This is not my first observation in my colleagues' classes, but is the first when I'm specifically invited to observe, compare and contrast the teaching methods used in two classes taught by the same faculty member. In the US, some institutions incorporate peer review, or guided observations of teaching, into faculty evaluations, whether formative (for improvement purposes), or summative (to provide input for decisions of promotion, retention, or pay). The peer review I am doing here is more to add to my understanding of the resources and challenges of higher education teaching at Eszterházy Károly.
I'm typing (inefficiently) on a Hungarian keyboard, and making many mistakes with the Y and Z and quotation marks in different locations. I don't even know how to make an accented lower case vowel, so I can't even spell Laszlo's (the instructor) name correctly! (I corrected above and below when I got back to my own office keyboard and cheat sheet).
László has shown me how the students access the practice exercises and tests from his webpages. He gave me a paper copz (hereás what happens when Yahner doesnát look at the kezboard') of the exercise, this time about Hungarian Nobel Prize winners.
When László finished grading he showed me the marks. It was as he said it probably would be--students did not do well, with most of them getting 1 marks, which indicate a failing grade.
When I was invited to this class I asked about the general goals and objectives. László did much more to help me understand the context. He sent an email that outlined the course, including a good description of the teaching method. He identified advantages and disadvantages of the teaching strategy used. With his permission, I'll quote from his email below. I plan to attend another of his classes later this week and will add a second Peer Review entry to the blog then.
Laszlo's Email
Word - 21 April, at 10:00-11:30 (Room 605)
---------------------------------------------
The name of subject: Digital Textprocessing
Term of subject: one semester (15 week)
Number of lessons: 2 lesson/week
Type of subject: practice
Main goal: students can use the word processor on a professional level for the essay (examination paper) and for the dissertation.
Other goals: the student can use the word-processor at work in the future.
Advantages: 1. The students use the computer every day 2. They learned about word-processing in the high school 3. The subject is useful for them 4. Every student can work with a computer (1 computer/student)
Disadvantages: 1. The class size is high in the group 2. Most students learned little in high school (they played or left the lessons) [We haven't any teacher-control at the IT lessons in Hungary] 3. The students don't want to understand why the topic is useful for them 4. They don't want to work week by week, only the end of term before the exam. 5. They don't want ask help from me.
My method of education:
Unfortunately, it's a simply elementary, sometimes secondary school method. We do the practise together, then they can try again alone, and they can ask. After the practise we make a little summary of theory. Many don't practise, so I give an exam every second week. These are "little" practise exams (quizzes). They have 4 quizzes. If the student earns a five or four mark on each quiz then he/she earns an adequate mark in this subject, and, at Week 10 has finished the subject. If not, the student has to take a summary exam in the 14th week, and can correct it in the 15th week. Usually students write very bad quizzes, but they believe it's enough to finish the subject. It's a very basic method at the college level, but about the 75% of students can word-process well following the class.
No comments:
Post a Comment