From Learning To Teaching

How to Cultivate Good Relationship with Principal

2011-11-22T04:30:00.001-08:00

How to Cultivate Good Relationship with Principal

Here are some tips for a teacher to be able to cultivate good relationship with the principal:

You should always try to see things rom the perspective of a principal. Principal task is not an easy task. There are so many needs and problems that must be accommodated by a school principal. If you see a problem from the viewpoint of the principal, it will help you to better understand the policy taken.

If you encounter a problem or complaint, tell the school principal in a clear and courteous, accompanied by a logical explanation. You should show the facts to support your intent, not by shouting or sarcasm words.

Do not get to see the principal if only you’re having problems. There are many things that can be discussed with the principal issues related to education at your institution, or even just talk only mild. In addition to professional relationships, create also your interpersonal relationships with the principal.

If the principal has done something that helpful for you, express your gratitude by promptly and earnestly. This is a proof that you appreciate the efforts made to your principal.

Possibly related:

Educational And Psychological Applications Related to Child_Teacher Relationships

Involvement of Parents and Children's Achievement

2011-11-22T02:54:00.001-08:00

Involvement of Parents and Children's Achievement

Do you as parents are always actively involved in your child's education? Many research results indicate that the active involvement of parents, for example, the father of the child's school activities will increase their achievement in school.

Students have a greater chance to get good grades when their father often involve themselves in school. Moreover, when students come from the complete family (father-mother, or stepfather-mother), even in families with single fathers. The involvement of the mother also has the same connection. Students tend to have a greater chance to obtain good grades. In the schools that their parents active in school activities, school dropout, suspension, or expelled from school is low.

Parental involvement is high activeness of people categorized by three or four parents in school activities, such as attending school committee meetings, attended the event organized by the class or school, and became a volunteer at the school. So, if you want your kids to be students who have a greater chance to succeed and get good grades in school, then you should be more actively involved in school activities.

Bullying and Status: How to get it and how to keep it.

Observed Interactions Between Teachers and Children

CTL (Contextual Teaching and Learning) Approach to Empower Students

2011-06-14T22:06:00.000-07:00

Until recently, education in Indonesia is still dominated by a class that focuses on teachers as the main source of knowledge, so that the lecture will be the first choice in the determination of learning strategies. Learning design, often ignore prior knowledge of students. In connection with this case, it would require an approach that can empower students' learning. One approach to empower students is contextual approach (CTL: Contextual Teaching and Learning).

CTL (Contextual Teaching and Learning) initially developed by the Washington State Concortium for Contextual Teaching and Learning, involving 11 universities, 20 schools and institutions engaged in education in the United States. One of the activities is to have trained and provide an opportunity for teachers from six provinces in Indonesia to study the contextual approach in the United States, through the Directorate of Junior High Ministry.

Contextual Teaching and Learning (CTL) is the concept of learning that help teachers to link between the materials taught with real-world situations students and encourage students to make connections between the knowledge possessed by its application in their lives as family members and society (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). In this context students need to understand what the meaning of learning, its benefits, is in what status they are, and how to achieve it. Through this approach students will realize that what they learn can be useful as stock of his life later. This will make them feel the need for provision of knowledge and skills useful for later life, and students will try to respond.

The task of teachers in contextual learning is to assist students in achieving its goals. That is, teachers deal more with strategy than giving information. Teachers just manage class as a team that works together to find something new to students. Teaching and learning process is more marked than teacher centered student centered.

According to the Ministry of Education teachers have to implement some of the following: 1) Review the concept or theory that will be studied by students. 2) Understand the background and life experience of students through the review process carefully. 3) Learning environment and residential school students who subsequently choose and associate with the concept or theory that will be discussed in contextual learning. 4) Designing teaching by linking the concept or theory studied by considering the experience of its students and their environment. 5) Carry out an assessment of student understanding, the results of which will be used as material in lesson reflection against the plan and its implementation.

Contextual Teaching and Learning (CTL) is influenced by the views of constructivism which holds that the nature of knowledge about the concept will affect the learning process. Learning is not just memorizing but constructs knowledge through experience. Knowledge is not the result of ''gift'' from others such as teachers, but the result of a process that is conducted every individual construct.

CTL as an approach to learning has 7 (seven) principles. These principles underlying the implementation of the learning process by using CTL. Components include constructivism, inquiry, asking (questioning), community learning (learning community), modeling (modeling), reflection (Reflection), a real assessment (authentic assessment)

Constructivism is the process of build or develop new knowledge in students' cognitive structure based on experience. According to constructivism, knowledge is indeed coming from the outside but is constructed by and from within oneself. Therefore, knowledge is formed by two important factors, namely the object becomes the subject of observation and ability to interpret the object. Those two factors are equally important. Thus knowledge is not static but is dynamic, depending on the individuals who see and constructing.

Interactive Learning

2011-06-14T21:24:00.000-07:00

Interactive learning has two characteristics of the learning process first involves the mental processes students the maximum, not only requires students merely hear, noted, however requires the activity of students in the process of thinking. Second, the learning process to build the atmosphere of dialogue and the process of continuous questioning that is directed to improve and enhance students' thinking abilities, which in turn is the ability to think it can help students to acquire knowledge that their own construction.

Interactive learning (Dimyati and Mudjiono, 1999:297) is a teacher in a programmed activity in instructional design, to make students learn actively, which emphasizes the provision of learning resources. Undang-Undang Sistem Pendidikan Nasional No. 20 tahun 2003 states the learning is a process of interaction of educators and learners with learning resources in a learning environment. Learning as a learning process that was built by the teachers to develop creative thinking that can enhance students' thinking abilities, and can increase the ability to construct new knowledge as a good effort to increase mastery of subject matter.

Learning activities involve several components or elements, namely the learner, educator or teacher, learning objectives, lesson content, teaching methods used, the appropriate learning media for use and evaluation of students' progress using a standard test. All these components interact with each other in the learning process ended on learning objectives. Because of that learning activity is an integral system, within a system of learning or instructional system at the school.

Viewed from an institutional point of the school, in terms of supporting the smooth running of learning activities, school principals play a significant role, because it contributes significantly to the acquisition of a learning system. While each teacher has a high professional competence in carrying out his professional duties, but not supported by adequate institutional services, of course, the learning activities would not be maximal.

The role of school principals to provide learning facilities, will guide the growth of the professorship, and other professional support to a separate force for teachers perform their professional duties. After the teachers to get institutional support, the next thing that needs to be prepared by teachers is associated with autonomous learning approach that became the teaching professional.

Expert has delivered a number of theories and concepts of learning approaches. This approach generally refers to the psychological approach related to the ability of learners to capture or receive a lesson in learning activities. Learning approach to something very important, as seen from psychological angle every child has different capabilities in a lesson, for it required an appropriate approach to potential students.

The troubleshooting in implementing interactive learning approach including factors such determines the level of student success. Approach the starting point on the psychological aspects of distinction seen from the growth of child development, intellectual ability, and other capabilities that support the ability to learn. This approach is performed as deemed appropriate strategies to facilitate students understand lessons and also learn the fun.
Learning approach would not rigid should use a particular approach, but its straightforward and well-planned, it means choosing the approach tailored to the needs of teaching materials as outlined in the learning plan. The interactive learning approach that is commonly used by teachers according to Sagala (2003:71), among others, the concept and process approaches, deductive-inductive, expository and heuristic, and the approach to intelligence.

In interactive learning, teachers must realize that learning has a very complex nature because it involves aspects of pedagogical, psychological and didactic at the same time. The way teachers using the approach of giving an understanding to students, providing information and solving approach to the problems faced by students.

Contextual Teaching and Learning (CTL): The 7 Principles

2011-06-12T07:43:00.000-07:00

CTL (contextual teaching and learning) as an approach to learning has 7 principles. These principles underlying the implementation of the learning process by using CTL (contextual teaching and learning). The seven principles include:

1. Constructivism
Constructivism is the process of build or develop new knowledge in students' cognitive structure based on experience. According to constructivism, the experience is met by the outside, but constructed by and from within oneself. Therefore, the experience is formed by two important factors i.e. the object becomes the subject of observation and ability to interpret the object.

2. Inquiry
The second principle is the inquiry in contextual learning. That is, the learning process is based on a search and discovery through a process of thinking systematically. Knowledge is not the result of considering a number of facts, but the outcome of the process of finding itself. Thus in the planning process, teachers are not preparing a number of materials to be memorized, but stimulate learning that allows students to find their own materials to be understood.

3. Questioning
Learning is basically asking and answering questions. Questioning can be regarded as a reflection of the curiosity of every individual, while answering the questions reflects a person's ability in thinking. In the learning process, teacher does not submit the information for granted, but the lure for students to find themselves. Since questioning has very important role, because through the questions teachers can guide and lead students to find any material that is learned.

4. Learning Community
In the contextual teaching and learning CTL) implementation of learning communities can be done by applying learning through study groups. Students are divided into groups whose members are heterogeneous good views of learning ability and speed of learning. Let each other learn in their group, who quickly pushed to help the slow learners.

5. Modeling
Modeling is a learning process as an example to demonstrate something that can be emulated by every student. For example, the teacher gives examples of how to pronounce a foreign phrase. Gym teacher gave examples on how to throw a ball and so forth.

6. Reflection
Reflection is the process of settling the experience has been learned that is done by re-sorting events or events that have gone through the learning. Through reflection on learning experiences that will be included in students' cognitive structure that will eventually become part of the knowledge that has been formed.

7. Authentic Assessment
Authentic assessment is the process by the teacher to gather information about the students learning progress. This assessment is needed to determine whether students are actually learning or not. Does knowledge of student learning has a positive influence on both the intellectual and mental development of students.

Questions Box in Cooperative learning

2011-06-11T06:55:00.000-07:00

The media holds a very vital role in the failure or success of the learning process in class. Learning will be more meaningful if the child has his own what he had learned, not just knew it from the teacher's information. Therefore we need a media that is able to bridge the students to experience the natural process of learning and fun. Excellent learning will enhance the creativity of students and teachers in a balanced manner. Questions Box is an alternative medium for teachers to stimulate students' intellectual and emotional involvement in proportion.

Involving students in higher level thinking and enhance cooperation are two behaviors that would be found in 21st-century classroom, where learning is always centered on students. Therefore, the process of learning in the classroom should really involve all the potential and ability of students optimally. Teachers experienced a shift of roles, from a learning resource that tends to be dominant and monopolize the flow of information in class, a motivator and facilitator of learning for students of their students. With the advancement and development of technology, the teacher's role is actually more effective in improving the success of learning in the classroom through the use of varied media and communicative.

It seems that questions the media box, to be one alternative in developing students' skills and facilitate cooperation in the learning process at school. The characters stand out in the application of instructional media questions box, namely a simple, competitive and creative.

Simple, because the questions the media box can be made by all teachers in a way that is easy, equipment consists of a box, questions (a list of questions / problems in accordance with the theme or topic). Materials that can be used as media box can use objects that are not used, or it could be through the recycling of objects around the school is wasted. Teachers can move students in making the media box, either individually or in groups

Competitive, this medium requires that all students in each group vying to earn points in the form of "star". Groups that are less creative, it will automatically lose a lot of star group with another group, fair competition among groups to be a prominent characteristic of the learning.

