Category: Academic Life

I had some thoughts about Dr. Wieman and the initiative after our interview, which I’d like to put out there:

The man is assiduously, zealously, diplomatic. You may notice in the interview that Dr. Wieman doesn’t give a straight answer to whether there’s an education quality problem at UBC. He often defers to the Departments, instead of asserting his experiences or ideas. He answered several of my questions with vague observations like, “we must first ask what we want and then…”. These responses are quite practical, when you get down to it: he shouldn’t tax the sensetivities of the VP academic, he cannot force the hand of departments, and yes, setting goals and research questions is crucial. Indeed, Dr. Wieman knows that he must work within the department structure of the University, and he’s embracing that. Fashioning himself as a revolutionary with all the answers will not help his vision come about, and he knows it. But don’t be fooled. For all the hedging, Dr. Wieman has a vision – it’s just tempered by familiarity of university realpolitik. This vision stems from the realization that the democratization of higher education, and the reality of larger classes and reduced teacher-student interaction implicit in it, create unique challenges. Dr. Wieman’s thesis is that with this reality, the only realistic way to cultivate the meaningful interactions and problem-solving challenges which are tied to “expert-like” learning results is through the adoption of researched, proven information technology.

I simply hope, that when the department implementation process gets to the nitty-gritty, that Dr. Weiman will be there. His austere replies in the interview may almost have convinced you that he actually doesn’t have specific ideas, or any over-arching vision. He does. I’m confident that he has the political gumption to bust these out when it matters the most, in each departmental decision-making conversation.

All that said, personally, I’m not sold on the technology fetish. Yes, Dr. Wieman is highly conservative, and very careful about his uses of these technologies. He stresses that they should only be used if they’ve been tested to work, in the correct context in the courses. Still, I keep going back to the OWL example: OWL is an interactive program used in Chem 233 that has animation-based organic chemistry teaching modules, problem sets, and quizzes that allow you to manipulate chemical compounds using shockwave software. OWL is meant to be a significant part of this course, and is even worth a toothsome morsel of the course grade. Nonetheless, the division is clear: some people loved OWL (either because it’s easy marks, or because they actually got something out of it) and some people (me) hated it, and preferred loosing marks than wasting their time doing detestable tasks that didn’t help them learn at all. The thing is, there will always be that issue. There will always be students that don’t get along with staring at a screen to learn, preferring to hit the books, and there will be those that will. That’s why I’m just not sure that out-of-classroom software is the be-all end-all of making students learn better.

I’d like more of of a focus on improving the quality of lectures themselves. Lectures are still important, and they CAN be done well. The lecture has taken a lot of flak as an inherently awful format, but this really needn’t be the case. A well-structured lecture can be very effective in ordering, prioritizing, and explaining material, even if it’s not the best at imparting problem-solving ability or deep conceptual understanding.

For an interesting read, check out Dr. Wieman’s report on “The Optimized University” that he prepared for the BC government’s Campus 2020 post-secondary education review here (click!).

This is the picture I took on my walk home the moment after I realized that I’d forgotten to take a picture of my handsome interviewee. Vancouver city-hall for you, therefore.

Later this week, our own Maayan Kreitzman will have a sit-down interview with Dr. Carl Wieman of his eponymous Science Education Initiative. (See below.) We’ve got some questions, but we thought we’d put it to our readers – what questions would you like to ask Dr. Wieman?

What about his initiative, science education, philosophy, or the man himself would you be interested to know?

It sounds like a dream – a high profile and hugely funded project (about 200 k per year, currently) entirely dedicated to improving the academic fortunes of the masses of undergrad science students. Students that currently seem to leave their lower-level physics and chemistry courses more detached, zombie-like, and unready for what real scientific enquiry is all about than when they came in (chem 205 with Dr. Chen, anyone?). But what exactly is the Carl Wieman Science Education Initiative (CWSEI) proposing, what are its methods, what has it accomplished in it’s three months of official existence, and what do concerned parties think of the whole shebang?

