So, as some of you know, I am going to teach a few classes this semester to undergraduates (I whined quite a bit about it elsewhere :P). Yesterday I watched a lecture and saw that the students' knowledge is rather basic. Like, fresh out of High School basic. It's to be expected, of course, they are freshmen students after all, but it got me thinking: how am I going to explain concepts to them without going too slow? Or worse, make them seel like I think they're stupid?
I get that within a class there are people who are quicker to learn than others. There are also those less ignorant than others. So what do you do in such a situation?
Maybe I shouldn't be struggling with this, but these thoughts kept me up for a good portion of the night.
You'll likely know if they're getting it. I can usually tell. Usually anyway... I've trained a few people over the years who fooled me but it's rare. Just don't make a big deal if you do have to slow things down. Like, don't say you're slowing down, just do it and find your pace.
It happens to me very often, that when I give a talk that I think is so basic that I'm insulting the intelligence of the attendees, I get an excellent response. Many will come to me afterwards and tell me how much they enjoyed the lecture and how much they learned. So I don't think you need to worry.
Possibly, even with just-out-of-school you will get a spread from knowledgeable nerds to "sounds sexy, I'll try that" types.
Would it be possible to start, after your intro, with something like, "We are new to each other. Some of you may thing that I am going to slowly and simply, please be patient. Some may have trouble keeping up, please let me know if that is the case. We will find a happy medium!"
Then try to guage the ratio.
Quote from: jumbojak on August 15, 2018, 01:49:06 PM
You'll likely know if they're getting it. I can usually tell. Usually anyway... I've trained a few people over the years who fooled me but it's rare. Just don't make a big deal if you do have to slow things down. Like, don't say you're slowing down, just do it and find your pace.
Quote from: hermes2015 on August 15, 2018, 02:04:59 PM
It happens to me very often, that when I give a talk that I think is so basic that I'm insulting the intelligence of the attendees, I get an excellent response. Many will come to me afterwards and tell me how much they enjoyed the lecture and how much they learned. So I don't think you need to worry.
Quote from: Dave on August 15, 2018, 02:16:48 PM
Possibly, even with just-out-of-school you will get a spread from knowledgeable nerds to "sounds sexy, I'll try that" types.
Would it be possible to start, after your intro, with something like, "We are new to each other. Some of you may thing that I am going to slowly and simply, please be patient. Some may have trouble keeping up, please let me know if that is the case. We will find a happy medium!"
Then try to guage the ratio.
:thumbsup:
I'm really insecure about these things. The last thing I want is to appear arrogant, as it can be so off-putting.
For instance, one topic I'm going to have to explain is the hydrophobic effect, which is just a fancy way of saying that fat does not dissolve in polar liquids such as water, and so fat molecules jumble together to avoid as much contact with water molecules as possible. This effect is the main reason why amphipathic molecules (fat molecules with a hydrophilic part and a hydrophobic part), which are the main constituents of cell membranes, are organised the way they are.
I could maybe before going into that, ask the class how they think cell membranes are organised and what keeps their components together? :notsure:
Perhaps a good start is to ask the class why rinsing one's hands in pure water does not remove oil and grease very well, but soap and detergents work very well. Go around the class and ask for ideas. That will then naturally introduce concepts like polarity, hydrogen bonding, and hydrophilicity, as well as why some molecules are more polar than others. After that, progress to a discussion of how these things work at the cellular level.
:notes: That's good, Hermes! Good concrete intro into the subject.
Quote from: hermes2015 on August 15, 2018, 02:49:31 PM
Perhaps a good start is to ask the class why rinsing one's hands in pure water does not remove oil and grease very well, but soap and detergents work very well. Go around the class and ask for ideas. That will then naturally introduce concepts like polarity, hydrogen bonding, and hydrophilicity, as well as why some molecules are more polar than others. After that, progress to a discussion of how these things work at the cellular level.
Drawing tadpoles and teaching kids why soap works is one of my favourite explanations!* It's also why soap bubbles are.
* After the, "You are made of Star Stuff" one.
Quote from: Dave on August 15, 2018, 03:30:00 PM
Quote from: hermes2015 on August 15, 2018, 02:49:31 PM
Perhaps a good start is to ask the class why rinsing one's hands in pure water does not remove oil and grease very well, but soap and detergents work very well. Go around the class and ask for ideas. That will then naturally introduce concepts like polarity, hydrogen bonding, and hydrophilicity, as well as why some molecules are more polar than others. After that, progress to a discussion of how these things work at the cellular level.
Drawing tadpoles and teaching kids why soap works is one of my favourite explanations!* It's also why soap bubbles are.
* After the, "You are made of Star Stuff" one.
