I have mentioned before in class that I have lived in private certified housing during my entire career here on campus. Additionally, I (and Fred as well) have been an active member in our local church youth group (the same church the people who own Brown House, where I live, go to). My reason for mentioning this is that because of this, I feel that I have been exposed to a unique opportunity with respect to the availability of mentors, specifically the upper classmen being able to help the lower classmen. While I realize that my experience may be somewhat unique, and not applicable in the general sense, I still wish to share and reflect on it.
When I moved in as a freshman, there were three other guys living there. One, who I will call “J”, went to the same local church as me and was a senior. Suffice it to say, it was wonderful living with someone who “knew the ropes” and could help me through freshman year. This was, in my opinion, somewhat of an ideal mentoring situation. The fact that we lived together and got to know each other on a much more personal basis allowed for very free conversation. Instead of an official “mentor” where you meet someone once a week, this was much more informal, and could occur on an “as needed basis”.
Suffice it to say, I felt that I greatly benefitted from living with an upper classman. The question then becomes “was my situation unique, or could it be reproduced?” The answer is somewhat multifaceted. I know that it isn’t completely unique, because Fred lives in a house set up in a very similar manner (as does Joe, if I am not mistaken). However, these are all private housing, and are associated with a particular church, making the people somewhat more homogenous and better able to get along and relate to each other. Although I have never personally experienced it, my guess would be that trying to implement a “Senior-Freshman” mentoring situation in the dorms would be somewhat difficult. I recall others in our class (Sophia, maybe) saying that they did room with a senior when they were a freshman, but that it didn’t work out so well. Again, since I never lived in a dorm, I really can’t speak to how well it allows freshman and seniors to interact. This is merely speculation, but perhaps putting freshman and seniors on the same floor of the dorm would work (or maybe they already do this- I don’t know).
The second (though somewhat related to the first) means by which I interacted with seniors when I was a freshman was through a local church group. As a simple explanation, we are all members of the same national “Apostolic Christian church”, one local congregation of which is located in Champaign. The group, called the ACYG (Apostolic Christian Young Group) is a means for young believers to have interaction with other Christians on the college campus. We are a tight knit group and there is a wide age range of members. Basically, for me the group was/is a fantastic way for me to find good mentors, as I was/am able to directly and personally interact with people older and wiser than me (some of whom might actually be reading this blog!) It should be noted that mentoring is a byproduct, not an explicit goal of the group. The very fact that we do a lot together and are able to get to know each other more personally allows mentorship and guidance from the older to the younger to happen naturally.
The question follow up question is again “how does this apply to other students on campus?” I guess my suggestion would be to find a group and become an active member in it. The more you get to know people and the more you do with them, the more you can learn from them. Also, try to find a group of people who are interested in the same things you are, as it will make getting to know them and getting along with them easier.
(As a post script, I am now in my third year at Brown House, and suddenly find myself in the role of mentor, not mentee. There are two freshmen in the house, one of whom is my brother. While I don’t explicitly mentor them, it still is a natural byproduct of living together. We are very comfortable with each other, and thus it is very easy to have open conversation about a broad range of topics.)
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Learning
I have taken many different classes in my lifetime, from here at the University of Illinois, in high school, even all of the way back to middle and grade school when I was homeschooled. I would also say, for the most part, I have learned a lot from these classes. I have also had many experiences in my life, again, most of which I would say I have learned something from. The topic of this blog pertains to the questions of “how do I know I have learned something” and “how can I convince others I have learned something”.
Probably the simplest way of showing that you learned something is to perform some demonstration to prove that you are capable of doing what you said you learned. In the case of school, this is brought forth in the ubiquitous “final exam”, wherein students are required to prove to the professor that they have learned something by providing the correct answers to the questions on the test. However, I personally think that talking about school learning is somewhat dry, so I will try to focus on type of learning with more non-tangible results.
