Advice for UCD Lecturers

bnt

After two years of lectures at UCD, following years in a commercial environment, I have a few suggestions for UCD lecturers that might make their lectures more effective. Call me presumptuous if you like, but (in my opinion) there are some basics that some lecturers either haven't been taught or have forgotten. (Do any lecturers read this forum? For the rest of you: do you recognise any of these? :cool: )

1. Know Your Audience
   First day, first semester of first year Engineering: a Physics professor (who obviously knows his subject) starts flling the board with Calculus. Are the students following him? Some are, the ones who came straight from Leaving Cert and did well enough in Calculus to get straight back in. That is not true of everyone, and in opposition to the rest of the programme: there were no prerequisites set, and the same Calculus was the subject of lectures later in the programme anyway: the audience was not expected to be on top of Calculus at that point in the programme. Result? A lot of bewildered students and awkward tutorials.
2. Structure The Course
   If the students are clear on the structure of the course, from the start, they can measure their progress against it. They can see where they've been, where they are going, what needs doing, and what to take away from the course. It may even be possible to allow students to read ahead, if there is time and you know that it will help. Some course info is on the UCD website, but I've found it's often vague or inaccurate, since many courses are being updated every year.
3. Don't rely on "Audience Participation"
   This is especially applicable to large lecture theatres with hundreds of students in them. Answering a question in such an environment is not easy on the students: on top of the social cost of sticking your hand up, the acoustics can also be a huge problem. It's no fun saying something four times, while your voice reverberates off the walls - then people start talking, because the lecture has effectively stopped at that point. If you're concentrating on the subject, trying to take notes, being asked a question jerks you out of "the zone".
4. It's Not About You
   A blunt piece of advice: when you lecture, there are two things to focus on: the students and the subject. The students are there to learn about the subject, and that is your "deliverable": after 12 weeks, you want to deliver a class of students who know enough about the subject in question, and anything that detracts from that goal does not belong in the lecture theatre. We don't need to know that students in previous years hated a particular section (and you don't do anything to address that). We don't need to know that you are only lecturing as part of your PhD obligations, and would rather be doing research.
5. Don't Waste Students' Time
   If you don't need the whole hour (or whateber), don't take it. There is always something else that each student could be doing. They are not being paid to sit in lecture theatres - quite the opposite!

All the above is my opinion, of course, though I can also point you at other sites, such as this. Has anyone else got some constructive ideas on lecturing?

So did you get evaluation sheets to fill out at the end of each course?

You make some valid points, but you'd be better served either articulating them on evaluation sheets, or booking some time with the lecturers concerned.

copacetic

bnt wrote: »

After two years of lectures at UCD, following years in a commercial environment, I have a few suggestions for UCD lecturers that might make their lectures more effective. Call me presumptuous if you like, but (in my opinion) there are some basics that some lecturers either haven't been taught or have forgotten. (Do any lecturers read this forum? For the rest of you: do you recognise any of these? :cool: )


[*]Know Your Audience
First day, first semester of first year Engineering: a Physics professor (who obviously knows his subject) starts flling the board with Calculus. Are the students following him? Some are, the ones who came straight from Leaving Cert and did well enough in Calculus to get straight back in. That is not true of everyone, and in opposition to the rest of the programme: there were no prerequisites set, and the same Calculus was the subject of lectures later in the programme anyway: the audience was not expected to be on top of Calculus at that point in the programme. Result? A lot of bewildered students and awkward tutorials.

it is a prerequiste to have gotten a certain grade in honours maths to enter the course. You would asssume that mature students entering via other avenues would have brought themselves up to date.

Structure The Course
If the students are clear on the structure of the course, from the start, they can measure their progress against it. They can see where they've been, where they are going, what needs doing, and what to take away from the course. It may even be possible to allow students to read ahead, if there is time and you know that it will help. Some course info is on the UCD website, but I've found it's often vague or inaccurate, since many courses are being updated every year.

Generally this leads to students not coming to lectures.

