By 'level of understanding the student has' he seemed to me to mean 'the level of intelligence' the student has. What else do you think he had in mind ?
I have previously asked him to do that. Obviously this medium isn't working too well for teaching that point.Added: T.M. Please include one space after each punctuation mark, just like you would after the end of each word. It would make the reading of your posts much easier.
There it is Bes. I approach learning the same way you approach teaching.I don't think there is a one size fits all approach to teaching.
I've run a number of training courses, usually, over one or two days. Knowing what level to pitch it at was always difficult. I can't reasonably expect to impart everything I've learned over the course of decades in two days. Nor is there any need to. Picking out the bits that need to be covered and in what depth needs quite a lot of preparation in my experience.
The basic approach : Presenting a summary of subject followed by at least minimum number of questions about the subject applies irrespective of any sensory preference for learning. Isn't ?There are three methods of learning. Sensory, audible and tactile. Each of us respond differently to each method. If you covered all three in two weeks, Good Job!
"what level of understanding do you want the student to have" is what Woodturner put.By 'level of understanding the student has' he seemed to me to mean 'the level of intelligence' the student has. What else do you think he had in mind ?
I agree. It is only through "testing" that the instructor can confirm the students understood the material and that the students can determine where they need more help.If one teaching period is,say,one hour,teaching the subject may be only 40 minutes and remaining period should be devoted to asking each student the essential minimum number of questions about the subject being taught.
There always has been and always will be pressure to achieve the course objectives - both from the school and from accreditors such as ABET. However, in my opinion, it's better to teach them a little less in the course of a semester and have them understand it than to cover the syllabus and not have them really understand any of it.I do not believe this is followed by any instructor,because the instructor is usually in a hurry to finish the course syllabus.
Yes, that is the point I was trying to make - and "attain" better describes what I meant than "to have". Different groups of students in different programs of study have different needs and may not need the same depth of knowledge as another group."what level of understanding do you want the student to have" is what Woodturner put.
To have. Not has.
I would take the intent of his statement to mean "what level of understanding do you want the student to attain?".
That, of course, would determine the content of what you taught the student.
Perhaps it does but how you put it seemed quite clear to me. I was just trying to help TM's understanding of the point.Yes, that is the point I was trying to make - and "attain" better describes what I meant than "to have".
I quite agree with that.Different groups of students in different programs of study have different needs and may not need the same depth of knowledge as another group.
For example, we teach a course we "affectionately" :lol: refer to as "EE for non-EEs". It's a basic circuits and passive filters course taught primarily to industrial engineering students. These students need to learn enough about circuits to be able to read a schematic, identify common types of filters, etc. They won't be designing circuits and don't need to know how to calculate the Q of a filter, for example.
In the EE program, we teach the circuits course over two semesters, and in much greater depth. An EE needs to know how to design a filter, for example, and needs to know the significance of and how to calculate Q.