When I say that I guess I am thinking more along the lines of skills such as patience, love, humility, really all of the Fruit of the Spirit, as put forth in Galatians 5:22-23 or other works of righteousness in Colossians 3:12. How do we know when we have learned these skills, and how do we show that to others? Whereas in school we were given written tests, these skills are “tested” by our daily action. I can say that a certain experience, say getting caught in a traffic jam, taught me patience, but how do I prove it? The manifestation of my having learn patience is my ability to be patient with those around me. Thus, we are constantly being tested on what we have learned.
I am struggling with what to write next, because questions such as “how do you ever truly learn patience?” or “how can I be perfectly humble?” and “if so, have I ever really learned these things?” or “if not, then what am I learning?” are running through my mind. However, even as I am thinking this, I am realizing that the exact same questions could be applied to school. “Can I ever really learn fluid mechanics” or “can I truly master thermodynamics?”
I guess I am concluding that any sentence which starts off “I learned …” should probably be reworded “I increased my knowledge…” (or something equivalent, but less dorky) because “learned” is past tense, and indicates that there is nothing else to be learned. I supposed it would be okay to say “I have learned my multiplication tables”, because (hopefully) all of us have perfectly mastered that concept. That being said, however, most of us use the phrase “I learned…” to indicate that there experience helped them to add to their knowledge of a particular topic.
I have muddled around in a lot of topics, so will try to bring some focus to this reflection as I conclude. (I admit that for whatever reason, I really struggled to write this reflection, and realize that even now what I have isn’t that good. However, in his other blog, Prof. Arvan bemoans the fact that students are such perfectionists, so I suppose I will just alleviate his concerns!) Basically, in my mind the answer to the question is somewhat trivial: we demonstrate our having learned something by putting it in action. I can say that I have learned something and may internally believe that I have, but, whether I like it or not, my learning is manifested by the external display of my actions/abilities.
Probably the simplest way of showing that you learned something is to perform some demonstration to prove that you are capable of doing what you said you learned. In the case of school, this is brought forth in the ubiquitous “final exam”, wherein students are required to prove to the professor that they have learned something by providing the correct answers to the questions on the test. However, I personally think that talking about school learning is somewhat dry, so I will try to focus on type of learning with more non-tangible results.
When I say that I guess I am thinking more along the lines of skills such as patience, love, humility, really all of the Fruit of the Spirit, as put forth in Galatians 5:22-23 or other works of righteousness in Colossians 3:12. How do we know when we have learned these skills, and how do we show that to others? Whereas in school we were given written tests, these skills are “tested” by our daily action. I can say that a certain experience, say getting caught in a traffic jam, taught me patience, but how do I prove it? The manifestation of my having learn patience is my ability to be patient with those around me. Thus, we are constantly being tested on what we have learned.
I am struggling with what to write next, because questions such as “how do you ever truly learn patience?” or “how can I be perfectly humble?” and “if so, have I ever really learned these things?” or “if not, then what am I learning?” are running through my mind. However, even as I am thinking this, I am realizing that the exact same questions could be applied to school. “Can I ever really learn fluid mechanics” or “can I truly master thermodynamics?”
I guess I am concluding that any sentence which starts off “I learned …” should probably be reworded “I increased my knowledge…” (or something equivalent, but less dorky) because “learned” is past tense, and indicates that there is nothing else to be learned. I supposed it would be okay to say “I have learned my multiplication tables”, because (hopefully) all of us have perfectly mastered that concept. That being said, however, most of us use the phrase “I learned…” to indicate that there experience helped them to add to their knowledge of a particular topic.
I have muddled around in a lot of topics, so will try to bring some focus to this reflection as I conclude. (I admit that for whatever reason, I really struggled to write this reflection, and realize that even now what I have isn’t that good. However, in his other blog, Prof. Arvan bemoans the fact that students are such perfectionists, so I suppose I will just alleviate his concerns!) Basically, in my mind the answer to the question is somewhat trivial: we demonstrate our having learned something by putting it in action. I can say that I have learned something and may internally believe that I have, but, whether I like it or not, my learning is manifested by the external display of my actions/abilities.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Are general eduation and prerequisite classes important?