One can go even deeper and discuss the order of electronegativities of different atoms and groups in a molecule that distort the electron cloud and cause polarity.
You shouldn't worry. As long as you are not talking down to anyone, you'll be fine.
Quote from: No one on August 16, 2018, 02:51:08 AM
You shouldn't worry. As long as you are not talking down to anyone, you'll be fine.
I don't have a lot of formal teaching experience but through the years I have learned that in rare instances you do need to talk down to students. Some are just far too big for their britches. I went through this several times when tutoring engineering students way back in college and a few more when giving political lectures. Now I'm wondering who were worse, the snot nosed engineers or the intellectual aristocrats I ran with in political circles...?
There are always going to be exceptions. However, taking some asshat down a few notches isn't necessarily the same as making someone feel small.
People shouldn't so forken touchy.
So you get this obvious thing, huf huf impatience.
But you didn't get the three previous obvious things.
Quote from: Bad Penny II on August 16, 2018, 02:16:30 PM
People shouldn't so forken touchy.
So you get this obvious thing, huf huf impatience.
But you didn't get the three previous obvious things.
I don't get a lot of what's in the realm of obvious...the more I learn the more that becomes obvious to me.
Quote from: No one on August 16, 2018, 02:51:08 AM
You shouldn't worry. As long as you are not talking down to anyone, you'll be fine.
:thumbsup:
In the teaching capacity you are not questioning the intelligence of the students unless you are an arrogant asshole. You are anything but that XSP. You are trying your best to expand their information base and nothing more. Teaching is a very personal relationship with the students that you care about. If you can give them some clues in that regard, they will never feel that their intelligence has been in question.
Even at my advanced age, I can remember and appreciate a few of the teachers that I had in high school (70 years ago). Those special people changed my life for the better.
The last thing I want is to come off as an arrogant asshole. :sadshake:
Going a little off topic here, but only slightly: I took a three-day Scientific Popularisation course in between poster sessions when I was attending the congress. I loved it, and it touched on this exact concern of mine -- how do you explain your field or your work to people who might not have the same background as you without losing their attention or making them feel small.
On the second day, I was looking at some of the posters from the first session with a colleague, one of the workers who had mounted the panels approached us and started asking questions, out of curiosity. The topic of depression came up. He asked if it was possible to see depression in a blood test, we answered that is wasn't, and tried to briefly explain what the mental illness was in terms of chemical imbalances in the brain and such.
It was difficult. He told us he had never been to High School, so this was a person with a totally different background. As I tried to paint a simple picture of what going be going on in the brain of someone who has depression I paid attention to his facial expressions. When words like 'molecule', 'neurotransmitter' and a technical word for 'drug' or 'medication' (fármaco) were mentioned he would contort his face into an expression of confusion, and that's exactly what I didn't want to see. I quickly adapted my responses, taking care to use more accessible language, and I think he got the gist of what I was trying to say. At least, I hope he did. :unsure:
It was an interesting exercise.
QuoteThe last thing I want is to come off as an arrogant asshole.
Just a normal, everyday, humble one then, Silver?
:grin:
QuoteGoing a little off topic here, but only slightly: I took a three-day Scientific Popularisation course in between poster sessions when I was attending the congress. I loved it [...]
See, I said so, you're going to be a pop-science media star!
Difficult! I once explained part of the operation of an MRI scanner using the idea of rulers made from different materials, held down sticking out different lengths and how they would twang at different notes if held down then released. The imaging bit was not so easy - sort of fudged round that using the idea of ""... now imagine sort of radar cameras that can take pictures of radio vibrations, light is only a kind of such vibration really, just one we can see with our eyes...".
But the result was the person was left with an understanding of the principle.
Confidence is important, comhined with a sort of comic musing when difficult bits arrive. Where possible draw parallels with ordinary stuff. If you have to use jargon make a feature of it, a joke if you can. Humour helps!
That history prog is a good example of technique even though it is not science. Steal techniques from others. And it sounds like you can "read" your audience and know when to re-iterate - an important skill.
But I am sure you have seen/heard/realise all that stuff.
When I'm asked what I "do", my laziness kicks in and I find it easier to just say I'm a scientist. If I tell them that I am a chemist, some people still think I own a shop somewhere that sells medicine. At parties, many people assume that I am an architect, so I just leave it at that and keep eating snacks.
"He asked if it was possible to see depression in a blood test, we answered that is wasn't, and tried to briefly explain what the mental illness was in terms of chemical imbalances in the brain and such. "
Given depression is an imbalance in brain chemistry would it be true to say that a blood test could possibly be created at some point?