Carl Wieman, the Nobel laureate in physics from U of Colorado was recruited to UBC in 2007 with pomp and circumstance. But instead of setting up a state-of-the-art lab for experimental physics, he instead asked for a whack of money to stay in the office and spearhead a crusade for better teaching – in fact, that’s why he came here in the first place. Dr. Wieman has become more interested in the scholarship of teaching and learning over the past several years. The project’s goal is to

Provide substantial support to science departments to evaluate all of their undergraduate courses and pursue opportunities to improve educational outcomes. The focus will be on achieving sustained departmental-wide change, and will rely on the use of relevant science education research results and technology to achieve these goals.

Admittedly, the project is in its nascent stages. It has only vague notions of working together with teaching projects that already exist at UBC (like TAG and Skylight) in order to create comprehensive plans for improving the curricula of 5 or so chosen departments per year. Future fundraising is supposed to supplement this budget in order to be able to expand the project to all science departments. The basic idea is to train us science students such that we have the intellectual tools to solve the world’s big problems, and fuel its highly technical skill-reliant economy.

The way this is going to be done will be worked out on the departmental level, over the next months or year. For example, George Spiegelman is the CWSEI head for biology. Basically experts in science education will work with departments, professors, and instructors to gather data about student learning, and then develop methods, including technology (like course-specific software) to improve teaching and curricula on a per-project basis. This sounds good.

I sent an email to a few of my former professors to ask them what they thought of the initiative. Here are the two responses I got (so far):

Dr. Lacey Samuels (botany)

There are many profs and instructors in the Faculty of Science who have been attempting to use a “how-people-learn” philosophy guide our teaching strategies. We’ve been struggling to test the effectiveness of our methods, train graduate students in learning and teaching theory and practices, and working with the excellent SCLT researchers (Science Centre for Learning and Teaching). The CWSEI represents a huge boost of resources in this effort. The timing of the Initiative with respect to revisions in the Biology curriculum means that we will have the resources to evaluate the changes in the curriculum. It is pretty exciting. The timing of implementation with the budget troubles that UBC is suffering is tough.

Shona Ellis (botany)

I don’t really have much to say at this point. I think the CWSEI is very exciting. It gives us an opportunity to step back and take a look at how we are educating undergraduates (including uses of technology). In biology there was already a movement for evaluation and change, but without the funding of the CWSEI it would have been almost impossible to implement. For myself, it will be interesting to learn more about how people learn and I look forward to the opportunity to work with experts in education research. I am very optimistic about this project and I am very happy that science undergraduate education is a top priority at UBC.

Sounds like someone’s paying these ladies (/jk). I can attest to the fact that both Dr. Samuels and Shona have payed attention to how students learn. They run one of the most effective courses I’ve ever taken, Biology 210, which integrates about three (plus or minus two) phases in each lecture: a lecture, some sort of interactive question/answer, and some sort of visual picture component. Also, the combination of written overhead notes, and powerpoint pictures/visuals that the lecturers used is by far the best presentation mehtod. The marked attention this course pays to cross-referencing, sequencing and integrating the different types of course materials available (notes, pictures, text-book, lab book) in a way that makes sense was very successful, and reflects the investment of the people that build and teach the course. If this is the type of thing we’re aiming for, having the resources to make all professors more like Lacey and Shona, I’m all for it.

My critiques and comments are the following:

• The CWSEI’s focus on technology may be misguided. There are many courses where the huge and confusing web components (be they compulsory, or merely an enormous network of resources) are pure horror. Biology 200’s massive and cyclic labyrinth of links comes to mind. Yes, it is a matter of preference, but I would rather read a sequential, story-like textbook than spend my life on webCT looking at superfluous animation links. He’s also big on clickers. Never used them, but his explanation in the podcast is fairly compelling. Also, some course-specific software (like, say, OWL) is a nightmare. These tools need to be implemented deliberately, not because of the gadget! shiny! cool! if I don’t use my budge it’ll be taken away! types of ticks scientists get.
• The visibility of the project to students, and their participation should be emphasized. What with the budget cuts due to the deficit, and growing classes, and breaking labs, science students would like to know that this project is investing a lot of resources for their benefit.
• Web presence: it is essential with a project such as this that people (students, other professors than the ones immediately concerned, etc) be able to stay up to date with the planning and implementation stages. With such a large budget, it would be a pity to pass up the opportunity to communicate both the process and the results of the project. It is also easy for people to become cynical about a large publicly-funded project if it has no in-depth, timely, accessible, public face.