Recently our CHP class has been talking about the disengagement pact and student disengagement in general. The idea of the disengagement pact is explained in this article by George Kuh. In a nutshell, the disengagement pact is the idea that students and professors mutually agree to make each other’s lives easier, the professor by not giving the student as much work to do, and hence the student by not giving the professor as much grading to do. In this situation both the professor and student have a role, but even the most dedicated professor cannot (at least for the sake of this argument) force all of their students to be engaged in the class. Said another way, there are some students who are going to be disengaged from the class, either because they dislike school in general, or feel that the particular class they are in is unimportant.
Before I continue, I should give a proper definition of what I am talking about. I would say that all of the students in this CHP class are very good students who care about learning. However, I think I speak for the class when I say that we have all been in classes that we were simply uninterested in, or felt were not applicable to our education. I would venture further and say that for most of us those classes fell into the category of being a gen-ed or prerequisite requirement.
My point for laying this framework is to be able to discuss the question of whether or not it would be beneficial for some of the required courses in a major to be dropped, with students being given the option of taking free electives instead. Although from my introduction you might think I would be in favor of this, I can actually see both sides of the issue, but in general tend to disagree.
The first category of classes would be prerequisite classes for further courses in your major. Since I am in the ME program, I will use it as an example. Mechanical Engineers are required to take a broad range of foundational courses before they ever get into courses specifically in their major. These would be things like physics, calculus, differential equations, linear algebra, statics, dynamics, programming, etc. The argument could be made that since these don’t necessarily relate directly to Mechanical Engineering, they should be optional. Why make students struggle through something they don’t think they will use?
Having played the devil’s advocate, I will now state that I think that this would be a very bad idea. I feel that almost all, if not all of the classes I have mentioned comprise what I would call the multiplication tables of engineering. Even though you might not like them, they really are useful and important down the road, including in your more specific ME classes.
That being said, however, some of you are probably thinking “well yeah- courses in your major, including prereqs are important, but what about general electives?” I am honestly not sure what I think about this for several reasons. First off, due to AP credit, I really haven’t had to take that many gen-ed classes, so don’t have much experience to base this argument off of.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly is the time/experience issue. I can say the engineering prerequisite classes are important because I have seen firsthand that I need them for my specific ME classes. I cannot say the same for the gen-ed classes I have taken, because quite frankly, I don’t have enough experience to know whether or not they were indeed useful. Will Econ 103 benefit me down the road, or would another class have been better? How can I say at this point in my life?
I will try to pull some loose threads together before I continue. In general, the classes that otherwise good students become disengaged in are probably in the category of being pre-reqs or gen-ed requirements. Given this disengagement, especially given that fact that we are talking about very good, motivated students, would it be beneficial to allow more freedom in the class requirements so that students can take classes that they are more engaged in? I feel that this would be a bad idea with respect to the prerequisite courses, but the jury is still out on the gen-ed requirements.
The argument for gen-ed classes is that they allow a student to have more rounded education. Even though, as I mentioned before, I don’t have the experience to have a better view point on this, I do think I see the benefit of broadening your education. I took Geog 101 over the summer because it was a class which was available and which fit into my schedule. Was it my favorite class? Not necessarily. Was I ever disengaged during class? Most likely. Am I glad for the alternative perspective it gave me? Yes. While I might not have perfectly learned all of the concepts the professor would have liked me to learn, I still feel that I got a benefit from the class.
My point then, is that I have benefitted from taking both Geog 101 and Econ 103, even though I wouldn’t necessarily have taken them if not “required” to. I think if I had been given the choice of taking a “free elective” instead of a more directed gen-ed, I still would have taken some random, interesting class. My thought is that the intent, even if not the actual “law” of the gen-ed requirements is to give students some direction and guidelines for doing just that- taking classes which are interesting, yet somewhat useful.