Creative, teachers can conduct competitions among groups to create a design box (box) which will serve as a medium of learning in the classroom. Usually students will compete to show their creativity to be the best model in the making of the media box in accordance with the tasks assigned by the teacher.

In the question box approach, the teacher has many option, models applied learning in the classroom is highly dependent on the ability of teachers. But one thing is very vital in modern learning that is centered on student activities. Therefore, the learning process that questions the media box to apply, at least in the learning cycle applications, covering three phases of the deal, questions game box, and collective evaluation.

Phase agreement
At this stage the teacher with students prepare an initial agreement in the classroom learning process. Its activities include the formation of groups, socialization rules discussion, sweepstakes decision about the box, the old rules and the activities planned.

Phase gaming questions Box
Students in the group each took a raffle for decision about the box. Any questions that have been taken by one group answered directly, and can be addressed by other groups. Discussion about the material not only coming on the textbook, but is free. Each group is given the freedom to convey the response from various sources, such as the Internet, newspapers, magazines, journals or other relevant sources. The group that is able to respond to questions correctly and logically entitled to a star. Groups that have collect a lot of stars so automatically obtaining better value. Instead the group who get a little star, then the group's value is relatively small. A cooperation and competition in the learning process of a healthy and enjoyable for all students. To be more passionate and competitive higher, preferably topic or material in the box questions submitted a week earlier, but that does not mean leak point. So that each group has the opportunity to seek information from various sources related, for example books, internet, or other sources.

Collective evaluation phase
Collective evaluation phase is a phase that teachers do with students. Teachers can convey the value of the group based on the number of stars, to evaluate the process of discussion, and giving awards to the winning group. One thing must be embedded in learning with media questions Box is sportsmanship, compete in a healthy, happy, and always looking for the latest information.

Application of questions the media box in the classroom learning will reduce student dependence on teachers, because students should be encouraged to seek the latest information related to the topic that will be discussed in class. It is time for student-centered learning process, not the teacher. In the context of student-centered learning, it appears that questions the media box, become an alternative for teachers in this country.

Quantum Learning Characteristics

2011-06-11T06:37:00.000-07:00

Common characteristics that make up the figure of quantum learning as follows:
• Quantum learning originate in cognitive psychology, quantum physics, although not all the terms and concepts of quantum bit worn. Therefore, the views about teaching, learning, and learners derived, transformed, and developed from the various theories of cognitive psychology; not a theory of quantum physics.
• Quantum Learning is more humanistic, not a positivistic-empirical, "animalistic", and or nativistic. Human as the learner becomes the center of attention. Self-potential, the ability of the mind, power motivation, and so forth of the learners are believed to develop optimally, or optimal. Reward and punishment is deemed not exist because all human efforts are commendable.
• Quantum Learning is more constructivistic, rather than positivistic-empirical, behavioristic, and or maturasionistic. Therefore, according to the opinion of the writer, shade of constructivism in learning quantum is relatively strong. In fact it can be said here that the quantum of learning is one reflection of the philosophy of cognitive constructivism, social constructivism is not.
• Quantum of effort combines Learning [integrate], synergizing, and elaborate factors as potential human self-learner with the environment [physical and mental health] as a learning context. Or more correct to say here that the quantum of learning are not separate and do not distinguish between res and res cogitans extenza, between what is inside and what outside. In the view of quantum learning, mental-physical environment and the ability of the human mind or self are equally important and mutually supportive.
• Quantum Learning focuses on quality and meaningful interaction, not just a transaction of meaning. It could be argued that the interaction has become the key words and central concepts in quantum learning. Therefore, learning quantum emphasis on the importance of interaction, frequency and accumulation of quality and meaningful interaction. Here the learning process is seen as the creation of quality interactions and meaningful that can change the energy of mind and a natural talent ability learners into the lights that are beneficial to the success of learners.
• Quantum learning accelerate great emphasis on learning with a high degree of success. Here pemercepatan learning assumed as a quantum leap. In short, according to quantum learning, the learning process must take place quickly with high success. For that, all the barriers and obstacles that can slow down the learning process should be removed, eliminated, or eliminated. Here the various tips, how, and techniques can be used, for example lighting, musical accompaniment, a refreshing atmosphere, comfortable environment, a relaxed seating arrangement, and so forth.
• Learning is emphasized nature quantum and reasonableness learning process, not keartifisialan or circumstances which made up. Kealamiahan and fairness cause cozy atmosphere, fresh, healthy, relaxed, relaxing, and enjoyable, moderate pretensions keartifisialan and generate an atmosphere tense, stiff, and boring. Therefore, learning must be designed, presented, managed, and facilitated in such a way that can be created or manifested a natural learning process and fair.
• Quantum learning quality emphasized the significance and the learning process. The learning process is not significant and not quality produce failure, in terms of learning goals are not achieved. Therefore, all efforts that enable the realization of the significance and kebermutuan learning must be done by the teacher or facilitator. In this context need to be presented by the experience that is understandable and meaningful to learners, especially the experience of learners need to be accommodated adequately.
• Quantum Learning has a model that combines the context and content of learning. Context includes the atmosphere empowers learning, a strong foundation, an exciting environment or support, and design a dynamic learning. Contents include the presentation of excellent learning, facilitated a flexible, learning skills-to-learn, and life skills. Context and content are inseparable, mutually supportive, that plays like a symphony orchestra. Separation of the two only will bring about the failure of learning. Cohesiveness and conformity both functionally would lead to high learning success; proverbial perfect symphony game played in an orchestra.
• Lessons focus on the formation of quantum academic skills, skills [in] life, and physical or material achievements. All three must be considered, treated, and managed in a balanced and relatively similar in the learning process, not only one of them. It is said that because of successful learning is not only the formation of academic skills and physical achievements of learners, but more important is the formation of life skills learning. To that end, the curriculum should be structured in such a way that can be realized harmonious combination of academic skills, life skills, and physical achievement.
• Quantum learning assign values and beliefs as an important part of the learning process. Without certain values and beliefs, the learning process less meaningful. Therefore, learners must have certain values and beliefs are positive in the learning process. In addition, the learning process should inculcate values and positive belief in self-learners. Value and negative beliefs will bring about the failure of the learning process. For example, learners need to have confidence that the error or failure is a sign of learning; error or failure is not a sign of stupid or end of everything. In the learning process developed values and beliefs that punishment and reward (punishment and reward) are not needed because every effort must be recognized and appreciated. Positive values and beliefs need to be constantly developed and strengthened. The more powerful and stable positive values and beliefs held by learners will likely succeed in higher learning. It was said, because "these values into glasses through which we view the world.
• Quantum learning prioritizes diversity and freedom, rather than uniformity and order. The diversity and freedom can be said as a keyword in addition to interaction. Therefore, in developing quantum learning greeting: Welcome to the diversity and freedom, goodbye uniformity and order! This is where the needs is recognized diversity of learning styles of students or learners, the development activities of diverse learners, and use a variety of tips and methods of learning. On the other hand need to be removed uniformity learning styles of learners, learning activities in class, and usage tips and teaching methods.
• Quantum learning integrating the totality of body and mind in the learning process. Total activity between body and mind to make the learning can take place more comfortable and more optimal results.

How to Teach 1st Grader Elementary School Students?

2011-06-10T07:07:00.000-07:00

For fellow teachers who teach in the class of elementary school, whether the illustration below also occur in your class:

The teacher is explaining a lesson to the class. There are children who cry because it disturbed their neighbor. The teacher approached the boy who cried asking for silence, as well as reminding children who disrupt order not to repeat his actions.

Other children (who are not considered teachers) started to walk left his seat, there is also a disturbing his friends. The teacher asks the children to walk to re-sit in place originally.

However, the atmosphere becomes increasingly noisy classroom because children are more precisely began fighting with other children. If the situation in your class as described above, what do you do?
High Level Need Patience

For most primary school teachers, teaching 1st grader was a very heavy task, because it requires a high level of patience in its implementation to be successful.

If teaching in a high class teacher to concentrate towards the achievement of learning objectives in a rapid, in class I the teacher must be patient. Quality learning is important, but education for the class of elementary school students is much more important.

Yes, class of elementary school students are still strongly influenced by the home situation, with great indulgence, and very risky if the teacher made a mistake (either words or actions). Not the fault of the teachers will get a protest from students. But this error will be taken and the effect on student life to adulthood.

For example, in the learning process first grade students are on average still plain will have difficulty following the learning process when teachers apply the learning model that requires seriousness. On the other hand, teachers also will have difficulty achieving the purpose of learning if students are only following the will of the postscript still like to play and could not sit still in his seat. As a result, the learning process tends to fail in the sense that teachers can not meet the needs of students to achieve learning objectives.

How do I fix this? Efforts should be done is to package the seriousness of teacher learning in the game so seriously not impressed by the students. Yes, teachers need to be creative in manipulating the activity of learning to be invisible to students as a "big game" is interesting to follow.

This is not an easy issue. Teachers need to learn a lot from students. What makes students happy, they learn how dominance sense, the theme of what is suitable for presenting a particular subject matter, who could become the leader of the group, who had dared to express themselves and who are still too timid?

All answers to the questions above inventoried, analyzed, and then used as reference in preparing lesson plans.
Students Disciplined Investment Class I SD

Relation to investment discipline, teachers should also ensure that discipline is not something boring or scary. Discipline is a necessity. Therefore planting should be in strict accordance with the child.

Penalties provided for a violation, but the sanctions should make students realize that what is done must be useful for their self and for other friends.

For example, students can not sit still when the lesson in class (this is common), in this case teachers need to stop for a moment, waiting for students to sit back. Tell the children that teacher happy if the kids sit neatly when the learning process takes place.

Or change the learning strategy that enables the children could stand or walk when the learning process.

Teaching With Love love

2011-06-10T06:52:00.001-07:00

Have you ever as a teacher when not in class or on the streets for a private event and then all of a sudden longing to the students? If so, then the seed of love to his pupils had penetrated into the path of your blood. Many teachers teach only to the degree necessary, without love, without heart, and without care. Most importantly enter the classroom, hours completed, out of the classroom, and spend a semester always value because of the demands of school.

Try to teach with love though hard to give it a try, surely we will be calm, peaceful, and enjoyable. Here are tips on teaching with love.

1. Prepare menu
Like a mother who prepares dinner for family outings, meal menus must be prepared well in order to give satisfaction to the audience of these dishes. Similarly, teachers who will bring the seeds of love, prepare a menu with a good lesson for students can be enjoyed well too.

2. Appreciate Students
Children are children rather than adults in a small form. Respect the child as they are a figure of the child. Bring your world into their world. Each utterance is a golden child so need to be responded with gold as well.

3. Smile
When you smile with a student, she'll give love 100 times in retaliation for that smile. Then, the smile of a teacher will be stored in the memory of children who most deeply. Memories that can ultimately unleash the potential of the child's own self. A smile is a multivitamin that is able to stimulate the child psychologically.

4. Become Actor
When in class, become an actor capable of captivating the students. Use hands, stamping feet, glances, expression, and tone of voice in an integrated manner. A good actor will be able to immerse the audience to continue caring unnerved while understanding its meaning.