Quote from: hermes2015 on August 29, 2018, 05:35:58 AM
When I'm asked what I "do", my laziness kicks in and I find it easier to just say I'm a scientist. If I tell them that I am a chemist, some people still think I own a shop somewhere that sells medicine. At parties, many people assume that I am an architect, so I just leave it at that and keep eating snacks.
I dread the 'What do you do question?".
When asked in hospitals I am always careful to qualify my old job as "engineering lab tech." If I leave out the "engineering" but they slways assume it was some kind of biology lab, "Oh, which hospital/university?"
When faced with the what do you do question I usually just answer "I work in IT" It's just too hard to explain what I do to those that are not aware of just how Byzantine the IT field is. I have a t-short that says "Infrastructure engineer - we do precision guesswork based on unreliable data provided by those of dubious knowledge". Sums it all up, really.
If I was feeling like irritating the person I could always call myself a "Data wrangler, data analyst and digital content producer." 8)
Quote from: Dave on August 29, 2018, 04:45:24 AM
QuoteThe last thing I want is to come off as an arrogant asshole.
Just a normal, everyday, humble one then, Silver?
:grin:
:snooty:
Quote from: Dave on August 29, 2018, 05:07:08 AM
See, I said so, you're going to be a pop-science media star!
:lol: I wish!
QuoteDifficult! I once explained part of the operation of an MRI scanner using the idea of rulers made from different materials, held down sticking out different lengths and how they would twang at different notes if held down then released. The imaging bit was not so easy - sort of fudged round that using the idea of ""... now imagine sort of radar cameras that can take pictures of radio vibrations, light is only a kind of such vibration really, just one we can see with our eyes...".
But the result was the person was left with an understanding of the principle.
Confidence is important, comhined with a sort of comic musing when difficult bits arrive. Where possible draw parallels with ordinary stuff. If you have to use jargon make a feature of it, a joke if you can. Humour helps!
That history prog is a good example of technique even though it is not science. Steal techniques from others. And it sounds like you can "read" your audience and know when to re-iterate - an important skill.
But I am sure you have seen/heard/realise all that stuff.
"Where possible draw parallels with ordinary stuff."
Yes, that is important. Though the problem with using everyday language instead of jargon is you lose precision. If language can be limited to explain certain concepts, it can become even more so. Metaphors and analogies are good, but they should be used carefully, and their limitations pointed out. For instance, some people use the analogy of computer memories -- RAM, HD --- to explain working memory and long-term memory, respectively. I think there are major problems in doing so, as our memories are nothing like that of a computer. But, depending on the level of understanding of the person you're talking to, should one use such an analogy even though it is imprecise? For instance, when talking to a child with access to computers.
Quote from: hermes2015 on August 29, 2018, 05:35:58 AM
At parties, many people assume that I am an architect, so I just leave it at that and keep eating snacks.
:lol:
Quote from: Tank on August 29, 2018, 08:02:40 AM
"He asked if it was possible to see depression in a blood test, we answered that is wasn't, and tried to briefly explain what the mental illness was in terms of chemical imbalances in the brain and such. "
Given depression is an imbalance in brain chemistry would it be true to say that a blood test could possibly be created at some point?
There are a number of underlying causes which might have symptoms similar to those of depression, such as thyroid problems (particularly hypothyroidism I think), anaemia, etc. but as far as I'm aware, currently there are no blood tests that can show specific biomarkers for the disorder.
I think it is possible that some biomarkers may show up in a blood test, which can be correlated with depression, but for now the best way to see whether the person has the disorder is to perform imaging studies. A depressed brain will be underactive in some areas and overactive in others. It is impracticable, though as the costs of such studies are really high.
Quote from: Tank on August 29, 2018, 08:03:55 AM
Quote from: hermes2015 on August 29, 2018, 05:35:58 AM
When I'm asked what I "do", my laziness kicks in and I find it easier to just say I'm a scientist. If I tell them that I am a chemist, some people still think I own a shop somewhere that sells medicine. At parties, many people assume that I am an architect, so I just leave it at that and keep eating snacks.
I dread the 'What do you do question?".
I love any and all opportunities to talk about what I do. :grin:
But to summarise, I say: my work basically involves remote memories and which brain structures are activated when these memories are recalled.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 29, 2018, 03:40:19 PM
Quote from: Dave on August 29, 2018, 05:07:08 AM
See, I said so, you're going to be a pop-science media star!
:lol: I wish!
QuoteDifficult! I once explained part of the operation of an MRI scanner using the idea of rulers made from different materials, held down sticking out different lengths and how they would twang at different notes if held down then released. The imaging bit was not so easy - sort of fudged round that using the idea of ""... now imagine sort of radar cameras that can take pictures of radio vibrations, light is only a kind of such vibration really, just one we can see with our eyes...".
But the result was the person was left with an understanding of the principle.