Well, I have blogged for longer than usual, only to come to the conclusion that I like things just the way they are! Call me the “anti-change conservative” if you want, but I still think that a lot of thought and planning goes into setting the requirements for a degree, so why argue against those older and wise then us, especially when down the road we may “discover” that they were right. However, I am sure that not all of you who read this blog are of the same opinion, so I would love to hear your thoughts.
Before I continue, I should give a proper definition of what I am talking about. I would say that all of the students in this CHP class are very good students who care about learning. However, I think I speak for the class when I say that we have all been in classes that we were simply uninterested in, or felt were not applicable to our education. I would venture further and say that for most of us those classes fell into the category of being a gen-ed or prerequisite requirement.
My point for laying this framework is to be able to discuss the question of whether or not it would be beneficial for some of the required courses in a major to be dropped, with students being given the option of taking free electives instead. Although from my introduction you might think I would be in favor of this, I can actually see both sides of the issue, but in general tend to disagree.
The first category of classes would be prerequisite classes for further courses in your major. Since I am in the ME program, I will use it as an example. Mechanical Engineers are required to take a broad range of foundational courses before they ever get into courses specifically in their major. These would be things like physics, calculus, differential equations, linear algebra, statics, dynamics, programming, etc. The argument could be made that since these don’t necessarily relate directly to Mechanical Engineering, they should be optional. Why make students struggle through something they don’t think they will use?
Having played the devil’s advocate, I will now state that I think that this would be a very bad idea. I feel that almost all, if not all of the classes I have mentioned comprise what I would call the multiplication tables of engineering. Even though you might not like them, they really are useful and important down the road, including in your more specific ME classes.
That being said, however, some of you are probably thinking “well yeah- courses in your major, including prereqs are important, but what about general electives?” I am honestly not sure what I think about this for several reasons. First off, due to AP credit, I really haven’t had to take that many gen-ed classes, so don’t have much experience to base this argument off of.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly is the time/experience issue. I can say the engineering prerequisite classes are important because I have seen firsthand that I need them for my specific ME classes. I cannot say the same for the gen-ed classes I have taken, because quite frankly, I don’t have enough experience to know whether or not they were indeed useful. Will Econ 103 benefit me down the road, or would another class have been better? How can I say at this point in my life?
I will try to pull some loose threads together before I continue. In general, the classes that otherwise good students become disengaged in are probably in the category of being pre-reqs or gen-ed requirements. Given this disengagement, especially given that fact that we are talking about very good, motivated students, would it be beneficial to allow more freedom in the class requirements so that students can take classes that they are more engaged in? I feel that this would be a bad idea with respect to the prerequisite courses, but the jury is still out on the gen-ed requirements.
The argument for gen-ed classes is that they allow a student to have more rounded education. Even though, as I mentioned before, I don’t have the experience to have a better view point on this, I do think I see the benefit of broadening your education. I took Geog 101 over the summer because it was a class which was available and which fit into my schedule. Was it my favorite class? Not necessarily. Was I ever disengaged during class? Most likely. Am I glad for the alternative perspective it gave me? Yes. While I might not have perfectly learned all of the concepts the professor would have liked me to learn, I still feel that I got a benefit from the class.
My point then, is that I have benefitted from taking both Geog 101 and Econ 103, even though I wouldn’t necessarily have taken them if not “required” to. I think if I had been given the choice of taking a “free elective” instead of a more directed gen-ed, I still would have taken some random, interesting class. My thought is that the intent, even if not the actual “law” of the gen-ed requirements is to give students some direction and guidelines for doing just that- taking classes which are interesting, yet somewhat useful.
Well, I have blogged for longer than usual, only to come to the conclusion that I like things just the way they are! Call me the “anti-change conservative” if you want, but I still think that a lot of thought and planning goes into setting the requirements for a degree, so why argue against those older and wise then us, especially when down the road we may “discover” that they were right. However, I am sure that not all of you who read this blog are of the same opinion, so I would love to hear your thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