5. Be Friend with Them
She was born of a feeling, its presence was not invited, no departure of the volunteer. Friendship often ends with a romance but the romance never ends with friendship. Be a friend for a sincere student. Throughout their life, students will always be sincere to their teacher.

That is, the five basic tips for teachers who teach with love. Love is not weak but will arouse our teaching force. Love is not self-taught but humiliating blow valor. Love is not debilitating but uplifting spirit. Sometimes we realize how deeply we love someone, when we're lost, and sometimes we also realize how the need for someone to love us, when we most need it. Following poem also need to be an inspiration to teach with love.

Measurable Outcomes in Other Sectors

2011-03-31T01:34:00.001-07:00

Measurable Outcomes in Other Sectors

It is hard to imagine a successful politician, coach, or business leader acting without quantifiable definitions of success, be those votes, wins, or dollars. Many great accomplishments in any sector of society began with an articulation of measurable outcomes.

Consider the Montgomery bus boycott, which started in 1955. When Rosa Parks was arrested, community leaders did not simply call for a boycott of the bus system. They called for a boycott of the bus system until three objective conditions were met: African American riders would not have to give up their seats to white riders, they would not have to pay their money at the front of the bus and then get off to enter the back door of the bus, and buses would stop as frequently in African American neighborhoods as they did in white ones. The specificity of that goal sustained the community’s sacrifices and determination for 381 days, when all of those goals were finally met.

The world of business provides many examples of the power of clear measures of success. Jim Collins and Jerry Porras offer Boeing’s work on the 727 as one example. When Boeing sought to become the dominant player in the commercial aircraft industry, the company did not say to its engineers, “Let’s become the best.” Instead it set out to “build a jet that can land on runway 4–22 at La Guardia Airport (only 4,860 feet long—much too short for any existing passenger jet) and be able to fly nonstop from New York to Miami and be wide enough for six-abreast seating and have a capacity of 131 passengers, and meet Boeing’s high standards of indestructibility.”3 While many observers thought that goal was impossible, Boeing’s engineers were motivated and pushed by the goal’s boldness, and they were also united and informed by its precision and clarity. They rallied for one of the greatest feats of engineering in history, creating the plane that became the standard for the airline industry.

As one more example, when Steven Case’s little-known company, AOL, became the standard bearer of the fledgling Internet industry, he explained that the key was setting the audacious goal of signing up 1 million subscribers. Case remembers that with this objective, measurable goal in mind, people began to work differently, with more focus and urgency, making innovative choices with the big goal in mind, and the numbers of subscribers began to climb at record rates. Case recalls, “It wasn’t exactly the equivalent of ‘Let’s put a man on the moon,’ but for us this march to a million was a big deal. . . . If we got to a million, we felt that kind of put us in the big leagues, so we were on this march to a million, and we got there.

examples of measurable academic goals
•“ All students will demonstrate at least 85 percent proficiency of the state’s fourth-grade math standards as measured by the state’s end-of year assessment."

•“ My students will each write a five paragraph persuasive essay that scores a 4 or 5 on the state’s sixth grade writing rubric.”

•“ My students are all going to score a 3 or higher on the Advanced Placement exam.”

examples of not measurable academic goals
•“ All students will improve their math skills.”

•“ My students are going to write great persuasive essays by the end of the year.”

•“ Every student is going to do his or her best on the Advanced Placement exam.”

Source: TEACHING AS LEADERSHIP-The Highly Effective Teacher’s—Guide to Closing the Achievement, by STEVEN FARR, 2010.

Lesson Plans

2011-03-31T01:33:00.001-07:00

Lesson Plans

A lesson plan is a map of instructional strategies and student learning experiences that leads students to master particular objectives that connect to long-term instructional goals. Just as unit plans make up a long-term plan, lesson plans are the building blocks of a unit plan.

Highly effective teachers use many different forms and templates for lesson planning. Given the impracticality of an exhaustive tour of the many forms of lesson plans, here we will introduce the fundamental elements of lesson plans by exploring one of the most basic types of lesson plans: the five-step, direct, instruction plan. Think of this five-step lesson plan as a simplified starting point on which a teacher can elaborate and improve to ensure student learning.

The five-step lesson encapsulates a basic “I do, we do, you do” approach, involving a gradual transfer of responsibility for knowledge and skills from the teacher to the students. In terms of the students’ experience, the teacher first shows or models for students what they need to know or be able to do (“I do”). Then students are given adequate time to practice together with assistance from the teacher and peers (“We do”), followed by a period in which they attempt to demonstrate mastery of the knowledge and skills on their own (“You do”). This generic model suggests that with the lesson opening, the teacher ensures students know what they are about to learn and how that relates to what they know already and where they are headed.

As a teacher coaches students through the material by drawing on students’ preexisting knowledge, the teacher presents key ideas and engages students in multiple opportunities to practice. These activities can have varying levels of support to provide greater clarity around the main concept or skill. During this time, teachers also measure student understanding of the objective through formative checks. This is the real heart of the lesson and includes introduction to new material, guided practice, and independent practice.

In the lesson closing, the teacher pulls everything together to summarize what was covered, checks for understanding again, and communicates why it is relevant to the big goals.

Students then leave with a clear understanding of the main concept of the lesson and how they can apply the concept to future situations. This lesson plan model works on a direct instruction theory, through which the teacher is delivering knowledge and skills. Other lesson plan models are more student driven and built on discovery. Still others emphasize more collaborative approaches. Although strong teachers seem to choose different lesson models depending on the nature of the objective they want students to master, we offer this direct instruction model because it is an efficient and manageable approach and new teachers can easily master it. (More guidance on lesson planning is available at teachingasleadership.org.)

Source: TEACHING AS LEADERSHIP-The Highly Effective Teacher’s—Guide to Closing the Achievement, by STEVEN FARR, 2010.

No Room at the Inn? What to Do When You’re Closed out of a Course

2011-03-31T01:30:00.003-07:00

No Room at the Inn? What to Do When You’re Closed out of a Course

✔✔Pick an off-peak time.
Consider taking the sections that meet at times students find most undesirable. Think 7 a.m., late afternoons and evenings, and Fridays.

✔✔Wait it out.
Virtually all schools have wait lists, and many courses experience surprising drop rates in the first week or two—especially if the professor is bad or announces that the course will be curved or graded really hard. Even if you’re fiftieth on the list, you can sometimes get in.

✔✔Come up with a really good reason you need the course.
Go over to the professor’s office—during posted office hours (you’ll find these on the syllabus, the course Web page [if any], and the card in front of the prof’s office)—and explain, simply and without apology, your reasons for needing this course. Focus on academic reasons: you’re a graduating senior, the course is a prerequisite for something you want to take next semester, your transfer from community college to state university would be held up without this course, or your senior thesis would benefit immeasurably from this course.

✔✔Wait ‘til summer.
Many of the very same courses, often taught in smaller sections, are offered during summer session(s). Check out the university Web site to see if the course you can’t get into is one of them.

✔✔Try a nearby school.
If your course is full at that four-year state university or private college, consider taking an equivalent course at a nearby community or city college. Just be sure the course is substantially similar in content and, more important, that the credits will transfer to your home institution.

✔✔Look for an online substitution.
Some high-tech and other overloaded schools offer online versions—with a potentially unlimited number of places—of popular courses (especially math courses). See if your college has any of these.

✔✔Find another course to satisfy the requirement.
At many schools, distribution requirements are disjunctive—they can be satisfied by any one of a number of courses. Look for something almost as good (or better, because it has open spaces).

✔✔Appeal with a higher level course.
Some schools allow you to substitute a higher level course for an introductory or general education requirement. Talk to a departmental adviser to see if you can replace the closed-out course with something more advanced—for instance, America in the 1960s for American History 1877 Through the Present. In times of stress advisers often have special permission to make substitutions.

✔✔Look in your vault.
Sometimes you’ve already taken a course somewhere that could satisfy a requirement. Maybe an AP course, a course at some other college you once attended, or some “life experience” that could translate into some credit. Hey, an ace in the hole is an ace in the hole.

✔✔Beg (or at least cajole).
College professors and departmental advisers sometimes have considerable discretion in giving “overrides” to deserving—or sometimes just plain nice—students. Think about what you’d like to hear from a student wanting to get into your class. Then go lay those things on the prof—only about three times as thick.

Source: THE Secrets of Professor’s Guide: College Success . Author: Lynn F. Jacobs and Jeremy S. Hyman

People Are Naturally Curious, but Curiosity Is Fragile

2011-03-31T01:28:00.005-07:00

People Are Naturally Curious, but Curiosity Is Fragile

Even though the brain is not set up for very efficient thinking, people actually enjoy mental activity, at least in some circumstances. We have hobbies like solving crossword puzzles or scrutinizing maps. We watch information - packed documentaries. We purs careers — such as teaching — that offer greater mental challenge than competing careers, even if the pay is lower. Not only are we willing to think, we intentionally seek out situations that demand thought.

Solving problems brings pleasure. When I say “ problem solving ” in this book, I mean any cognitive work that succeeds; it might be understanding a difficult passage of prose, planning a garden, or sizing up an investment opportunity. There is a sense of satisfaction, of fulfillment, in successful thinking. In the last ten years neuroscientists have discovered that there is overlap between the brain areas and chemicals that are important in learning and those that are important in the brain ’ s natural reward system.

Many neuroscientists suspect that the two systems are related. Rats in a maze learn better when rewarded with cheese. When you solve a problem, your brain may reward itself with a small dose of dopamine, a naturally occurring chemical that is important to the brain ’ s pleasure system.

Neuroscientists know that dopamine is important in both systems — learning and pleasure — but haven ’ t yet worked out the explicit tie between them. Even though the neurochemistry is not completely understood, it seems undeniable that people take pleasure in solving problems.

It ’ s notable too that the pleasure is in the solving of the problem. Working on a problem with no sense that you ’ re making progress is not pleasurable. In fact, it ’ s frustrating. Then too, there ’ s not great pleasure in simply knowing the answer. I told you the solution to the candle problem; did you get any fun out of it?

Think how much more fun it would have been if you had solved it yourself — in fact, the problem would have seemed more clever, just as a joke that you get is funnier than a joke that has to be explained. Even if someone doesn ’ t tell you the answer to a problem, once you ’ ve had too many hints you lose the sense that you ’ ve solved the problem, and getting the answer doesn ’ t bring the same mental snap of satisfaction.

Mental work appeals to us because it offers the opportunity for that pleasant feeling when it succeeds. But not all types of thinking are equally attractive. People choose to work crossword puzzles but not algebra problems. A biography of Bono is more likely to sell well than a biography of Keats. What characterizes the mental activity that people enjoy?

The answer that most people would give may seem obvious: “ I think crossword puzzles are fun and Bono is cool, but math is boring and so is Keats. ” In other words, it ’ s the content that matters. We ’ re curious about some stuff but not about other stuff. Certainly that ’ s the way people describe our own interests — “ I ’ m a stamp collector ” or “ I ’ m into medieval symphonic music. ”

But I don ’ t think content drives interest. We ’ ve all attended a lecture or watched a TV show (perhaps against our will) about a subject we thought we weren ’ t interested in, only to find ourselves fascinated; and it ’ s easy to get bored even when you usually like the topic. I ’ ll never forget my eagerness for the day my middle school teacher was to talk about sex. As a teenage boy in a staid 1970s suburban culture, I fizzed with anticipation of any talk about sex, anytime, anywhere. But when the big day came, my friends and I were absolutely disabled with boredom.