Some links:

Carl Wieman’s not-very-grammatical powerpoint presentation
CWSEI FAQ
about CWSEI
Carl Wieman talking on podcast about education in 2005 (skip the first 4 minutes)
Skylight project grants – check out past successful projects to get a sense of a) the things that have improved, and b) the teachers who care about teaching

Towards the Old Admin Building, aka the road to power

Stephen just sent this notice out to all students and presumably faculty/staff:

Dear Colleagues:

I am pleased to report that the search for a new Provost and
Vice-President (Academic) is progressing well. After a final round of
consultations with representatives of faculty, staff and students, the
Search Committee should soon be in a position to recommend a candidate
for me to take to the Board of Governors. Best wishes as the semester
draws to a busy end.

Stephen Toope
President and Vice-Chancellor
University of British Columbia

So it sounds like the Search Committee has picked a shortlist of their liking. Whose name do you think will be brought forth to board? Take your guesses!

Personally, I’m kind of hoping it’ll be George Mackie (current VP Academic and Provost, pro tem). He has been incredibly well received by the AMS, senate, and board alike, and has administrative experience as the past Biochem Department Head and having worked as former VP Academic’s Financial Officer. He is currently spearheading SCAPP (the Steering committee on Academic Planning Process), and otherwise highly efficient in the duties he has been brought into. But another part of me is really hoping for someone from a diverse background to offset the white male thing that’s dominating the administrative prowess of this University.

So, there was a notice sent out to a select number of students (and I have no idea which ones), saying that the Math and MacMillan Library would be closed, as well as reduced hours in other libraries due to the budget shortage.

The official notice is posted behind the cut.

My problem as a Senator who sits on the Library Committee is the following:
It’s the mandate of the committee to oversee the operations of the Libraries. We had not been informed of the budget cut, nor the closures, nor the reduced hours of the Libraries.

As a result, I am concerned to which extent the Senate is involved in the academic governance of the University. No one could argue that the libraries aren’t a key element of the academic life in an institution such as ours.

I am also concerned about the manifestations of the budget reductions – what this would mean for the study spaces for students, access to resources for the community, and whether the extended hours project during exams will continue, as it may now cost additional costs to supplement any “normal” hours which have been reduced.

UBC (ubc.systems@ubc.ca)
Reply-To:rita.dahlie@ubc.ca
To:
Subject: Closure of the MacMillan Library

