may be enjoying high self-esteem, but college teachers seem to be suffering from a lack of self-confidence.

always evolving

We have to keep developing our capabilities and avoid falling behind.

no matter how well prepared people are in their formative years, few can achieve and maintain their best performance on their own.

outside ears, and eyes, are important

For decades, research has confirmed that the big factor in determining how much students learn is not class size or the extent of standardized testing but the quality of their teachers.

California researchers in the early nineteen-eighties conducted a five-year study of teacher-skill development in eighty schools, and noticed something interesting. Workshops led teachers to use new skills in the classroom only ten per cent of the time. Even when a practice session with demonstrations and personal feedback was added, fewer than twenty per cent made the change. But when coaching was introduced—when a colleague watched them try the new skills in their own classroom and provided suggestions—adoption rates passed ninety per cent. A spate of small randomized trials confirmed the effect. Coached teachers were more effective, and their students did better on tests.

they did not necessarily have any special expertise in a content area, like math or science.

The coaches let the teachers choose the direction for coaching. They usually know better than anyone what their difficulties are.

teaches coaches to observe a few specifics: whether the teacher has an effective plan for instruction; how many students are engaged in the material; whether they interact respectfully; whether they engage in high-level conversations; whether they understand how they are progressing, or failing to progress.

must engage in “deliberate practice”—sustained, mindful efforts to develop the full range of abilities that success requires. You have to work at what you’re not good at.

most people do not know where to start or how to proceed. Expertise, as the formula goes, requires going from unconscious incompetence to conscious incompetence to conscious competence and finally to unconscious competence.

The coach provides the outside eyes and ears, and makes you aware of where you’re falling short.

So coaches use a variety of approaches—showing what other, respected colleagues do, for instance, or reviewing videos of the subject’s performance. The most common, however, is just conversation.

“What worked?”

“How could you help her?”

“What else did you notice?”

something to try.

three colleagues on a lunch break

Good coaches, he said, speak with credibility, make a personal connection, and focus little on themselves.

“listened more than they talked,” Knight said. “They were one hundred per cent present in the conversation.”

coaching has definitely changed how satisfying teaching is

trying to get residents to think—to think like surgeons—and his questions exposed how much we had to learn.

a whole list of observations like this.

one twenty-minute discussion gave me more to consider and work on than I’d had in the past five years.

watch other colleagues operate in order to gather ideas about what I could do.

routine, high-quality video recordings of operations could enable us to figure out why some patients fare better than others.

I know that I’m learning again.

It’s teaching with a trendier name. Coaching aimed at improving the performance of people who are already professionals is less usual.

modern society increasingly depends on ordinary people taking responsibility for doing extraordinary things

coaching may prove essential to the success of modern society.

We care about results in sports, and if we care half as much about results in schools and in hospitals we may reach the same conclusion.

The true measure of a language isn’t how it uses semicolons; it’s the standard library of each language. A language is software for making software. The standard library is a set of premade software that you can reuse and reapply.

A coder needs to be able to quickly examine and identify which giant, complex library is the one that’s the most recently and actively updated and the best match for his or her current needs. A coder needs to be a good listener.

Code isn’t just obscure commands in a file. It requires you to have a map in your head, to know where the good libraries, the best documentation, and the most helpful message boards are located. If you don’t know where those things are, you will spend all of your time searching, instead of building cool new things.

Some tools are better for certain jobs.

C is a simple language, simple like a shotgun that can blow off your foot. It allows you to manage every last part of a computer—the memory, files, a hard drive—which is great if you’re meticulous and dangerous if you’re sloppy

Object-oriented programming is, at its essence, a filing system for code.

Where C tried to make it easier to do computer things, Smalltalk tried to make it easier to do human things.

Style and usage matter; sometimes programmers recommend Strunk & White’s The Elements of Style—that’s right, the one about the English language. Its focus on efficient usage resonates with programmers. The idiom of a language is part of its communal identity.

Coding is a culture of blurters.

Programmers carve out a sliver of cognitive territory for themselves and go to conferences, and yet they know their position is vulnerable.

Programmers are often angry because they’re often scared.

Programming is a task that rewards intense focus and can be done with a small group or even in isolation.

For a truly gifted programmer, writing code is a side effect of thought

As a class, programmers are easily bored, love novelty, and are obsessed with various forms of productivity enhancement.

“Most programming languages are partly a way of expressing things in terms of other things and partly a basic set of given things.”

Of course, while we were trying to build a bookstore, we actually built the death of bookstores—that seems to happen a lot in the business. You set out to do something cool and end up destroying lots of things that came before.