It ’ s not that the teacher talked about flowers and pollination—he really did talk about human sexuality — but somehow it was still dull. I actually wish I could remember how he did it; boring a bunch of hormonal teenagers with a sex talk is quite a feat. I once made this point to a group of teachers when talking about motivation and cognition.

I didn ’ t prepare the audience for the slide in any way; I just put it up and started describing it. After about fifteen seconds I stopped and said to the audience, “ Anyone who is still listening to me, please raise your hand. ” One person did. The other fifty - nine were also attending voluntarily; it was a topic in which they were presumably interested, and the talk had only just started — but in fifteen seconds their minds were somewhere else. The content of a problem — whether it ’ s about sex or human motivation — may be sufficient to prompt your interest, but it won ’ t maintain it.

So, if content is not enough to keep your attention, when does curiosity have staying power? The answer may lie in the difficulty of the problem. If we get a little burst of pleasure from solving a problem, then there ’ s no point in working on a problem that is too easy — there ’ ll be no pleasure when it ’ s solved because it didn ’ t feel like much of a problem in the first place. Then too, when you size up a problem as very difficult, you are judging that you ’ re unlikely to solve it, and are therefore unlikely to get the satisfaction that comes with the solution. A crossword puzzle that is too easy is just mindless work: you fi ll in the squares, scarcely thinking about it, and there ’ s no gratifi - cation, even though you ’ re getting all the answers. But you ’ re unlikely to work long at a crossword puzzle that ’ s too difficult. You know you ’ ll solve very little of it, so it will just be frustrating.

To summarize, I ’ ve said that thinking is slow, effortful, and uncertain. Nevertheless, people like to think — or more properly, we like to think if we judge that the mental work will pay off with the pleasurable feeling we get when we solve a problem. So there is no inconsistency in claiming that people avoid thought and in claiming that people are naturally curious — curiosity prompts people to explore new ideas and problems, but when we do, we quickly evaluate how much mental work it will take to solve the problem. If it ’ s too much or too little, we stop working on the problem if we can.

This analysis of the sorts of mental work that people seek out or avoid also provides one answer to why more students don ’ t like school. Working on problems that are of the right level of difficulty is rewarding, but working on problems that are too easy or too difficult is unpleasant. Students can ’ t opt out of these problems the way adults often can. If the student routinely gets work that is a bit too difficult, it ’ s little wonder that he doesn ’ t care much for school. I wouldn ’ t want to work on the Sunday New York Times crossword puzzle for several hours each day.

So what ’ s the solution? Give the student easier work? You could, but of course you ’ d have to be careful not to make it so easy that the student would be bored. And anyway, wouldn ’ t it be better to boost the student ’ s ability a little bit? Instead of making the work easier, is it possible to make thinking easier?

Souce: Why don’t students like school?: a cognitive scientist answers questions about how the mind works and what it means for your classroom by Daniel T. Willingham, 2009.

Planning a Path: Choosing Among Instructional Strategies

2011-03-31T01:27:00.001-07:00

Planning a Path: Choosing Among Instructional Strategies

With good lesson objectives (vision) translated into what you want to see your students know and do (assessment), the remaining element of lesson planning is mapping your students’ path to that definition of success. Planning is not a just a theoretical exercise: effective teachers practice their plans in their mind’s eye as a means of identifying hidden problems and opportunities for student learning.

Recall the factors that help inform a teacher’s vividly imagined planning: the rigor of the content, how students learn, students’ prior knowledge, how students engage with the particular subject matter at hand, and students’ background and culture, to name a few. Those factors apply to the lesson planning process just as they inform a teacher’s selection of instructional methods. For example, perhaps you have come to realize that three of your students are much more engaged when they are up and moving around, so you imagine ways to get them physically involved in your lesson on metaphors. Or perhaps you have half as many copies of Of Mice and Men as you have students. That fact should obviously inform your lesson plan.

In addition to these general factors that inform planning, a teacher who sits down to plan a lesson is also informed by another list: the instructional strategies in his or her repertoire. The more extensive your toolbox of instructional methods, the more purposefully you will be able to align your strategies with your objectives. The most effective teachers recognize that they must build a broad, diverse menu of instructional strategies and skills so that “imagining themselves on the path” means virtually testing out different approaches to reach the best outcomes.

Here are a few of the methods that must be part of any teacher’s repertoire:

• Teacher modeling and demonstration.
This is one of the most common and basic instructional methods across the grade levels: students gain a lot from simply being shown how to do something. Kindergarten teachers model how to form letters of the alphabet. Chemistry teachers show students how to balance equations.

A writing teacher models for students how to edit sentences and paragraphs. The most effective modeling and demonstrations include an element of metacognitive narration by the teacher that directs students’ attention to fundamental elements of proper procedure. Modeling is also a great opportunity to illustrate common errors students should avoid.

• Lecture.
Although “lecture” may conjure up the image of a stodgy professor droning on while students doodle or doze to escape the monotony, lecturing is sometimes an efficient way to present or review material with the entire class. Teachers might choose to lecture when, for example, they have a limited amount of time. The key to an effective lecture is that the teacher is constantly reflecting on what students are doing and thinking. Jessica Kaufman, a third-grade ESL teacher in Houston, reminds us that the effectiveness of a lecture, like any other instructional method, has much to do with how the teacher interacts and checks for understanding along the way:

I always thought that lecturing was most useful when I was constantly assessing along the way and involving students as much as possible instead of just blabbing. You have to find ways to make sure they’re with you during a lecture—something more than just “Great! They are all looking at me! They get it!” You’ve got to incorporate questions, encourage students to think about what you’re saying, and predict where you might be headed. Stop to have students share a thought with their neighbor about what they just heard, or ask students to summarize the lecture or bring up points that are confusing. There are many ways you can engage students in your lecture, but it takes some planning up front.

• Question and discussion.
Teachers often ask questions to gain information about what students do and do not yet understand. But questions should also be asked to stimulate student thought. In this way, questioning is a fundamental and powerful instructional tool. Researcher Jere Brophy found that questions-based discourse was one of the most common and most powerful tools for introducing new material and checking for students’ understanding.

• Discovery learning. Discovery learning is geared toward higher-level objectives and is used to help students deduce general ideas, concepts, or definitions from specific examples. During discovery learning lessons, teachers often provide students with materials and guidelines for engaging those materials, encouraging students to make observations, form and test hypotheses, and infer concepts. This technique is often used, for example, in science classes, where students learn concepts through the experience of conducting a lab or experiment.

• Centers.
Centers are specified areas in the classroom that allow students to work independently or in small groups at their own pace on particular objectives. Their usefulness in highly individualized classrooms makes them popular for special education and early elementary teachers. In order to support the individual needs of each student, centers may be permanent fixtures, such as the classroom library or reading center, or changing ones that support a current unit of study.

They require a front-end investment of time to create and to familiarize students with the learning center processes. Amy Klauder, in her experience working in early childhood education and elementary classrooms, has found centers to be extraordinarily effective: “Centers allow us to create purposeful learning opportunities for our students. In my preschool, we incorporate the whole range of developmental objectives into centers—from fine motor development to language, literacy, and science. Choosing interesting themes not only helps in our planning, but keeps our students engaged. . . . I never underestimate the value of social development during centers too. Our students learn how to cooperate by negotiating who will be the customer and who will run the store in the dramatic play center.”

• Grouping strategies.
Choices about how to group students is another axis of decision making in lesson planning. Would a whole-group setting or a small-group setting most facilitate students’ mastery of this particular objective? Or (more realistically) what combination of grouping arrangements will lead to the greatest student learning? A whole-class grouping is particularly efficient for presenting new information. A small group is appropriate when a teacher needs to differentiate instruction or content.

• Cooperative learning.
Cooperative learning is a hybrid of grouping and instructional strategy. As used in highly effective classrooms, it involves more than just placing students in small groups and having them complete an activity together. Cooperative learning involves dividing up students’ responsibilities, collectively completing assignments, and reporting back to the whole group, all of which is meant to mitigate the risk that not all students will benefit from the group learning.

Cooperative learning requires students to be responsible not only for their own learning but also for the learning of all others in the group and, according to some experts, thereby “creates the potential for cognitive and metacognitive [thinking about how they are working and thinking] benefits by engaging students in discourse that requires them to make their task-related information-processing and problem-solving strategies explicit (and thus available for discussion and reflection).”

Some argue that cooperative learning facilitates interdependence, instills individual and group accountability, teaches interpersonal skills, and allows time for group cohesion and reflection. Bilingual/English as a Second Language teacher Stephen Ready notes that this method requires explicit instruction and practice: “Students have to be taught to work cooperatively.

Even with my high school students, we have to practice the procedures and systems we use to work in groups. It takes a lot of work to develop smooth-running small groups in which ALL students are mastering the objectives.”

Cooperative learning, however, may hide individual students’ lack of learning. Jerry Hauser recalls that as a teacher in Los Angeles, he “over relied on cooperative learning. There are some things that it’s good for, but at the end of the day, each student needs to truly master the material—and too often working in groups means individual students don’t get as much practice as they need if they’re ultimately going to be able to do the work on their own.”

Source: TEACHING AS LEADERSHIP-The Highly Effective Teacher’s—Guide to Closing the Achievement, by STEVEN FARR, 2010.

Rigor and Mastery

2011-03-31T01:25:00.005-07:00

Rigor and Mastery

Alongside instructional methods, another important set of concepts informs teachers’ lesson planning: rigor and mastery. These are two words that we almost inevitably hear from highly effective teachers as they talk about academic planning—and especially lesson planning.

Rigor refers to the level and appropriateness of academic challenge presented by the content. How valuable is what students are learning to their quest for the big goal? Is it appropriately challenging so that meaningful progress is made toward the goal?

Mastery refers to the extent to which students have command of what they are being taught. Is this lesson plan reaching its objective? What are students understanding or misunderstanding?

To gain insight into rigor, we examine whether what we are asking students to do would be a substantive step toward the achievement of a sound big goal. (If we are using with our eighth graders the same objectives some teachers are using with their fourth graders, our teaching lacks rigor.) To gain insight into mastery, we investigate what students are learning from what they’re being asked to do. (If students cannot demonstrate the knowledge and skills we are teaching, we must focus on mastery.)

As you choose from among the instructional methods available to you, strive to ensure both rigor and mastery in your lesson plan. This means that you are asking yourself (in the virtual implementation of your planning), “To what extent are students learning?”

Source: TEACHING AS LEADERSHIP-The Highly Effective Teacher’s—Guide to Closing the Achievement, by STEVEN FARR, 2010.

So What’s Going to Be on the Test Anyway

2011-03-31T01:24:00.003-07:00

So What’s Going to Be on the Test Anyway

Clue #1: Professors test what they talk.
Students often think professors are out to trick them by testing picky, obscure issues. Nothing can be farther from the truth. Professors usually try to teach the most important material—and then test it to see if students have mastered it. Kind of makes sense once you think about it, doesn’t it? So look over your notes and see what the prof spent the most time on. That’s likely to provide the most fodder for the test.