UBC Library and the University are facing serious budgetary reductions, and some difficult choices have had to be made. The Library’s reduction is $1.6 million for 2007-2008, with the strong possibility of further reductions the following year. The Library is unable to continue to sustain the current number of branches. As well, the work of the library is changing, for the most part we are set up as a print-based operation, however; more and more of our resources are electronic. The Library is looking for ways to continue the reference, instruction and collections within the changing use of the libraries and with the limited resources in both staff and budget. To be viable in the future, we need to carefully resource our libraries and ensure that we have the staffing components needed to meet the users’ needs. As a result, UBC Library has decided to close MacMillan and Math Libraries by the end of August 2007. We are also reducing hours of operation at other branches and are reducing staff through retirements and not filling vacancies, wherever possible. This was not an easy decision, yet it was a necessary one for UBC Library to make. Dr. Peter Ward, University Librarian, pro tem and the UBC Library are committed to ensuring that the service to the faculty, students and other users of the MacMillan Library is maintained. The service will continue as before, except from a different location. There will still be the full complement of service – reference & instruction, library orientation, print collections and e-resources, reserve collections, etc. for all the faculties and students currently served by the MacMillan Library. There will continue to be professional librarians to do the full suite of liaison and course development work and support staff will continue to process collections and materials. There will continue to be a collections budget for books, journals and e-resources for MacMillan, although as part of the budget reductions, the overall library budget is also being reduced. The main change is that the collections will be moved. Majority of the collections will fit within the Woodward Biomedical Branch. Many of the subject areas currently housed in MacMillan overlap with other subject areas held in Woodward. Others, such as Landscape Architecture, will be a better fit with similar collection in IKBLC (Irving K. Barber Learning Centre). There may be some value to keeping some of the collections together, with others interfiling may be more useful to the students. We would like to have more discussion with faculty and students regarding these decisions. There is potential for increased in-class reference and instruction, as librarians will have added flexibility to go where students are located. In return, there will be a larger group of librarians for students and faculty visiting respective libraries. For example, Woodward librarians often team-teach and offer Library research workshops. UBC Library welcomes the opportunity to be as inclusive as possible regarding discussions about the relocation of MacMillan Library, as it is crucial that we keep users informed and hear about their requirements. We would like to work with faculty to find the best way to communicate with you and your students. The planning process for the MacMillan Library relocation is ongoing and we will continue to provide regular updates on developments. For questions and comments regarding the relocation of MacMillan Library, or to set up a meeting, please contact Rita Dahlie, Head, Woodward Biomedical Library, at 604-822-4970 or rita.dahlie@ubc.ca

And a plug. I refer readers to Maclean’s Education. A helluva site with tons of good articles. There’s a very useful piece on how to get a reference letter for grad school, a skill that students far too often find themselves without. And even discussions on Facebook. Apparently Spencer Keys (a friend of the show) is involved in some way that, as of yet, is unascertainable on the site.

But two articles stand out, and they’re quite related. The first is a piece on the plight of the sessional lecturer. In short, they’re paid nearly minimum wage (25-30k, if they get a full load) to teach. This leaves them no time to do research, which denies them tenure-track positions. It’s a vicious cycle. And the second is a more philosophical piece about why we’re all at Universities in the first place.

The latter piece attempts to contextualize the contemporary University experience. The picture it paints is one of a University for mass consumption, driven less by the “corporate” nature of Universities and more by the desire to get as many people in and out the doors as possible. In short, Universities fail to create meaningful learning experiences. We don’t learn from classrooms – we learn from associations with professorial research, from engaging more in-depth with the field, and from extra-curricular activities associated with the University. And this is related to the sessional lecturer – often, the sessional has to hold down a second job, and can’t devote themselves to engaging with students in a meaningful way. The emphasis becomes on cramming the brains of those in the lecture halls – hardly conducive to learning.

We’ve also created a culture where students expect to go into a University and to acquire the knowledge, like a car going in for a new paint job. Potter’s piece makes the point that the onus is as much on the student to seek to better themselves as much as it’s on the University. His metaphor is that of an elite athlete who relies on a coach to bring out the best, but at the end of the day, it’s up to athlete to better herself.

What are the implications for UBC? It’s where things like NSSE come in. We’re a University failing miserably at engaging our students, at creating the environment where opportunities exist. Sure, they’re fighting a generational battle. But emphasis of research in tenure appointments, lack of informal learning space, the measurable impact of research dollars, the unavailability of research or other engaging opporunities for many students (Seriously, anybody know any undergrad Arts students who’ve ever worked with a prof? I’ve been here six years and have yet to meet one.), and the general sense of “people in, degree out” that comes with a University of this size are all conspiring to create a University experience that’s quite frankly underwhelming.

Admittedly this is partly a generational problem. We’re a narcissistic generation that demands hand-holding. But UBC and Universities ought to challenge us, rather than granting a degree as a reward for attendace in classrooms 15 hours a week. Your degree equity is suffering. Hell, the bachelor’s is on the cusp of irrelevance already.

Not sure where I was going with all that. But read the articles. They’re good.