13 May, 2007

Not the cleverest argument I've ever made

I've been dealing with end of semester issues the last week or so, as well as a paper that I need to finish, as well as painting the house, as well as illnesses in the immediate family. Hence the silence; my apologies.

I've also engaged in a few discussions in Bede's group on religion and science. I'm happy with most of what I wrote, but I probably should have phrased one better. While trying to explain to a fellow why Christianity does not eschew the use of reason in understanding and explaining morality, I wrote,

I certainly won't trust my own reason too much.
Sigh.

It's what I meant to say. It explains exactly what I meant it to say. It's a perfect explanation, given what I think of myself and my tendency to make mistakes. It's also an idiotic thing to say when you're trying to convince someone that Christians don't eschew reason. Just go ahead & place that L on my forehead...

In a different context, I've been teaching a senior-level course in Modern Algebra. I taught it at a pretty high, theoretical level. It's the first time I taught algebra, and honestly I think I did a smack-down good job of it. I also think that they did a much better job of it than they think they did, but I graded them very severly and exactingly, so their averages aren't as high as they're used to. I also know that, in spite of doing a "smack-down good job of it," I will do some big things quite differently next time.

Anyway, a student told me after she turned in her exam that my class "scared" her. Good! I exclaimed.

Good? she asked, her eyes widening with shock.

Well, yes, I persisted. If you go through your university studies without ever being scared, then you haven't been challenged.

I don't think I convinced her. (Incidentally, this is a student of whom I initially had a poor impression, because of spotty attendance and things like that. However, she turned around and did quite well, even excelling sometimes, which gave me a very good impression of her. So we're not talking about some witless wonder here. Indeed, this class was full of surprises.)

On another occasion, a different student in the same class confided in me that some of the other students were didn't like me much. Fine, I answered. I'm not paid to be liked.

You just know that this is going to come back and bite me in the rear when it's time to receive student evaluations. To wit, I received an email this morning:
Be honest, I think your teaching is really bad. Perhaps, it is because you are new here. Anyway, I
hope you will do it better and better in the coming semester.
Now, this doesn't perturb me much; he did respectably well on the exam, so he learned quite a bit in spite of my really bad teaching. Rather, I am mystified by the choice of words, "new here," as if teaching for ten out of the past fourteen years at other universities explains succinctly why my teaching is really bad.

That said, I think I wrote rather anxiously about the quality of my teaching over a year ago. (I can't find the precise entry, but I'm sure I did.) The student may have a point, but since he didn't elaborate on the reasons I am "really bad," I can't evaluate what prompted his judgment. Is it because I was reluctant to give high grades unless someone really merited them? Is it because I assigned too many difficult, theoretical problems where the students needed to spend a lot of time studying just to understand what it asked? Is it because I spent lecture time peppering the students with questions instead of writing notes on the chalkboard? I dunno.

As I said, the email mystifies me. I decided the wisest course of action was not to reply. As you can see from what I wrote above, I'm not often the cleverest person, and I don't want to write something that will contribute to my awful foot-in-mouth disease.

One soldiers on.

3 comments:

Alessandra said...

Something doesn't sound right when you mention all these students voicing negative remarks about their experience in your class. It's hard to sense if you care about how you teach, specially if students end up giving the result you expect they produce. If you do care, I think the best thing you could do is get written feedback (specially anonymous) about how your students felt regarding your class.

Alessandra said...

It's what I meant to say. It explains exactly what I meant it to say. It's a perfect explanation, given what I think of myself and my tendency to make mistakes. It's also an idiotic thing to say when you're trying to convince someone that Christians don't eschew reason. Just go ahead & place that L on my forehead...
=============
What L? L for Loony? :-) Seriously, I had no clue which word you were referring to.

You know what I hate, it is exactly talking to someone who thinks they could never be wrong and who has this know-it-all attitude. All Christians I know of eschew some reason, but then again, who doesn't? And denial? Who does not have issues they are not in denial about? Or are misinformed about? People who think they are not misinformed about anything show just how stupid they are.

I hate that, when you start arguing with someone and you never lose awareness that you are human and you could make mistakes, even though that does not mean whatever point you are making is wrong, but then you get this stuck-up opponent who never considers for the life of him that he could ever be wrong and they always position themselves this way in how they talk to you. It's so annoying.

A person who is ignorant but is conscious that they don't know some things is a much better human being than someone who thinks they are right about everything.

jack perry said...

L is for Loser. :-)

I do get some positive comments from students. Let's say that my personality is such that the negative ones stick out more in my mind. I want to ask, How can I fix it? How can I do better?

If a student says, "Dr. Perry made facaes every time I asked a question," or "Dr. Perry wasted a lot of class time by going off on tangents," or "Dr. Perry doesn't teach at my level," that's a criticism that can be understood, its merit can be judged, and if valid, it can usually be addressed. Simply to say, "Dr. Perry's teaching is really bad," is not helpful.

I'll get written feedback in a few days, once evaluations are avilable online.

All Christians I know of eschew some reason, but then again, who doesn't?

I think you and I must mean different things by "eschewing reason". I don't think I eschew any reason, although I eschew a lot of faith that masquerades as both reason and anti-religion.

...you get this stuck-up opponent who never considers for the life of him that he could ever be wrong and they always position themselves this way in how they talk to you.

I hate that, too, and usually when I argue with people I arrive at a point when I worry that maybe I was wrong after all. It doesn't matter what I'm arguing about, and it's the most annoying thing, and very, very few people seem to share this.