Clue #2: Professors ask what interests them.
In many courses, you can detect some issue that really excites the prof so much that he or she brings it up again and again, even as the course moves from topic to topic. It’s a good bet that your prof’s obsession will pop up on the test in some form or other.

Clue #3: Professors drop hints.
Much as we try to keep mum, most professors can’t help themselves. They have high-value information that throngs of adulating students are eager to get—and that they are eager to give. So take seriously comments like, “Wow, this would make a really good test question” or “and speaking of…(nudge, nudge, wink, wink).” It might all sound like a joke, but it’s not.

Clue #4: TAs spill the beans even more than professors.
TAs are usually younger and less experienced. And would like to be liked. So they’ll usually cave quickly if you ask them a few questions after class or in office hours—or just show up to section meeting. No bribery necessary!

Clue #5: Professors are lazy.
Professors are pretty busy and don’t have much time to write entirely new exams. With the result that many times profs will simply reuse—or modify slightly—questions they asked last time around. If you can dig up one of the old exams from a friend who took the same course, from library reserves, from fraternity or sorority files, or (if your stars are aligned) from the prof him- or herself, you can get a pretty good idea of what to expect.

Clue #6: Professors tell it up front.
The syllabus often lists the educational goals of the course, which can give pretty good valuable information about the test questions. After the first day of class, you might never cast another glance at the syllabus, but it can actually give clues about what the professor thinks is most important—and what he or she’s likely to want to test you on. The same applies to the titles for individual lectures or the questions for study for each meeting (if any).

Clue #7: Professors recycle.
Not only questions from previous years, but questions or problems from the homework, quizzes, and problem sets often reappear in slightly different form on the test. Hey, everybody’s going green these days.

Source: THE Secrets of Professor’s Guide: College Success . Author: Lynn F. Jacobs and Jeremy S. Hyman

The Benefits of Year-long and Unit Plans

2011-03-31T01:23:00.001-07:00

The Benefits of Year-long and Unit Plans

Like all other purposeful plans, year-long and unit plans accelerate learning by offering you and your students focus and a sense of urgency and by showing you exactly what has to happen in order to reach your goals. They provide benchmarks to gauge your progress. Working with a long-term plan, you can ask yourself, “Are we where we need to be at this point in the year?” Bay Area first-grade bilingual teacher

Sonja Elder emphasized this point when she told us that long-term plans make “you constantly reassess where you are and where you’re headed so you can correct errors sooner rather than later. Teaching without a long-term plan is like going on a road trip without an atlas: it’s bound to get you lost.”

The year-long and unit-planning processes are meant to clarify and organize the knowledge and skills you will teach in ways that can save you time and energy. Over and over, our teachers report that while setting a vision, creating assessments, and mapping out a plan, they discovered relationships and interdependence among ideas they had not previously considered.

Kristen Taylor, for example, a sixth-grade teacher in St. Louis, told us she knew she wanted her students to be ready for algebra when they left her classroom, and she assumed that would mean being able to solve for a variable. When she looked at the standards, however, she realized that first they would have to understand a number of prerequisite learning goals. “I realized,” she says, “that if I tried to teach them how to solve for a variable before they understood algebraic patterns, they would not be able to find the pattern they needed in order to solve for the variable.” Her engagement with the standards saved her perhaps weeks of lost learning time by helping her order and prioritize key ideas.

Kate Schrepfer, who teaches in the Mississippi Delta, recalled her anxieties about what and how she could teach science and reasoning skills to her high school students. Once she “made the standards her friend” by studying, prioritizing, and atomizing them, she was able to see clearly where she wanted to take her students and how that destination was going to prepare them for Biology I the next year. All the rest of her assessments and planning flowed from that begin-at-the-end vision informed by standards. She set her big goal around students’ mastery of the learning standards: I thought logically about six overarching principles to biology, which became my units: (1) scientists ask questions and conduct experiments to learn more; (2) all living things are made up of smaller parts working together; (3) our genetic code determines everything from our looks, to our actions, to our susceptibility to diseases; (4) the diversity of our world is due to evolution; (5) there are relationships between organisms and their environment, and human actions can affect them; and (6) plants and animals are made up of body parts working together to help them function. Once I had my unit titles, I broke down the state standards into daily lesson objectives at each level of Bloom’s taxonomy and ordered these into one of the six units. This way, every single day, my students and I knew that whichever objective we covered was necessary for promotion and scientific literacy.

For many teachers like Ms. Taylor and Ms. Schrepfer, the long-term planning process generates a much-needed sense of calm and control even as it increases their sense of urgency. Chris Ott recalls the first time he mapped out his year as “the single best action I ever took. . . . It gave me comfort knowing that I would be able to cover all of the material I needed to.” Carrie Gonnella called creating her long-term plan “the best thing I did for myself to destress the day-to-day planning. I never had to go home and say, ‘Gosh, what am I teaching tomorrow?’ I never had to worry I was forgetting something incredibly important. Just looking at my calendar made me content.”

Source: TEACHING AS LEADERSHIP-The Highly Effective Teacher’s—Guide to Closing the Achievement, by STEVEN FARR, 2010.

THE BULLY IN THE FAMILY

2011-03-31T01:21:00.000-07:00

THE BULLY IN THE FAMILY

Family influences on bullying have been explored by correlating appraisals that a child is a bully or is frequently engaged in bullying behaviors with a variety of family conditions and characteristics. Several studies have examined the impact of the overall conditions of the family, such as single-parent, divorced families, or socioeconomic status, on bullying (Farrington, 1993; Olweus, 1980). Other studies have examined the connection between parenting styles or discipline practices and children who engage in bullying (Baldry & Farrington, 1998, 2000; Curtner-Smith, 2000; Lowenstein, 1978; Olweus, 1980; Roland & Galloway, 2002; Stevens, De Bourdeaudhuij, & Van Oost, 2002). Still others have focused on children’s perceptions of cohesion within the family or relationships with parents and how those perceptions relate to bullying (Berdondini & Smith, 1996; Bowers, Smith, & Binney, 1992; Espelage, Bosworth, & Simon, 2000; Rˇ ı´cˇan, 1995; Rˇ ı´cˇan, Klicperova´, & Koucka´ , 1993; Rigby, 1993, 1994).

The literature has not concentrated as much on generating explanations for the relationship between the family and bullying behaviors, but a few researchers have addressed this issue (Loeber & Hay, 1997; Patterson, DeBaryshe, & Ramsey, 1989; Rigby, 1994; Smith, Bowers, Binney, & Cowie, 1993). Their explanations have dealt with attachment theory, family systems theory, and interactive models that examine the interplay between characteristics of the child and family or community variables.

Oliver, Oaks, and Hoover (1994) created a list of six characteristics that families of bullies tend to have:
1. ‘‘Cool-to-cold emotional environment’’ (p. 200) with lack of involvement from the primary caregiver
2. Permissive parenting style—few rules or limits for behavior, little family structure
3. Isolation of family from the community, and active social life or social involvement of family is lacking
4. Conflict between parents, and disharmony within the family
5. In appropriate use of discipline—parents fail to punish or may even reinforce aggression and fail to reward or may even punish pro social behavior
6. Authoritarian parenting with high use of controlling and punitive discipline—parents try to maintain order with rigid household standards and rules.

Batsche and Knoff (1994) add to this list of characteristics by stating that families of bullies are sometimes simultaneously hostile and permissive. They suggest that parents of bullies do not monitor or supervise their children very often or very closely (and, in particular, do not set limits with respect to their children’s aggressive behavior), but when they do, they tend to use harsh, punitive methods of discipline (Greene, 2000).

Further, Batsche and Knoff state that parents of bullies ‘‘have poor problem- solving skills’’ and ‘‘teach their children to strike back at the least provocation’’ (p.166). Neufeld (2002), in a paper on ethics that addresses the impact of families on bullying, cites some of the messages that children might hear in the home. These include ‘‘Being bullied is just a part of growing up,’’ ‘‘You need to stand up for yourself,’’ ‘‘Boys will be boys,’’ and ‘‘You need to toughen up. Don’t be so sensitive’’ (p. 207).

Family Characteristics of Bullies

These descriptions paint a picture of a family environment that is hostile, negative, and lacking in warmth and affection. Greene (2000) states that parents of bullies feel detached from their children and that ‘‘not surprisingly, these children do not feel particularly close to their parents’’ (p. 79). Further, parents of bullies more often use power-assertive discipline to maintain order within the household. It is quite likely that children who become bullies have learned at home what kinds of behaviors will enable them to maintain or increase their status by degrading the status of others.

A number of studies have clearly shown that parenting styles and discipline practices are related to bullying behavior. Much of the research literature has focused on specific parenting practices or methods of discipline and their relationship to bullying behavior. In general, these studies indicate that more authoritarian and punitive styles of parenting are positively correlated with bullying (Baldry & Farrington, 1998, 2000; Curtner-Smith, 2000; Lowenstein, 1978; Olweus, 1980; Roland & Galloway, 2002; Stevens, De Bourdeaudhuij, & Van Oost, 2002). In one of the earliest studies to examine parents’ perceptions of their discipline techniques and their relationship to bullying, Olweus (1980) interviewed mothers about their attitudes toward their children, their use of power-assertive methods of discipline, and their attitudes toward aggression in their children. He found mothers who had more negative attitudes toward their children, who used more physical punishment, and who permitted higher levels of aggression in their children were more likely to have children who were more aggressive. One of the difficulties here, however, is that it is not clear how or whether aggressiveness in children is related to bullying. Children who are aggressive may be successful in a wide range of acceptable ways and may not use their aggression to degrade others.

Baldry and Farrington (1998) measured authoritative versus authoritarian parenting, parental involvement in school matters and parental support, and parental agreement. In addition, they measured parental use of punitive punishment. Bullies had parents who were more authoritarian, more punitive, who disagreed more often, and who were less supportive. In a second study, Baldry and Farrington (2000) measured parental practices, which included parenting style, agreement between parents, and agreement between the child and the parents. The parenting style items assessed the degree to which parents used an authoritarian versus a supportive style. Again, they found that bullies were more likely to have parents who used an authoritarian parenting style and who more often disagreed with one another and with the child.

Curtner-Smith (2000) asked mothers to rate the following: marital satisfaction, disciplinary practices, levels of social support, temperament, levels of depression, degree of parent-child involvement, and perceptions of sons’ friendships. Sons’ perceptions of how closely their mothers monitored their behavior were assessed as well. Boys who had higher ratings of bullying behavior had mothers who were less satisfied with their marriages, used inappropriate methods of discipline (e.g., hitting, nagging, locking the child out of the house), and had little social support from others. Mothers who reported that they often felt angry or depressed had boys who were more likely to engage in bullying. Low family involvement also was positively correlated with bullying. Curtner-Smith argues these measures indicate that in families with bullies, mothers are modeling poor relationship skills for their sons and the family climate of bullies is angry, hostile, and generally negative.

In a study of aggressive victims (who can sometimes also be bullies), Schwartz, Dodge, Pettit, and Bates (1997) conducted interviews with mothers who were asked to discuss the harshness and frequency of their discipline, how often children were exposed to physical violence in the home or the community, and the degree of marital conflict in the home. The mothers completed a written questionnaire on how family members resolved conflicts, and interviewers observed mother-child interaction during the visit.