Confidence is important, comhined with a sort of comic musing when difficult bits arrive. Where possible draw parallels with ordinary stuff. If you have to use jargon make a feature of it, a joke if you can. Humour helps!
That history prog is a good example of technique even though it is not science. Steal techniques from others. And it sounds like you can "read" your audience and know when to re-iterate - an important skill.
But I am sure you have seen/heard/realise all that stuff.
"Where possible draw parallels with ordinary stuff."
Yes, that is important. Though the problem with using everyday language instead of jargon is you lose precision. If language can be limited to explain certain concepts, it can become even more so. Metaphors and analogies are good, but they should be used carefully, and their limitations pointed out. For instance, some people use the analogy of computer memories -- RAM, HD --- to explain working memory and long-term memory, respectively. I think there are major problems in doing so, as our memories are nothing like that of a computer. But, depending on the level of understanding of the person you're talking to, should one use such an analogy even though it is imprecise? For instance, when talking to a child with access to computers.
I think precision depends on your audience, but accuracy is the right of everyone. Not quite the same thing, unless you are working with pure, critical numericals - Avogadro's Condtant is 6.023 × 10
23, but the number of connections to neurons can be, "About . . ."
Worst case is talking to those of another discipline, used to precision but totally ignorant of what you want to ecplain to them! But pop-science media stars don''t have to pander to them very often.
Here is simething I put together for a series of talks on everyday science for the U3A- then someone produced some very similar stuff, so I rewrote it as an article.
"SOLUTION FOUND IN BATHTUB!
Dateline Syracuse; Sicily; 257(ish)BCE: Well known local thinker and inventor, Archimedes, foils fiendish plot to rob King Hiero II!"
Archimedes, son of astronomer Phidias,, was one of the ancient world's main men. Just about the most famous story about him is that of his running, wet and naked, through the streets yelling, "Eureka!" ("I found (it)!"). What had he found that was so astounding that he forgot his bathrobe?
The king of the time had commissioned a new votive crown, supplying the gold for it himself. But His Majesty had the suspicion that the newly made crown was not all it seemed, he suspected that the goldsmith had kept some of the expensive gold and mixed cheaper silver in with the rest to make the weight of metal the same as that supplied.
The king asked Archimedes to prove this one way or another - without damaging the crown. "OK," thought Archimedes, "I can easily weigh the crown, and then make a lump of pure gold of the same weight. But I need to know the volume of both of them as well, if the crown contains some, lighter, silver it will take up more space for the same weigh. The lump of pure gold is easy to measure, but the crown is a difficult shape, I can't measure all these fiddly bits accurately!"
Archimedes puzzled over this until he got brain ache and decided to have a nice soak in the bath. His servant had filled the tub to the brim, and as Archimedes lowered himself slowly in the water overflowed. Later he got out of the bath, and the water level went back down. Then the realisation hit him, the space now left in the bath was exactly the same volume as his own, submerged, body (complete with all
his fiddly bits) and therefore so was the displaced water. If he were to place the crown in a full tub of water, the displaced water must be the same volume as the crown!
So happy was Archimedes that he forgot his naked state and rushed of to tell the king of his idea... He had a wide jug, with a long spout, made and filled this until the water over-flowed from the spout. When this flow stopped he lowered the crown into the jug, but this time carefully collected the displaced water from the spout. Making a mark where the water level was on the collecting vessel he emptied that and dried it, then refilled the jug and repeated the process, this time dunking the lump of pure gold and collecting the new over-flow in the same measuring vessel.
The displaced water from the gold did not quite reach the first mark, the gold lump had a smaller volume than the crown, was more dense than the crown. Therefore the crown was a mixture of gold and some lighter metal.!
Archimedes had temporarily lost his head in his joy at finding his solution; we can assume the goldsmith lost his head in a more permanent way!
OK, no one knows the actual details of the story, but history has recorded the fact that Archimedes obviously felt a real emotional lift in finding a simple solution to what he thought was a very difficult problem. That is one of the rewards of working in science and technology - that sense of discovery, of creating new ideas or inventions. It doesnt happen all that often, and it can take a lot of time and work, but when it does happen its a real buzz!
Archimedes method has remained just as important for every single moment of the two thousand two hundred odd years since he found it. It is still used today for many purposes, including being still the most accurate way to measure the volume of the human body. From this and the persons weight the density of his or her body can be found – which is a good indicator of the amount of fat someone has, his or her body mass index orBMI, a very important factor in medical research and treatment. It is also used to measure the "displacement" of ships, they "displace" their own weight of water when floating.
An iceberg has a density, weight per volune, kilograms per litre, only about 90% that of salt water. Thus it floats with about 10% of its volume above the surface but the volume it displaces under the surface is equal to its total weight.