Thursday, March 25, 2010

難得見到同學對教室管理的意見 (from a mini series of comments on facebook)

jsw: "親愛的衛老師,請問你認不認同上課的時候,少數同學以"噓聲"來警惕其他少數同學討論功課的作法?" 以上是路人甲同學問我的問題。
我猜測他是認真的問,我當然是要認真的答。What do I think? 討論功課是好事,只是不該在課堂上進行,老師拿鐘點費,是唯一的供給者。如果我得罪玉皇大帝,被罰去教棒球,我會要求同學先跑三千公尺,耗掉20分鐘,然後將同學分組,討論30分鐘,然後每組負責人報告或示範,接著開放集體討論。我最後總結,誇讚這是教過最好的一班。重點是一學期下來,沒有人會注意到 ... 我根本不懂棒球!

Miss T:恩,我還是會繼續討論的,哈!!!

jsw: Dear Miss T, 還好妳不在我課堂上 ....... 我的噓聲不夠力 得靠橡皮筋來制止討論聲 相信大家可以諒解 哈!!!

Mr. P: 基本上我同意老師所說的:討論功課是好事,只是不該在課堂上進行。我想這是我們都知道的,但也都是許多人所做不到的,我想少數同學以"噓聲"作為警惕,可其實這對老師、以及其他認真且安靜上課的同學相當不禮貌,畢竟噓聲在國際禮儀所代表的含意實在不佳,所以那些想警惕討論功課的人是否有更好的辦法?我個人淺見是,老師上課要是被吵雜聲吵到不能上課,便會安靜,這時班上的聲音頓時少了麥克風的音量,我想同學們應會有自知之明察覺要安靜,以回復正常上課秩序!

jsw: Mr. P, When did you begin to observe class activities? haha I am impressed although I still have reasonable doubt. 這幾年我一直有奇想 -- 讓椅子可通輕微的電力。別笑 也許有一天會實現。不過,聰明的美少女如 Miss T (see comment left above) 會備妥絕緣衣物。緣此,還是橡皮筋最合成本效益原則。

Mr. P: 好方法,太棒了,我愛你!!

jsw: Dear Mr. P, With all due respect, how many times do I have to tell you... do not say that you love me since I do not love you. Do you know that LOVE is an expensive good? After all, you do not love me, you just love to claim that you love me. So, stop making such a false claim.

Mr. P sent a hyperlink 劉若英的歌『我等你』 (Youtube)

jsw: Dearest Mr. P, 我當然知道劉若英,一點點喜歡她、不至於愛她。 你還是別煩我吧。不然 我請 Richard 在導生晤談簿誠實記載: 『P同學愛上男老師』 保證你以後要勤跑輔導中心 -- trust me! You won't like that. 陳副座要你們勤跑外語診斷中心,不是輔導中心!

Mr. P: 好吧 cry cry

落幕 Happy ending.

Thursday, March 11, 2010

天兵也會貢獻靈感

天兵秦同學 (I truly do not want to reveal his identity) 在FB留了些蠻白目的話,我用暗喻提醒他,此類留言,應該匿名行之。沒想到,天兵竟追問:要如何匿名留言啊?
認真想想,真是好問題耶。
Here are my suggestions.

(1). Put all those trash/garbage talk on Word document and submit it electronically to the newspaper with a pen name that can strongly convince the editor that the author is some idiot. Since most people will never admit that they are idiots, the editor might take special interest in checking it out immediately. Pen name must be used since you have no right to ruin the reputation of your school or work place.

If (1) does not work (and I bet in any amount of money that it won't), try (2).

(2). Write all those trash/garbage talk on toilet papers. Use them to wipe your butt and flush them to the toilet. It is nice because you can do it daily. By doing so, you will accomplish the task of bringing 'talking shits' and 'real shits' together. It also leaves no evidence and comply with the recycling policy. In addition, if you use heavy ink while writing and wipe hard on your butt, names of those in the context might be accidentally printed on your butt. In a way, one could say that someone is kissing your ass. Is that amazing or what?

Wednesday, March 03, 2010

Real GPA vs. Nominal GPA -- who is going to buy them?

Accidentally I found the following (not-so-new) quote from internet.

‘Less than 2 percent of grades given at elite institutions are D's or F's, and that at schools such as Pomona, Duke, Harvard and Columbia, about half of all grades are A's. … Harvey Mansfield Jr., a Harvard government professor, has tried on his own to draw attention to the problem by giving his students two grades — one that's officially reported for transcripts and another, lower, that reflects what he feels they truly earned. "I remember when a B was an honors grade — today a B-minus is a slap in the face," Mansfield says. "I still give two grades. When I stop, that's when you'll know we've started to make progress."’

Let’s face it. Who on earth (or on campus?) will care if I assign two grades – one nominal and another real?

The website created by Stuart Rojstaczer, a professor of environmental science at Duke, www.GradeInflation.com, contains very interesting data of many universities in USA. [For instance, at Purdue, GPA ave is 2.71 in 1980 and 1990; 2.81 in 2006. At Princeton, ave is 3.13 in 1980; 3.22 in 1990; 3.27 in 2006. At FIU, ave is 2.72 in 2006. At Cornell, ave is 3.13 in 1990; 3.36 in 2006. At Harvard, ave is 3.05 in 1975; 3.30 in 1990; 3.45 in 2005. At Vanderbilt, ave is 3.28 in 2006. At Nebraska-Lincoln, ave is 3.07 in 2006. At Duke, ave is 3.02 in 1980; 3.21 in 1990; 3.42 in 2006. At U. of Oregon, ave is 2.95 in 1992; 3.10 in 2004. At U. of Minnesota, ave is 2.77 in 1970; 2.88 in 1980; 2.83 in 1990; 2.95 in 1997. At Middlebury, ave is 3.10 in 1990; 2.29 in 2000; 3.34 in 2004. At Lehigh, ave is 2.6 in 1972; 2.97 in 2000; 3.15 in 2007. At Ohio University, ave is 2.66 in 1986; 2.82 in 1990; 3.01 in 2004.] Now I remember why, as a graduate student in the 80s, I was so eager to study at places such as Purdue and Minnesota. Professor M. Watts, who was the course coordinator while I served as a graduate instructor, did a good job then (and afterwards).

The following links might be of some interest.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-03-27-princeton-grades_N.htm

http://www.erinoconnor.org/archives/2003/03/blowing_up_grad.html

Another research topic is the teaching evaluation inflation.

Monday, March 01, 2010