Don't rely on "Audience Participation"
This is especially applicable to large lecture theatres with hundreds of students in them. Answering a question in such an environment is not easy on the students: on top of the social cost of sticking your hand up, the acoustics can also be a huge problem. It's no fun saying something four times, while your voice reverberates off the walls - then people start talking, because the lecture has effectively stopped at that point. If you're concentrating on the subject, trying to take notes, being asked a question jerks you out of "the zone".

if 'the zone' is just writing stuff done without understanding a word of it then I agree and thats why the lecturer asks questions. It's a good thing, not a bad thing.

It's Not About You
A blunt piece of advice: when you lecture, there are two things to focus: the students and the subject. The students are there to learn about the subject, and that is your "deliverable": after 12 weeks, you want to deliver a class of students who know enough about the subject in question, and anything that detracts from that goal does not belong in the lecture theatre.

Haven't a clue what this means.

bnt

ND 1978 wrote: »

So did you get evaluation sheets to fill out at the end of each course?

You make some valid points, but you'd be better served either articulating them on evaluation sheets, or booking some time with the lecturers concerned.

Yes, I did that too - or tried to, with varying degrees of success - but that's not what this is about. My ideas are about the future, not complaints about the past - I just use past examples to illustrate the ideas.

bnt

bnt wrote: »

Yes, I did that too - or tried to, with varying degrees of success - but that's not what this is about.

How do you 'try to' communicate your grievances? You either do or you don't.

bnt wrote: »

My ideas are about the future, not complaints about the past - I just use past examples to illustrate the ideas.

sure sounds like complaining to me

bnt

copacetic wrote: »

it is a prerequiste to have gotten a certain grade in honours maths to enter the course. You would asssume that mature students entering via other avenues would have brought themselves up to date.

Ah, yes, here we go with the assumptions. Good luck with finding a mature student with a job and/or family to play UCD's assumption games. Assumption is for amateurs: professionals prefer clear, timely, unambiguous communication. Besides, as I said, I could see in advance that I was going to get brought up to date later - which I was. What I described is what you get when lectures don't follow a logical progression, and lecturers make assumptions about their students, rather than checking their course against other courses and the programme structure.

copacetic wrote: »

Generally this leads to students not coming to lectures.

I was not talking about e.g. lecturers handing out notes. The best lectures I've had went way beyond notes, anyway, so skipping them would have cost me dearly. If both lecturer and students are taking it seriously and enjoying it, attendance is not a problem.

copacetic wrote: »

if 'the zone' is just writing stuff done without understanding a word of it then I agree and thats why the lecturer asks questions. It's a good thing, not a bad thing.

Did I say that? Maybe I should have been more specific, since you're replying to something I did not say.

copacetic wrote: »

Haven't a clue what this means.

Are you a lecturer at UCD? If not, you are not my target audience. Don't worry about it.

bnt

ND 1978 wrote: »

How do you 'try to' communicate your grievances? You either do or you don't.

Nope - by "communicate" I mean both me talking and the other person listening. If you say I'm complaining, you're just contradicting me when I say I'm not: pointless. I only saw problems with a minority of lectures, anyway, and there were some excellent ones too. I'm more interested in improving future lecturing, if possible, and stand behind my first post here.

Mr.Nice Guy

I see copacetic really took your ideas on board. :pac:

I happen to agree with a lot of your points although I believe audience participation can be useful and, in some cases, necessary. Perhaps not so much in the big theatres where it might not be practical to get feedback but in the more intimate lecture rooms I think it's beneficial.

One thing I would like to see less of is the old-fashioned type of lecturing whereby the lecturer comes in, takes out notes, puts them on a projector and proceeds to read aloud the lecture for 50 minutes without stopping to check whether the class is up to speed with what's going on.

I found this a problem in a particular politics module which was very heavy in detail and this style of lecturing just made me zone out as I found the topic incredibly dull and uninspiring. I think with a more effective style of lecturing this would not have been the case.

I would suggest for subjects such as these that lecturers endeavour to try and ensure the students understand the topic at hand. We don't know as much as the lecturer knows and need to be encouraged to pick up on the subject rather than having stuff read out to us as if it's a sermon. I hated this form of teaching in schools and I hated it in college also.

