The physics department has replaced the traditional large introductory lecture with smaller classes that emphasize hands-on, interactive, collaborative learning. Last fall, after years of experimentation and debate and resistance from students, who initially petitioned against it, the department made the change permanent. Already, attendance is up and the failure rate has dropped by more than 50 percent.
Some bits you might find interesting: clickers! Homework due several times a week! And the biggest of all: attendance counts!
The new approach at M.I.T. is known by its acronym, TEAL, for Technology Enhanced Active Learning....A $10 million donation from the late Alex d’Arbeloff, an M.I.T. alumnus, co-founder of the high-tech company Teradyne, and former M.I.T. corporation chairman, made the switch to TEAL possible. The two state-of-the-art TEAL classrooms alone cost $2.5 million, Professor Belcher said.
The article says the failure rate is down, and performance is up. But then again, with required attendance, the failure rate could easily drop.
Is this constructivism? Are the teachers teaching any more? Or guides on the side? Well, guess what? The students hate it.
from the MIT paper, The Tech, in 2006:
"Most students do not bother to hide their dislike for TEAL. Their list of grievances is long and oft-repeated: the physical set-up of small tables makes it difficult to see the lecturer, the numerous homework assignments are tedious, the in-class problems are gone over too quickly, the students strong in physics end up doing all the work, and so on."
it continues:
Though student complaints are numerous, a number of changes have in fact been integrated into TEAL since its inception. Professor Eric Hudson, course administrator for 8.02T, has worked on modifications including more undergraduate teaching assistants in the classroom, fewer experiments (a drop from 18 to 10), and an emphasis on faculty training. Still being tested is the new AIM screenname iheart802, which will allow students to instant message a TA during class.
But even with the changes, the irrefutable fact remains: students are uninspired by the course. Dourmashkin admits that “students don’t like to go to class,” while Professor John Joannopoulos, who teaches a section of 8.02T this semester, said that there is a “tendency for students to be lax and lose concentration.”
Freshman Sarah Levin ’09, currently a TEAL student, said that “all of TEAL is so unmotivating because it’s so tedious that I don’t put any effort into the class and because of it I’m losing a good percentage of my grade just by lack of attendance.”
Shaw sees this problem as well. “Students come out of TEAL with a dislike for physics, and they seem less inclined to major in physics. TEAL has never done a good job in instilling a sense of why [learning] this is important.”
but I think this is the giveaway:
There are “lots of ways to do active learning,” Belcher said, citing a study conducted at Harvard that exhibited stronger learner gains than TEAL in a lecture environment with regular student involvement. “The important thing is to have students interact with students,” he said.
ah, yes, that's why I was such a poor student at MIT. Because I interacted so seldomly with STUDENTS! uh....no....not exactly.
another student's comments on TEAL:
I strongly suspect the NOOLT ("No One Likes Teal") phenomenon occured because TEAL, as I overheard someone whose name I can't remember say, "is the perfect example of when too much technology can be a bad thing."
We sit in tables of nine in groups of three. Each group has a computer to enable the learning process. Most of the time, though, it's used to watch the power point that's already projected in four (or more) different places around the room. (Sometimes these computers are used for Facebook. We're going to ignore that data.) In the beginning of the year, we took a diagnostic test and we were assigned to tables in a fashion that would keep an even distribution of physics background at the tables (meaning that all the people who took AP Physics in high school wouldn't sit in the same place).
This is all geared towards collaborative learning, which is nice in theory, but what happened in my experience is that the people at the table who knew what they're doing would work through the problem, and I would be left in the dark in terms of where this equation came from and what that one means. The idea was to learn from eachother, except that I feel that we do plenty of this while working on p(roblem)-sets. Personally, I'd like classtime to be geared more towards learning from the teacher.
And finally, this one culled from the comments on the NYT article:
This article is wildly misleading about the success of TEAL. As a member of the class of 2009, I was one of the first students required to participate in TEAL of I chose to take 8.01 (Mechanics). I then took TEAL again for Electricity and Magnetism (8.02).
If you notice in the pitcure, the TEAL classroom is a windowless, dark room that causes drowsiness better than any cold medicine. Each class is 2 hours long and you work with two other people that you have not chosen yourself. On fridays, you are to complete a small quiz with these people and all three of you recieve a grade for it. What ends up happening is the one person in the group does the problem and has no real motivation to explain it to you other than common courtesy.
The grades may have gotten better, but that is only because you get a grade for sitting there as well as about a thousand other assignments that are due at a thousand different times.
