Learning: Peer Review 1

This blog entry is an interesting one. I'm blogging while sitting in a classroom during a lesson and practice test in Bóta László's Word class. The room is large with many computer workstations, and windows all around with a beautiful view of Eger--almost as panoramic as the view from the Terrace upstairs. It would be a bit difficult to pay attention to the computer screens and the presentation screen with the distraction of the view, at least for me. The quotation seen to the right is posted prominently at the front of the room.

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 is currently walking around looking at the work of the students, and correcting and grading (scale 1-5) on the spot. He says that is the best way for the students to know what they have done wrong and right, and saves on paper, and avoids viruses that might be introduced through saving the files. I'm quite sure I wouldn't do very well on this practice--my inept skills in making the correct accent marks, different capitalization rules, and different formatting (i.e., justified text, centered headings) would likely render a 1 rating, meaning I'd have to repeat the test!

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. The grading criteria is very clear, with each item (e.g., title page, table) marked with a percentage of the total grade.

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. There is not a lot of room for error--total accuracy on an element is necessary to get credit for that element of the document. But in looking at the marks from the first practice test, which are mostly good (3-5 level marks), it does look like László is right when he says the students don't practice new skills, and so do not ever get any better than they are when they start. I'm sure this is a frustrating position for the instructor, but certainly not an unusual situation as most instructors could agree.

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.