My favourite teachers and lecturers were the ones who didn't just read out the information but who then followed that up by attempting to explain it for us and who then gave us examples. Teachers and lecturers who applied the material they read out to actual situations and who didn't just read out prose from endless pages. In other words teachers and lecturers who tried to inspire a fondness for the subject.

Honestly there were a few lecturers I've had over the years who seemed to me to be completely uninterested in the subject they were lecturing. This I think is a big worry. I think if the lecturer/teacher is enthusiastic about what they are talking about then it can help promote an interest in it from the students or, at the very least, enough interest to keep up to speed with what's going on and do well in subsequent exams.

bnt

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I happen to agree with a lot of your points although I believe audience participation can be useful and, in some cases, necessary. Perhaps not so much in the big theatres where it might not be practical to get feedback but in the more intimate lecture rooms I think it's beneficial.

Thanks - that's kinda what I was getting at too. Or, to put it another way, the acoustics of big lecture theatres are designed for lectures: one guy speaks, everyone else listens. Tutorials / Seminars are something else entirely.

I agree that enthusiasm for a subject is crucial in getting students through six courses at once. I had one course last semester that was as close to perfect as I could wish for: the lecturer knew his stuff, enjoyed himself, and had a great communication style. Even though he sold us books of notes early on and laid the course out, it was a very complex subject (Mechanics of Solids), so lectures were clearly necessary and attendance was generally good throughout. I was very happy with my result there.

I wouldn't call myself an authority on this subject, but I do have experience on both sides of the lectern and (since starting at UCD) I have had time to think about this stuff. I didn't just "knock this out": it took time to get my thoughts organised and structured, so I appreciate your thoughtful reply, over the kneejerk responses from earlier. :cool:

Stokes

You should post it in the teaching/lecturing forum also - probably more chance of a lecturer listening to your points. then again memorizing your points and putting them into the feedback sheets will ensure your points are heard

seraphimvc

i agree most of your point there - i actually thought they are the understood principles of becoming a standard lecturer!

one thing i'd like to add tho,delievering the knowledge of the /course subject is the basic job of the lecturer,but can they do more for the students??

like for example tell us how exactly you can get a A in the subject/discuss abit or showing the grade A standard answer for some questions of the past year paper - help us abit to actually do well in the exam.this sounds like contradicting the purpose for us to study but hey,at least give us some guidance on your exam?eg we study the same stuff,write in the same stuffs in the exam,but come out with a different grade???some people are just lucky to have their way of presentation of the answer that the lecturer likes/prefers - this is so fcking unfair.

another problem i found on lecturer is,can you please try to think of your students are doing 6 subjects in 1 semester,your subject has a heavy sh!t load of information in it making us impossible to fully study/understand your whole subject, which in the end probably end up with depending on luck to decide students' grade - people are gambling by studying their chosen topics in the suject which they think would show up.

finally one last thing doesnt really related to lecturer - if they would ever try to interfere with the stupid exam timetable i'd be very happy :i heard some final year students have to do their 4 subjects in a row(1 day 1 exam).and i always have 2/3 subjects in a row every semester. trinity actually fix their exam timetable for the students (tats what i heard from my fren,since he always has at least 1 day rest before the next one anyway),my a** UCD of try to improve its international ranking,use your brain on the very basic stuffs please.

convert

Most schools tend to welcome constructive criticism, so instead of wasting time and energy posting it here, you should try writing/emailing the relevant school.

Red Alert

I agree with many of the points that the OP makes. Firstly, I think the problem still prevails where a lot of lecturers view the lecturing and teaching component of their job as annoying distraction from research. This means that while they can have the required knowledge, that they aren't communicating it in the best way possible. And many can't accept that they aren't communicating it in the best way possible. You wouldn't teach someone to drive a car by throwing the rules of the road, and the engine mechanics at them in a twisted and convoluted fashion - so why do it with academics?

One big bugbear I have is the bad use of technology by staff. A lot of staff have bolted on powerpoint slides and blackboard notes without thinking how best to restructure the material to fit that medium. There's a totally different dynamic when you've a powerpoint slide versus say a worked example on an overhead projector. Reams and reams of maths on powerpoint slides don't necessarily work, but adding the computer to the mix could allow maybe a nice simulation of the concept to be shown.