Here is a rundown of what you have to do for a TEAL class:
Weekly problem sets (4-10 hours), class time (5 hours), 1 quiz (1 hour), twice weekly "mastering physics" assignments online (each can take as little as 5 min and as much as two days to complete), Office hours, almost always necessary (3 hours)
The system does not foster an interest in Physics, but further enhances your distaste for it. My memories of the classes have nothing to do with the material, but with trudging through the snow to get to sunday office hours because despite all of this technology, the problems were STILL too difficult to do without help, with sitting in my room with 5 other friends trying to finish the online mastering physics assignment before the midnight deadline looking for the midnight deadline, and waking up at 8AM for a 9AM TEAL class knowing I'd be asleep by 9:15.
Do not be fooled by MIT's spokespeople. TEAL is very unpopular among students. Especially me.
Of course, MIT is an odd place, where the number one pastime is hating MIT. The unofficial student motto is "IHTFP", which stands for "I hate this place." So maybe this is just par for the course.
19 comments:
I'm so glad you posted this, Allison. That NYT article had me scratching my head, wondering if no one at the Times ever watches Professor Lewin's physics lectures on MIT's iTunes-U? The guy is magic. He also puts a tremendous amount of planning into each hour of lecture he delivers.
There are good lecturers, and bad ones. Once again, policy makers fail to recognize the complexity of an issue in favor of a quick, faddish fix. Too bad for the MIT students.
"...with required attendance, the failure rate could easily drop."
Has their definition of success also changed? Are they testing the same material? I started out as a physics major and we had weekly labs of 3 hours. That would mean 14 labs (it probably was closer to 10) per semester. I hated labs. I suspect they could be done well, but I would probably detest a lab-centered course.
It's a trend. Last year I received a newsletter from U of Michigan School of Engineering where the dean talked about changing engineering courses to be more hands-on, like their beloved special projects, such as the solar car racer. I think projects are great, but why should that lead anyone to think that project-based learning is the way to go? Make it an optional masters degree program like the Entertainment Technology Center at Carnegie Mellon.
"I feel that we do plenty of this while working on p(roblem)-sets. Personally, I'd like classtime to be geared more towards learning from the teacher."
There you go. Who doesn't remember spending lots of time with other students trying to figure out the homework assignment ... without wasting class time. Group learning in class is not used to provide for missing discovery or collaborative work. There is plenty of that with homework. It's their fascination with group work as the main vehicle of learning. How many of their labs are real labs and not just excuses for group learning.
It sounds like TEAL will slowly fade away, probably when the equipment breaks or when they don't want to pay huge bucks for the upgrade. Give me a good professor and a chalkboard.
The standard 8.01/8.02 sequence at MIT never had a lab component. This may boggle the mind, but it's true, and it probably is with good reason--because controlling the lab experience is difficult. the "lab" component was usually done by the lecturer himself with a demonstration--like holding the BIG pendulum at your nose,letting it go, and standing RIGHT THERE to let it touch your nose on return, shooting the gun to hit the monkey as he falls from the tree, complete with stuffed monkey and real bean bag launcher.
At least one of the zillion experimental versions of the class had a big lab component. The kids consistently thought it was a joke, as it was done with "lab" in the student's rooms, by the students--so one student who knew how would do it, and the other 10 would write down what the lead told them.
This current version seems to have similar labs that are slightly better choreographed, but not strongly so.
It's unlikely the material itself has changed--basic mechanics is still basic mechanics--but with a change in grading as profound as counting attendance, you can certainly stop a portion of failure without increasing real knowledge.
My overall take:
the youngster profs want to leave their mark, and their youthful foolish ideas are for constructivism. The old profs have decided they're done--let the youngsters have their day. They did their part, with their theories, when they were young, too. They've changed the basic CS course as well, which was phenomenal, and is now, well, mediocre.
i don't understand your view point, you exclaim kumon but flame mit teal.
but kumon appears to foster the same dislike by students as teal and has a high drop out rate.
the more i read about learning theory, the more confused i become.
This is one of my biggest fears for my kids: that the idiocy of constructivism (and interdisciplinary work--Catherine!) will trickle up to college level.
Here's another reason not to use group work in instructional settings. Instructional groups by definition contain no experts. In real life groups (at work, for example) each person brings a specialty to the table. That's what makes group work preferable to individual work in selected circumstances. But when the object is to supply the students with a body of background knowledge and a framework within which to analyze newly acquired knowledge, there is nothing more efficient than good lecture by an expert in the subject. Oh, and let's not lose sight of the fact that the information delivered will be correct.
All students have plenty to figure out even when the professor lectures to the class. Discovery implies that the teacher deliberately withholds information or knowledge that the student needs. The assumption is that the student will obtain a better understanding if they have to work at it. Perhaps, but why do they have to water it down by having the students work in groups? Also, why not just look at the class as a big discovery group with the professor in charge and making sure that the students are led towards the correct solution in a timely fashion? In most groups you have just a few who do any discovering. The rest get taught (perhaps badly) by those who figured it out.