The interviewer assessed how likely it was that a child had experienced physical abuse. Interviewers rated how often a mother expressed hostility and warmth to the child during the visit. Family Socioeconomic Status (SES) was also assessed. Aggressive victim status of the children was assessed three to four years later. Boys who became aggressive victims came from homes where they were exposed to violence. Physical punishment and abuse were common. Mothers tended to be harsh and restrictive, and high degrees of conflict in the home were reported.

Bullies’ Perceptions of Their Families

Another approach to research concerning family influences on bullying has been to ask children to give their perceptions of their relationships with their parents. Several studies have shown that children who bully perceive their parents to be more authoritarian, and they rate their families as less cohesive than do victims or control children (Berdondini & Smith, 1996; Bowers, Smith, & Binney, 1992; Espelage, Bosworth, & Simon, 2000; Rˇ ı´cˇan, 1995; Rˇ ı´cˇan et al., 1993; Rigby, 1993, 1994). Some of the seminal studies on this aspect of family influences on bullying (Berdondini & Smith,1996; Bowers et al., 1992; Smith, Bowers, Binney, & Cowie, 1993) used the Family System Test (FAST) to assess children’s perceptions of cohesion within the family. The test requires children to place wooden figures, each of which represents a family member, on a wooden board. The distances between the figures are then measured to determine the children’s perceptions of how close family members are to one another. Blocks under the figures indicate how much power family members are perceived to have. All three studies indicated that cohesion scores were lower for bullies than for comparison groups. Two of the studies (Bowers et al., 1992; Smith et al., 1993) indicated that bullies perceived their siblings as quite powerful. In one study (Bowers et al., 1992), bullies and victims had higher power scores for fathers than for mothers, but the effects were not very strong.

In a similar vein, Rigby (1993, 1994) used the Family Functioning in Adolescence Questionnaire, which measures adolescents’ perceptions of cohesion, affective expressiveness, communication, democratic methods of discipline, transmission of ethical standards, and the permeable boundaries within the family. Rigby (1993) also used the Attitude Toward Parents Scale, which consists of a set of adjectives that are applied to both the mother and the father. These adjectives are friendly, fair, understanding, helpful, affectionate, dependable, critical, sarcastic, unkind, bossy, selfish, and suspicious. Finally, Rigby assessed adolescents’ relationships to their parents by asking them to state how close versus distant, how warm versus cold, and how positive versus negative they felt those relationships were. Children who had greater tendencies to bully had lower scores on the Family Functioning Scale (Rigby, 1993, 1994) as well as less positive attitudes toward their parents and less positive relationships with their parents (1993).

Espelage and colleagues (2000) asked young adolescents to rate the kinds of messages they received from their families about violence, what kinds of discipline were used in their homes, and how much time they spent with their families. Adolescents from families who used more physical discipline were more likely to engage in bullying behavior as were adolescents who spent less time with their family members and those who received fewer messages about using nonviolent means of conflict resolution. Flouri and Buchanan (2003) also found that children who perceived a high degree of involvement between themselves and their parents were less likely to engage in bullying. In a study by Ma (2001), children who stated that their parents were more involved in their schooling were less likely to bully others.

Finally,Rˇ ı´cˇan and colleagues (Rˇ ı´cˇan, 1995;Rˇ ı´cˇan, et al., 1993) have investigated this issue as well. Rˇ ı´cˇan conducted a factor analysis on The Family Principles Questionnaire, which is designed to assess the transmission of values from parent to child. He measured the association between scores on this questionnaire and bullying. Children who espoused values such as ‘‘We should try to help suffering people’’ and ‘‘If you see somebody being hurt, defend him!’’ were less likely to be bullies. Rˇ ı´cˇan and colleagues asked children to complete questionnaires regarding their relationships with their parents. Fathers’ positive attitude was negatively associated with bully-ing (for girls only), and fathers’ hostility was positively associated with bullying (for both boys and girls). Fathers’ encouragement of autonomy was negatively correlated with bullying. For mothers, only their hostility in their relationships with their sons was positively associated with bullying. Still other studies have assessed family relationships from the points of view of both parent and child. Stevens et al. (2002) measured the quality of family functioning using a Dutch version of the Family Environment Scale.

This scale includes seven subscales: cohesion, expressiveness, conflict, organization, control, moral emphasis, and social orientation. Parenting practices were assessed using the Child-Rearing Inventory. This inventory includes three subscales that measure parents’ use of punishment, the degree to which children experience a warm and attached relationship with their parents, and the degree to which parents encourage children to be autonomous. On these scales, bullies perceived less cohesion, expressiveness, organization, control, and social orientation and experienced more conflict within their families than victims or control children. On the parenting measure, parents of bullies reported using more punishment, and bullies perceived that more punishment occurred at home than did control children. Control children reported a more personal relationship with their parents than did bullies.

Sibling Influences

There is evidence to suggest that there are sibling, as well as parental, influences on bullying. Duncan (1999) found that children who bullied their peers were also likely to bully their siblings. Ma (2001) related family size to bullying behavior and found that children from larger families were more likely to become bullies than victims. The author speculates that these children are more likely to experience more bullying from siblings and that there is a ‘‘carry-over effect’’ to their relations with peers. Greene (2000) also cites evidence that children who are bullies are more concerned with the power differentials between themselves and their siblings than are children who are not bullies.

Direct Influences of Family Relationships on Bullying

When we move from describing the patterns of behavior that occur in the families of bullies to attempting to explain why the correlations between parent-child interactions and bullying exist, several different theoretical perspectives have been proposed. First, a number of researchers have suggested that the connection between parental discipline practices and child bullying behavior is direct (Baldry & Farrington, 1998; Espelage et al., 2000, Olweus, 1980; 1993). In other words, parents tolerate aggression in their children, display aggression through the use of an authoritarian parenting style and through the use of punitive physical punishment, and fail to show warmth and affection toward their children (Olweus, 1993). These behaviors directly shape the behavior of children in the family, so children learn that aggression is the way to achieve status because that has been modeled for them by their parents. Further, in these kinds of families, an aggressive intrusion by a family member that is met with an aggressive response by the child will often stop the family member’s intrusion. Therefore, the child learns within the context of the family that aggression helps them to deflect unwanted interactions with others (Patterson & Yoerger, 1993).

In addition, the combination of a lack of parental supervision with the use of power-assertive methods of discipline may be especially potent in terms of its contribution to bullying behavior. Baldry and Farrington (1998) state that this kind of parent-child relationship makes children have a high need for power and status within the peer group and have fewer inhibitions toward aggression. Therefore, bullying is a natural consequence of their particular set of family influences.

Indirect Family Influences—From Attachment to Family Systems Theory

Other researchers believe a broader view of the family environment is necessary (Patterson, et al., 1989; Rigby, 1994; Smith et al., 1993). In this view, it is important to consider how families developed such maladaptive patterns of behavior to begin with. For example, attachment theory has been discussed as a possible explanation for the negative family climates described above (Loeber & Hay, 1997; Smith & Myron-Wilson, 1998; Smith et al., 1993).

Attachment theorists argue that the infant-mother attachment relationship serves as an internal working model for later relationships. There is evidence to suggest that children with an insecure attachment to their mothers have difficulty with later peer relationships (Turner, 1991; Troy & Sroufe, 1987). One study (Troy & Sroufe, 1987) showed that bullies were more likely to have had an avoidance attachment to their caregivers, whereas victims were more likely to have had an anxious attachment history.

To understand how an avoidance attachment history might develop, it is necessary to look more closely at the characteristics of the parents of bullies. According to Smith et al. (1993), parents who do not feel emotionally close to their children and/or who experience ambivalence about their roles as parents may be setting the stage for an avoidance attachment to develop. These parents have difficulty expressing positive emotions toward their children and may avoid interacting with them. The child, in turn, learns that the parent cannot be trusted to respond appropriately and learns to avoid the parent.

How would a parent develop these characteristics? A number of factors could be involved. Parents who suffer from psychological disorders, most notably depression, may be at risk (Loeber & Hay, 1997). Single parenthood, marital conflict, and divorce also have been associated with aggressive behavior, particularly in boys (Curtner-Smith, 2000; Loeber & Hay, 1997, Lowenstein, 1978, Patterson et al., 1989). Other studies have not found these relationships (Espelage et al., 2000, Loeber & Hay, 1997). SES and unemployment are family stressors that may contribute to bullying (Farrington, 1993; Patterson, et al., 1989). Some studies, however, find no connection between SES and bullying (e.g., Olweus, 1980). Farrington (1993) assessed intergenerational transmission of bullying behavior specifically and found that there was a relationship. In other words, boys who bullied others as adolescents were more likely in their 30s to have children who were bullies. The intergenerational effects of poor family management and discipline can also extend to grandparents. Having antisocial parents and grandparents is even more predictive of antisocial behavior in adolescence (Patterson et al., 1989).

It has been suggested that the connection of family variables such as SES, divorce, single parenthood, and parental psychopathology with child aggression is not necessarily a direct one. Rather, the relationship is mediated by parental discipline practices and family management skills (Patterson et al., 1989; Rigby, 2002; Smith et al., 1993). In addition, Loeber and Hay (1997) delineated a list of characteristics that were associated with aggressive behavior of a child. These include temperament, intelligence, attention problems (e.g., ADHD), deficits in social problem-solving skills, and issues with self-esteem. Several of these characteristics also have been discussed in relation to bullying per se (Farrington, 1993; Olweus, 1980, 1993).

Some of these characteristics, most notably temperament and intelligence, are viewed as having a genetic component. Therefore, it could be argued that parents may influence these characteristics through their genetic contributions to their children. In addition, children contribute to the family environment partly in terms of their status on these various characteristics.

Therefore, the family must be considered as a unit to understand why the child might become a bully (Rigby, 1994; Smith et al., 1993). Rigby (1994) believes that family systems theory provides a more coherent explanation for the relation between family influences and bullying than studying specific behaviors that occur between parents and children. In this theory, family patterns might predispose children toward bullying. According to Patterson et al. (1989), family stressors have a disruptive effect on parenting skills, which then puts the child at risk for adjustment problems.

Smith et al. (1993) state that certain developmental pathways may lead to bullying. For example, an infant who has a difficult temperament may develop an avoidance attachment to his or her caregiver because the caregiver lacks the skills to deal effectively with the child’s temperament. This parent might also be experiencing other stressors (Patterson et al., 1989) that interfere with the parent’s ability to be sensitive and responsive to the infant. If the family remains under stress, then it is likely that the family’smanagement skills will continue to be less than optimal. The child then continues to be at increased risk for behavior and adjustment problems. One possible outcome of this developmental pathway could be bullying (Smith et al., 1993).

THE BULLY’S STATUS IN THE FAMILY

2011-03-31T01:19:00.001-07:00

THE BULLY’S STATUS IN THE FAMILY

The most significant difficulty in approaching research on the ways in which families influence the development of bullies is that, as we noted earlier, there is no coherent or comprehensive formulation of the concept of bullying. Currently, we use the term bullying as a criticism of what someone is doing rather than as a way of identifying what the person is doing or why he or she is doing it. Thus we use the term to identify one of the states of affairs that may result from what someone does and not as a way of identifying a type of behavior. Consequently, the question of how families influence the development of bullying behavior becomes a question about how families influence the development of people who are later criticized for behaving inappropriately.