The standard of notes that some people give out is atrocious. Powerpoint slides six-a-page is better than nothing, but in many cases outline view would make much more sense. If I was lecturing, I'd take pride in the making of my notes, knowing that students are more likely to study and pass the module if the knowledge is imparted in a clear and simple way. What's the use in making the delivery of the knowledge difficult? There is no excuse for bad handwriting, inaccuracy or obfuscation - it gets in the way of the pedagogical process and means more failures and more repeats.

Audience participation in big lecture theatres (anything over 100) doesn't work, end of story. In general, I think audience participation is useless unless it's on maybe an assignment where people have had the chance to make a decent contribution, as opposed to frantically trying to find a sensible answer. In larger classes, use of things like Blackboard's chat and forum features outside of lecture hours makes much more sense. Then again, there's tutorial time which is much better suited to 2-way interaction.

Aside from poor lecturers, the majority of the lecture rooms themselves are woefully designed and badly maintained. One major show-stopper I notice is that sound systems in particular in UCD are appalling - many are unsuitable for the type of room and almost none are set up correctly or maintained in a working condition. If you can't hear the lecturer, you're just going to zone out. In my own building (engineering), the projectors are of bad quality and the screens are not clearly visible in the middle of the room. So yet another barrier to getting information across. Heating and ventilation tends to either not work at all or be set up incorrectly. Your bed is certainly more attractive when you know you're going to be frozen in your seat for an hour.

Fremen

On the "know your audience" front, a lecturer would expect to be talking to prospective engineering students - i.e. highly mathematically capable people. He would expect students to be able to crack a book if they were a bit rusty, too.

convert

Just a thought that crossed my mind: has anyone here considered a lecturer's point of view here? Going into a give a lecture to 100+ students can't be fun, and regardless of how basic/advanced/comprehensive notes/the lectures are, or how approachable the lecturer is, there will still be a proportion of students who will complain. In a large setting like that, it's impossible to please everyone!

And are you sure there's no course objective/lecture outline/reading lists provided? I've been provided with all of the above for every course I've ever taken in UCD (although, in fairness, I never really paid a huge amount of attention to it unless preparing assignments/for exams!)

Btw, I'm not a lecturer/tutor, just thought I'd take a different approach from the above posts and maybe stimulate further debate (or bloodshed!)

bnt

convert wrote: »

And are you sure there's no course objective/lecture outline/reading lists provided? I've been provided with all of the above for every course I've ever taken in UCD (although, in fairness, I never really paid a huge amount of attention to it unless preparing assignments/for exams!)

It varies widely: I mentioned the course outlines on ucd.ie, and we do sometimes get an outline at the start. I wasn't saying it never happens, I just wish it happened more, and better - a clear course structure.

I imagine that it's possible to argue "if students already know the stuff the lecturer is going to cover, they won't come to the lecture" - but that's not what I mean, since I find a good lecture goes way beyond the notes. Personally, I expect more from a lecture than just a chance to take notes. I find that if I have some idea of what are we're covering, there's less wondering "where are we now?", and it's possible for me to get more "in to " the lecture more quickly. If I can get in to the "zone" I was talking about earlier, I find myself mentally going beyond what the lecturer is saying, which is why I find it jarring to be dragged out of it by "audience participation". It's not just about taking notes: notes are Information, but I'm hoping to gain some Knowledge. :pac:

bnt

Fremen wrote: »

On the "know your audience" front, a lecturer would expect to be talking to prospective engineering students - i.e. highly mathematically capable people. He would expect students to be able to crack a book if they were a bit rusty, too.

Two things:
- the level of Calculus I was talking about was a bit beyond "crack a book". Even so, I could have "cracked a book" over the summer, if that level of Calculus had been stated as a prerequisite. Not only was it not stated, I had already looked at the programme, and I could see that it was coming anyway, in its own time.
- if you expect something from someone, you should make that expectation clear - otherwise, it's just an assumption. You don't get away with that sort of thing outside academia, it's unprofessional behaviour that will come back to bite you on the bum at some point. :cool:

convert

A nice phrase I've heard quite a few times comes to mind here: 'Assumptions are the mother of all ****ups'.