Traditional homework is loaded with discovery. How many students ever fully understand the material after a class lecture? Besides, individual homework keeps students from just riding the coattails of others. Why do they require only class group discovery?
The key ingredient here is not discovery, but group work. They don't even like limiting the group work to after-class homework. Group work means group work in class. It means no lecture. Discovery is just the pedagogical cover for a philosophical dislike of the idea of sage on the stage. Discovery is not primary, it's secondary. They don't even try to figure out if it really works because class group work is all they care about.
They don't even try to figure out if it really works because class group work is all they care about.
Say it often enough and it becomes true. The so-called benefits of in-class group work have been repeated so often (regardless of substantiation) that they are fast becoming part of educational dogma. Through the eyeglasses these folks are wearing, the benefits of in-class group work (and other constructivist instructional methods) appear self-evident. As a biochemist, if I ever did PhD work in education, I think it would be fascinating to study the development and propogation of these educational "memes."
There are some weaknesses in the structure of the study, however; for instance, the conceptual tests were part of TEAL students’ course grades, while non-TEAL students were paid $40 for taking the test and freshmen were still on pass/no record in 2002, whereas the TEAL freshmen in Spring 2003 were on grades. (from the The Tech article)
How is it possible to compare the performance under these conditions? There's a huge difference in motivation between pass/no record, and grades. Also, counting attendance as part of the grade increases the motivation to attend the lecture. It's ironic that MIT would trumpet the results of a study which has so many conflicting variables.
At heart, though, I think they are feeling the influence of Olin College, which teaches engineering in a very hands-on, group oriented manner. The fact that Olin College is free increases its appeal to students. I wonder how many students MIT loses each year to Olin?
wow!
Fantastic post!
Ed and I were both groaning over that article the other day ----
He's going to love reading this.
I've got to get my post on "gizmo idolatry" up ----
This is one of my biggest fears for my kids: that the idiocy of constructivism (and interdisciplinary work--Catherine!) will trickle up to college level.
Oh, boy
You and me both
Looks like I'm going to start collecting catalogues from Jesuit colleges.
I think kids are going to have early back problems, thanks to K-12 (and, now, college) seating arrangements.
I see one video after another of classrooms where the kids are seated at tables, or with their desks facing each other --- but the teacher is still up at the head of the class, so the kids are all craning around trying to see the teacher, then swinging their heads back and forth from the worksheets (worksheets!) on their desks to the teacher & back to the desk again.
The whole thing is ridiculous.
Say it often enough and it becomes true.
I believe I've proved that one to my own satisfaction.
I was delighted to come upon this. I have just posted on this subject at Joanne Jacobs. I hope many more people challenge this fad.
Since everyone who commented here seems to agree with each other, I thought I might direct you to a different perspective. I responded to Diana Senechal's blog post about this article. My comments are still awaiting moderation, but in the meantime, you can read them on my blog.
I'll also point that the "traditional" model of using class time for lectures and out-of-class time for homework assignments designed to help students make sense of and apply what they heard in class is, indeed, constructivist. New knowledge is being built on top of / in response to / despite of old knowledge through active engagement. It's just that for most students, all the active engagement happens on their own, outside of class. Why not move some of that active engagement to the classroom, where the students can benefit from engaging with and receiving feedback from their peers and instructor?
It is not the same thing.
It is not just about shifting "active engagement" to the classroom. You lose the lecture time from the teacher and you cover less material. You can have bottom-up constructivism or you could have top-down constructivism. The top-down approach never ensures mastery of basic skills. Their goal is really not constructivism or discovery, but removing the teacher from the front of the class.
I would argue that the point is not to "cover" more material. The point is to help students learn that material. We have very well-formatted and useful textbooks available. Why not motivate students to read those textbooks before class as their introduction to the material, then use class time to help them make sense of it?
Designing and facilitating an active learning experience for students during class is not about avoiding responsibility for teaching, as SteveH seems to imply in his comment about removing the teacher from the front of the class. (I could be misinterpreting SteveH's comment, however.) The task of designing and facilitating those experiences is at least as challenging as putting together a well-crafted lecture. It's a different task, but one that requires understanding of one's students' learning and motivation as well as the ability to think on one's feet and provide useful feedback to students during class.
I mentioned on Joanne's site that I don't have a strong opinion about the use of clickers. However, the article was about much more than that. Unfortunately, this makes it more difficult to separate the parts and get to the heart of the matter. "Active learning" may or may not use the teacher as the main leader of the class, and active learning could be done with or without clickers. The big divide is not whether you use clickers (or any other type of technology) or not, but whether the teacher is in charge or not. I had numerous traditional teachers that enforced active learning all while controlling the exact coverage of the material, while just using a blackboard.
Also, one can always trade less coverage for better learning, but that can't be the basis for comparison. This is a common educational ploy. Better is achieved by lowering expectations.
Post a Comment