This kind of question is formally similar to the question of how families influence the development of children or adults with poor manners or children who do not play by the rules. Studies presented in the preceding review showed that bullying is associated with families in which people do not treat each other with respect or families in which children are not taught to respect the rights of others. In this view, bullying is viewed as a failure in socialization. One of the obvious questions here is why one child in such a family becomes a bully but others do not.

Some researchers suggest that children are socialized to be bullies. That is, they learn bullying by seeing other members of their family engage in bullying behaviors and simply emulate what they have learned (Baldry & Farrington, 1998; Espelage et al., 2000, Olweus, 1980, 1993). Identifying someone as a bully is a negative status assignment, suggesting that the bully is somewhat cowardly and unable to compete with others who have status and are able to defend themselves. Why anyone would want to achieve the status of being a bully is not clear. As we have seen, it is not clear that Butch or any other person we designate as being a bully sets out to be or intends to be a bully.

In general, numerous studies correlate family characteristics with being designated as a bully. It appears that there is a positive correlation between being designated as a bully and coming from a family in which members are not accepted, respected, or loved and in which discipline is harsh and unpredictable. However, these studies do not describe how or why someone would become a bully in a particular family or type of family.

The difficulty that researchers encounter in trying to understand bullies and how their behavior develops in certain family environments is that they are not focusing on the significance of what a bully is actually doing. For example, recall Butch and Bill’s bullying situation described at the beginning of this chapter.

These researchers are not asking what Butch is doing by acting in ways that are socially inappropriate, that violate the rights of others, and that in some cases are illegal. How does it make sense for Butch to become a person whom others do not respect and would avoid if possible?

To say that Butch is trying to increase or maintain his status by degrading others is to focus on the significance of what Butch is doing. In focusing on the significance of his behavior, we are asking the question, ‘‘What is he doing by pushing, shoving, taking money, chasing, and taunting Bill or other victims?’’ The values of the significance parameter of behavior are the other behaviors that are accomplished at one and the same time. For example, saying, ‘‘That was a stupid thing to do’’ is to engage in a verbal behavior, but it is also a way of insulting someone. Both behaviors are accomplished at one and the same time by means of the same performance.

The first thing to notice is that given this formulation, we can see how the many different types of behavior that bullies engage in make sense. All behaviors make sense as ways of one person degrading another. For example, taking a younger child’s money, hitting the child, treating the child as a wimp, and intimidating the child all make sense as ways of degrading the child. Rather than seeing these behaviors as a more or less random list of bullies’ actions, we can see how they are related as ways in which one person could degrade another. If Butch is able to successfully degrade Bill or others in his community, then Butch, in his view, has a higher position or status than those he has degraded. Asking the question, ‘‘What is Butch doing by doing the things that we see as bullying?’’ makes Butch’s behavior more understandable and more accessible to scientific inquiry.

As Olweus (1993) has discussed, bullies are often speculated to be insecure underneath their ‘‘tough’’ exterior. Olweus states that the opposite, in fact, appears to be true. Bullies do not seem to lack self-confidence. If bullying behaviors are ways of increasing or maintaining Butch’s status, then it is not surprising that Butch would report being self-confident. It is important to keep in mind, however, that bullies behave like persons with low self-confidence are expected to behave. Bullies seldom compete with others who are of equal status, age, strength, or size. Bullies typically pick targets who cannot or will not stand up to the bully. Therefore, it is possible that earlier research has not been able to determine the true nature of the bully’s self-esteem. Further, the status that Butch achieves is therefore somewhat hollow because it is achieved by degrading others who are younger, weaker, and so forth.

Given this kind of significance description, we can begin to ask how a child would develop a pattern of achieving status by degrading others who are younger, weaker, or otherwise unable to stop the degradation. We also can begin to make sense out of the research on family influences on bullying. If the bully comes from a family in which other members degrade one another as a way to increase or maintain status, then it may be likely that the child will choose to behave in the same way outside the family. What kind of family would this be? Quite possibly this is a family that is lacking in warmth and affection, that uses authoritarian styles of discipline and power-assertive methods of punishment, and is lacking in cohesion. Our conceptual formulation, therefore, gives us a new way of examining the results of the research.

Rather than focusing on what the parent is doing, such as the specific behaviors the parent is engaged in (e.g., yelling, spanking, etc.), it is more important to focus on the significance of what the parent is doing. In other words, if the parent in the course of dealing with the child is doing things that degrade the child’s status, then the child (1) feels degraded and, because he or she is not able to increase his or her status at home, may choose to degrade him or her peers as a way of increasing status outside of the home and/or (2) learns that this behavior enables him or her to get what he or she wants.

It is important to note once again that the child is not waking up in the morning and saying, ‘‘I’m going to go and bully some other kids today.’’ However, the child is in the position of having been degraded either directly or indirectly by the lack of acceptance and affection in the family. In general, a child is not able to successfully challenge the status parents assign to him or her. One way to gain the status he or she does not get at home is to degrade others: ‘‘I cannot hit my mother or father, but I can dish it out to the kid down the street.’’

A parent who lacks confidence in his or her parenting abilities, who does not feel close to his or her child, and who has learned to use punitive methods of punishment as a way to not only maintain order in the household but also to increase or maintain his or her own status is likely to make choices in dealing with his or her child that are degrading to the child. On the other hand, the fact that a child grows up in an authoritarian family (or a poor family, a single-parent family, etc.) does not mean that the child is necessarily degraded or disciplined in an arbitrary and harsh manner, which explains why children from these types of families do not always become bullies.

In addition, different children will solve the problems they face growing up in a family in different ways. One child will seek to emulate a parent while another will seek to be the opposite of the same parent. In dealing with neglectful, cold, harsh, and degrading parents, one child will move toward finding affection and acceptance from others while another child in the same family will seek to gain status through abusing and dominating others.

The task at this point is to determine what kinds of studies can be done that investigate family influences on bullying from this new vantage point. Merely asking parents (or children) to complete a survey about parenting practices and determining whether the children engage in bullying will not help us to answer the questions raised in this chapter. What we need are studies that examine a parent’s behavior in a way that allows us to see whether the parent is degrading the child in the course of discipline and whether that degradation of status is related to the child’s bullying. This research would require observers who are able to understand the significance of what the parents and children in the family are doing. It would also require obtaining samples of how parents interact with and understand the behavior of their child (Smith & Myron-Wilson, 1998).

In terms of prevention and treatment of bullying, efforts should also focus on the status degradation that occurs in the course of bullying. In particular, attempts to prevent and treat bullying should concentrate on understanding how the bully might have been degraded and/or learned to degrade others. It is possible that bullies have a continuing sense of uncertainty about their status based on their family history. This may be one reason why they persist in bullying others. Research efforts might also explore whether there are variations in the kinds of status that bullies are trying to achieve.

The child who states that he or she bullies ‘‘Because they annoyed me’’ or ‘‘To get even’’ may be trying to achieve a different sort of status than the bully who gives a justification such as ‘‘To get things or money from them’’ (Rigby, 2002). Another interesting empirical question would be whether bullies engage in more frequent or more severe degradations of others in their community when their status is threatened by an adult or a peer. The primary emphasis, however, should be on finding ways to help bullies increase their status by means other than bullying.

The How Not to Study Guide

2011-03-31T01:18:00.000-07:00

The How Not to Study Guide

1. Don’t spend too much time looking for the perfect environment.
Many students think that if only they found the perfect place to study, it would all be a cakewalk. So they spend inordinate amounts of time scouting and trying out various locales—first their dorm room, then the coffee shop, then the library, then the grass, and so on. Such elaborate setup time can be a major time-waster, and, even worse, can make you feel that you can’t study unless you are in your ideal study spot. Better idea? Find a reasonably quiet place and just get started. You’ll get more comfortable with your surroundings as you get going.

2. Don’t multitask.
Believe it or not, some students study for all their courses at one session: fifteen minutes on this subject, fifteen minutes on another, fifteen minutes on a third—you get the picture. It’s a far better idea to devote your entire study session to a single subject. That way, you’ll build up speed, and, the more engaged you get, the easier the studying will become. Worst of all is to intersperse one subject with another—do ten minutes of math, then give up and do ten minutes of freshman comp, then back to the math. That’s a recipe for guaranteed confusion.

3. Don’t count busywork as studying.
Some students do a lot of preparing or getting organized for studying, but they never get down to doing the actual studying. Don’t give yourself credit for studying when you’re actually just cleaning your desk, getting together the readings, or reorganizing the files on your laptop.

4. Don’t start with the no-brainers.
Some students think that starting with the easiest tasks—or the ones they’re best at—will “ease them into” the material. Trouble is, when you get to the harder tasks, you still have the leap to make—and you’re more tired, too. Suggestion: start with the hardest or most challenging task, then ease into the easier ones.

5. Don’t discard the clues.
Many professors give study questions, or at least say in class or on the syllabus what will be most important in the reading. Be sure to consider these all-important (and time-saving) suggestions before you start studying. If yours is a class with math problems or proofs, be sure to consult the problems done in lecture or section before taking off on the new ones. Often the homework problems are variants or extensions of the work already done.

6. Don’t just memorize.
It’s useless to just shovel stuff into your mind that you don’t understand. If you really are understanding what you’re studying, you ought to able to explain the main ideas, in your own words, to someone who hasn’t done the studying. Take the time to think about and digest what you’re studying, instead of just preparing to parrot it back on some upcoming exam.

7. Don’t microfocus.
Some students think the best studying is slow studying: reading every word, one by one; writing every word of the paper, one by one; preparing a presentation, one word at a time. But like any cognitive activity, studying is a process that takes place over time and gains strength by building up speed. If you focus too narrowly on the individual elements of what you’re doing, you suck the life out of the learning and disrupt the intellectual growth that’s possible, even in studying.

8. Adjust your attention span.
You’re used to getting your content in 140-character units, in twenty-second bursts, or with lots of video to go with it. But college is not Twitter, YouTube, or Hulu. When studying in college, sustained attention is needed. Learn to focus—without breaks and without additional stimulation—for fifteen- to twentyminute units. Look, we know it’s hard to reprogram your brain. But doing so will prevent your having to start focusing again—and overcoming your resistance—fifty times an hour.

9. Don’t count “study” time as study time.
Some students keep three windows open while they read their e-textbook: one for the book, another for Facebook, and the third for Twitter (Windows 7 makes this easy). And then they flit back and forth from screen to screen, counting all the time as study time. When you’re counting up your study time, count only the time you actually engaged with the material (not just the time you sat at your study place). If you can’t do this honestly in your head, write it down. The pencil never lies.

10. Don’t count a “study” group as a study group.
Many classes have required or optional study groups in which you get together with other students from the same course to go over the material. If you’re participating in one of these, make sure you and your friends are actually studying the material, not just each other. If for whatever reason you’re not studying the material, have a nice time—just don’t count the time as study time.