That said, however, you do come across as someone who appears to be having a go at academics and the world of academia, and somebody who seems to have a 'I've been out in the real world and seen it all, and the whole university thing isn't comparing favourably' attitude. I know this isn't your intention, but to me that's kind of how it appears, which is a pity, especially as a number of your points do indeed have merit.

Would you ever consider emailing the SU education officer, or the VPs for students and education to voice your concerns, experiences and suggestions re. lecturing and teaching techniques and see what (if anything) they have to say! Would be interesting if they did get back to you!!

jane says

It is a prerequiste to have gotten a certain grade in honours maths to enter the course. You would asssume that mature students entering via other avenues would have brought themselves up to date.

Almost right - if something is a prerequisite then you are expected to know this. A lecturer won't assume or test it - according to your responsibility as a student you should have reached that grade. So in my experience, when I sat lectures (not in this subject) the lecturer simply said something like, 'you're supposed to know this, if you don't, then it's your own responsibility to learn it. I won't teach it and don't really care if you do or don't know it.'

Fremen

bnt wrote: »

Two things:
- the level of Calculus I was talking about was a bit beyond "crack a book". Even so, I could have "cracked a book" over the summer, if that level of Calculus had been stated as a prerequisite. Not only was it not stated, I had already looked at the programme, and I could see that it was coming anyway, in its own time.
- if you expect something from someone, you should make that expectation clear - otherwise, it's just an assumption. You don't get away with that sort of thing outside academia, it's unprofessional behaviour that will come back to bite you on the bum at some point. :cool:

Ok, so some lecturers have a habit of throwing students in at the deep end. I'm guessing it was the epsilon-delta definition of a limit or the ODE for exponential decay.
I what I'm trying to get at is that there's a big gap between LC maths and college maths, at some stage, the difficulty will have to spike. It might as well be at the start, so you know from the beginning how much work is involved. It's not secondary school any more, you won't be spoon-fed. If you don't follow something, you need to look it up or go and ask for help.

Raphael

Might I remind people that mentioning members of UCD staff by name is prohibited in this forum.

conchubhar1

use the ****ing computer/projector

use ****ing blackboard

do not make a course that covers all of american history / 200 years of irish and european history

Handsome Bob

I think UCD needs to do a bit of a purge of old fashioned lecturers. Last year I had the worst lecturer ever, and in my final year no less.

Her notes, no sorry, things as basic as her sentences made absolutely no sense. She would be incoherent when talking to the class (about 15 of us) and we would have no idea about what was going on. We would just look at each other confused (that includes the A students).

She had the worst man management skills I have ever seen. She wouldn't respond to e-mails. She would be stand-offish if you approached her and would talk down to you. She would accuse students of slacking in computer labs. You see she was too blind to see that the crap computers we were using were unbelievably slow and as a result, we can do nothing while the page is loading.

She gave us an assignment of a 3,000 word essay specific to the Irish context of what we were writing about, even though all the bibliography she gave us was for the british context.

An absolute disaster of a lecturer and from what I understand there are plenty still around in her mould. It's a miracle that I got a B+ in her class (yes, I had to say it:p), and it was completely down to my own work ethic (she actually told me that I would do poor).:rolleyes:

blondie83

This is an interesting debate, and the standard of teaching is something I've wondered about myself many times. I also did engineering in UCD (elec). Then spent a year in a taught masters in DCU. Then spent nearly three years teaching profesional engineers around Europe and Africa for a multinational telecoms company. So I've gotten to see the "academic" way in two Universities, and the "professional" way as well. And to be honest OP you can't compare them. You can't hope to get the same level of professionalism in teaching in college as you would in the "real world". Bear in mind you're not dealing with "sharp suited consultants" who were selected for the job on the basis of how they presented themselves, how clear they were and how confident a public speaker they are. You're dealing with academics, who were selected for their position on the basis of the research they've done and would potentially carry out to further the name of the department.

Sounds harsh, but its the truth, and it means you can't really compare college lecturing with outside companies. Now some lectures do manage to comuse their heads when it comes to lecturing, and thankfully there are a few in Engineering. However there are also a few that seem to live in their heads and aren't soming out for anyone! (We had a lecturer who would come into classroom, put his head down and start writing on the acetate and not lift his head until he finished 50 minutes later!). To be honest I think more needs to be made of the teaching role of lecturers, and more focus put on their teaching deliverables rather then their research ones. And to be fair to the lecturers I think a lot of them would like this, a reduction in the "pressure to publish", and more time to focus on improving their notes ect.

So suggestions? Well there's a few obvious things that could be done to try to make the teaching component a bit more professional. In my job all the students filled out a detailed evaluation form at the end of each course (anythign from 1-5 days in length). This was brilliant as it allowed for comments and suggestions, and any criticism given was always highly constructive and really helped when improving and updating the courses. Feedback should be constant!

Courses themselves were updated at least once if not twice a year. This made sure they were up to date and relevant. The updates would usually be done by different people each time who could all teach the course, so this meant there was not chance of it going "into a rut" because one updater didn't like maing powerpoint presentations or something! All courses were peer reveiwed by other instructors and subject area experts for both technical content and clarity of presentation. (Technical content wouldnt be a problem for lecturers presumably but clarity might be worth thinking about).

Course content itself needs to be improved. Rather then scrawling handwriting on an acetate sheet lets bring it all up to powerpoint standard. And rather then expecting lecturers to know automatically how to present info on powerpoint why not give each a two day course on the powerpoint "basic mistakes" so that they're aware of them. If your lucky enough to already have that in a lecturer then lets add to it by augmenting the powerpoints with handouts explaining whats happening with them. I'm not saying do away with note taking, as this is important for the students own understanding, but let the student decide what to write down to add to their understanding, not to provide the basic information! What we did was hand each student a text book before the course, which contained all the powerpoint slides we would run through, as well as a one page explanation of each. This was "a reference" we would explain to the students as we handed them an A4 pad and multicoloursed pens. We would constantly draw on the whiteboard to illustrate and add to the content we were discussing in the powerpoint slides, and give the students something to take down, and keep them awake! Now I know that some lecturers do do all of this already, and I applaud it, but it's the ones that don't that I'm aiming at here.

Also there's no harm doing a few handout exercises in the middle of class to break it up for students and get them thinking. I know they have tutorials to, but this could add to that. A handout might just contain one exercise based on what the lecturer had just been talking about, and once attempted for say 5 mins would be followed with a handout showing a full worked solution. (Essential IMO).

These are just a few points that came to me off the top of my head, like I said I wouldn't expect the colleges to have the same teaching standard as private companies, but they could reall improve if they just took the focus off research a little and put it on the students. I saw this very clearly actually between UCD and DCU. DCU was run more more like a company then a college. Notes were all placed online for students in case they couldn't make a lecture. There were online forums for questions about the course that the lecturers replied to regularly (at least 3 times a week). Everything was done on powerpoint, and handouts were also given to each student. Lecturers frequently gave examples and carried out quick exercises in class to make sure we were listening. And thanks to God there were no more 5 page proofs! Could be just something for them to think about, like I said it's the administration and head of departments that needs to do the thinking and effect the changes though.

StopWhispering

I guess I am a 'lil lucky in my course. Most of my lecturers would be considered "old school" but I have had some of them throughout my 8 years at UCD and I have never had any problems with any of them, bar the odd delays with correcting essays, lab reports etc. In fact, I think one adapts to a lecturers style of lecturing after a while, once there is no resistance.

Although, one of my lecturers, who is relatively new to UCD is absolutely awful as he is non-involving and speaks at length at a WPM to put any rap artist to shame. The module he teaches is not the easiest either, which does not help.

Grr.

StopWhispering

blondie83 wrote: »

(We had a lecturer who would come into classroom, put his head down and start writing on the acetate and not lift his head until he finished 50 minutes later!).

See that is just not on. I have no idea but are lecturers required to go on "How to lecture effectively" courses?

Might be a niche there for someone with an enterprising type of mind, perhaps?