11. Don’t be too hard on yourself.
Many students set elaborate study schedules—nothing wrong with that—and then beat themselves up when things don’t go according to plan—not such a hot idea. Maybe some task took longer than anticipated, maybe some additional materials were needed to complete the task, or maybe you were just tired or distracted that day. Don’t be too hard on yourself when you haven’t stuck 100 percent to your plan. Keep in mind that you’ll have many study sessions and that remaining in a positive mood about your schoolwork is much more important than how any one study session—or indeed series of sessions—goes.

12. Don’t go it alone.
If in spite of your very best efforts you find yourself spending enormous amounts of time preparing for one class or are always hopelessly behind in your studying for that class, go see the prof or TA. They’ve had loads of experience with students just like you, and they can make practical suggestions about how you can get on the right track. (For some tips on how to approach the professor.

13. Never blow off two days in a row.
Though nobody quite tells you this, you’re supposed to be studying every day of the week at college. If each professor expects you to be preparing a couple of hours for each lecture hour, and if you’re taking fifteen hours of lecture a week, you’re supposed to be preparing thirty hours a week. Hard to fit thirty hours of studying in only three days a week, especially if you have lectures on those days.

14. Don’t cheat yourself.
To get the true value out of college, you’ll have to be doing a lot of work on your own. If you don’t study—or if you don’t study well—you’re only cheating yourself. Why do that?

Source: THE Secrets of Professor’s Guide: College Success . Author: Lynn F. Jacobs and Jeremy S. Hyman

The Mind Is Not Designed for Thinking

2011-03-31T01:16:00.005-07:00

The Mind Is Not Designed for Thinking

What is the essence of being human? What sets us apart from other species? Many people would answer that it is our ability to reason — birds fly, fish swim, and humans think. (By thinking I mean solving problems, reasoning, reading something complex, or doing any mental work that requires some effort.)

Shakespeare extolled our cognitive ability in Hamlet : “ What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! ” Some three hundred years later, however, Henry Ford more cynically observed, “ Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable reason why so few people engage in it. ” * They both had a point.

Humans are good at certain types of reasoning, particularly in comparison to other animals, but we exercise those abilities infrequently. A cognitive scientist would add another observation: Humans don ’ t think very often because our brains are designed not for thought but for the avoidance of thought.

Thinking is not only effortful, as Ford noted, it ’ s also slow and unreliable. Your brain serves many purposes, and thinking is not the one it serves best. Your brain also supports the ability to see and to move, for example, and these functions operate much more efficiently and reliably than your ability to think.

It ’ s no accident that most of your brain ’ s real estate is devoted to these activities. The extra brain power is needed because seeing is actually more difficult than playing chess or solving calculus problems.

You can appreciate the power of your visual system by comparing human abilities to those of computers. When it comes to math, science, and other traditional “ thinking ” tasks, machines beat people, no contest. Five dollars will get you a calculator that can perform simple calculations faster and more accurately than any human can. With fifty dollars you can buy chess software that can defeat more than 99 percent of the world ’ s population.

But the most powerful computer on the planet can ’ t drive a truck. That ’ s because computers can ’ t see, especially not in complex, ever - changing environments like the one you face every time you drive. Robots are similarly limited in how they move. Humans are excellent at configuring our bodies as needed for tasks, even if the configuration is unusual, such as when you twist your torso and contort your arm in an effort to dust behind books on a shelf.

Robots are not very good at figuring out novel ways to move, so they are useful mostly for repetitive work such as spray painting automotive parts, for which the required movements are always the same. Tasks that you take for granted — for example, walking on a rocky shore where the footing is uncertain—are much more diffi cult than playing top - level chess. No computer can do it.
Compared to your ability to see and move, thinking is slow, effortful, and uncertain. To get a feel for why I say this, try solving this problem:

In an empty room are a candle, some matches, and a box of tacks. The goal is to have the lit candle about five feet off the ground. You’ve tried melting some of the wax on the bottom of the candle and sticking it to the wall, but that wasn’t effective. How can you get the lit candle five feet off the ground without having to hold it there?1

Twenty minutes is the usual maximum time allowed, and few people are able to solve it by then, although once you hear the answer you will realize it ’ s not especially tricky. You dump the tacks out of the box, tack the box to the wall, and use it as a platform for the candle.

This problem illustrates three properties of thinking. First, thinking is slow. Your visual system instantly takes in a complex scene. When you enter a friend ’ s backyard you don ’ t think to yourself, “ Hmmm, there ’ s some green stuff. Probably grass, but it could be some other ground cover — and what ’ s that rough brown object sticking up there? A fence, perhaps? ”

You take in the whole scene — lawn, fence, flowerbeds, gazebo — at a glance. Your thinking system does not instantly calculate the answer to a problem the way your visual system immediately takes in a visual scene. Second, thinking is effortful; you don ’ t have to try to see, but thinking takes concentration. You can perform other tasks while you are seeing, but you can ’ t think about something else while you are working on a problem. Finally, thinking is uncertain .

Your visual system seldom makes mistakes, and when it does you usually think you see something similar to what is actually out there — you ’ re close, if not exactly right. Your thinking system might not even get you close; your solution to a problem may be far from correct. In fact, your thinking system may not produce an answer at all, which is what happens to most people when they try to solve the candle problem.

If we ’ re all so bad at thinking, how does anyone get through the day? How do we find our way to work or spot a bargain at the grocery store? How does a teacher make the hundreds of decisions necessary to get through her day? The answer is that when we can get away with it, we don ’ t think. Instead we rely on memory. Most of the problems we face are ones we ’ ve solved before, so we just do what we ’ ve done in the past. For example, suppose that next week a friend gives you the candle problem.

You immediately say, “ Oh, right. I ’ ve heard this one. You tack the box to the wall. ” Just as your visual system takes in a scene and, without any effort on your part, tells you what is in the environment, so too your memory system immediately and effortlessly recognizes that you ’ ve heard the problem before and provides the answer. You may think you have a terrible memory, and it ’ s true that your memory system is not as reliable as your visual or movement system — sometimes you forget, sometimes you think you remember when you don ’ t — but your memory system is much more reliable than your thinking system, and it provides answers quickly and with little effort.

We normally think of memory as storing personal events (memories of my wedding) and facts (George Washington was the first president of the United States). Our memory also stores strategies to guide what we should do: where to turn when driving home, how to handle a minor dispute when monitoring recess, what to do when a pot on the stove starts to boil over.

For the vast majority of decisions we make, we don ’ t stop to consider what we might do, reason about it, anticipate possible consequences, and so on. For example, when I decide to make spaghetti for dinner, I don ’ t pore over my cookbooks, weighing each recipe for taste, nutritional value, ease of preparation, cost of ingredients, visual appeal, and so on — I just make spaghetti sauce the way I usually do.

As two psychologists put it, “ Most of the time what we do is what we do most of the time. ” 2 When you feel as though you are “ on autopilot, ” even if you ’ re doing something rather complex, such as driving home from school, it ’ s because you are using memory to guide your behavior. Using memory doesn ’ t require much of your attention, so you are free to daydream, even as you ’ re stopping at red lights, passing cars, watching for pedestrians, and so on.

Of course you could make each decision with care and thought. When someone encourages you to “ think outside the box ” that ’ s usually what he means — don ’ t go on autopilot, don ’ t do what you (or others) have always done. Consider what life would be like if you always strove to think outside the box. Suppose you approached every task afresh and tried to see all of its possibilities, even daily tasks like chopping an onion, entering your office building, or buying a soft drink at lunch. The novelty might be fun for a while, but life would soon be exhausting.

You may have experienced something similar when traveling, especially if you ’ ve traveled where you don ’ t speak the local language. Everything is unfamiliar and even trivial actions demand lots of thought. For example, buying a soda from a vendor requires figuring out the flavors from the exotic packaging, trying to communicate with the vendor, working through which coin or bill to use, and so on. That ’ s one reason that traveling is so tiring: all of the trivial actions that at home could be made on autopilot require your full attention.

So far I ’ ve described two ways in which your brain is set up to save you from having to think. First, some of the most important functions (for example, vision and movement) don ’ t require thought: you don ’ t have to reason about what you see; you just immediately know what ’ s out in the world. Second, you are biased to use memory to guide your actions rather than to think.

But your brain doesn ’ t leave it there; it is capable of changing in order to save you from having to think. If you repeat the same thought - demanding task again and again, it will eventually become automatic; your brain will change so that you can complete the task without thinking about it.

You can probably recall that learning to drive a car was mentally very demanding. I remember focusing on how hard to depress the accelerator, when and how to apply the brake as I approached a red light, how far to turn the steering wheel to execute a turn, when to check my mirrors, and so forth. I didn ’ t even listen to the radio while I drove, for fear of being distracted.

With practice, however, the process of driving became automatic, and now I don ’ t need to think about those small - scale bits of driving any more than I need to think about how to walk. I can drive while simultaneously chatting with friends, gesturing with one hand, and eating French fries — an impressive cognitive feat, if not very attractive to watch. Thus a task that initially takes a great deal of thought becomes, with practice, a task that requires little or no thought.

The implications for education sound rather grim. If people are bad at thinking and try to avoid it, what does that say about students ’ attitudes toward school? Fortunately, the story doesn ’ t end with people stubbornly refusing to think.

Despite the fact that we ’ re not that good at it, we actually like to think. We are naturally curious, and we look for opportunities to engage in certain types of thought. But because thinking is so hard, the conditions have to be right for this curiosity to thrive, or we quit thinking rather readily. The next section explains when we like to think and when we don ’ t.

Souce: Why don’t students like school?: a cognitive scientist answers questions about how the mind works and what it means for your classroom by Daniel T. Willingham, 2009.

The Temptation of Activity-Driven Lessons

2011-03-31T01:15:00.000-07:00

The Temptation of Activity-Driven Lessons

The logic of starting the planning process by determining where you are headed seems compelling enough. And yet virtually all of the teachers we work with, including those whose students demonstrate dramatic academic growth, attest to the easy temptation to skip past end visions, learning standards, and assessment design and slip into planning that is not driven by student outcomes but is instead governed by what a teacher wants to do.

One of many testaments to the dangers of not starting with a clear vision came from Emma Doggett, an eighth-grade U.S. History teacher in the Rio Grande Valley. For one lesson, her objective was that “students will be able to compare and contrast the British and colonial armies.” Her planning, however, was commandeered by her attraction to an activity that would be fun, and she lost sight of the need to drive home that objective.

She recalls creating an elaborate game of dodge ball in which one team used strategies employed by British troops and the other used techniques employed by the colonial armies during the Revolutionary War. Although the students had tons of fun, she never guided and debriefed students’ understanding of what the game represented. Her experience reveals both the appeal and the shortcomings of planning from an activity-driven (instead of vision-driven) perspective:

The British “army” was required to stand still, illustrating the strict formation of the British troops during the war and the advantage that the colonists had as they used guerrilla tactics to their advantage. After an incredibly fun day of running around outside bouncing balls off each other, I was convinced my students had mastered this objective through such a kinesthetic analogy. Four weeks later, however, as we reviewed for the exam, I asked my class to complete a Venn diagram representing the similarities and differences between the armies. I was shocked when I discovered that in almost every diagram were the words “the British soldiers could not move their arms.”

The lesson Ms. Doggett learned on that particular day was much more meaningful (and accurate) than the lesson her students learned. Afterward Ms. Doggett forced herself to articulate a “big question of the day” for every lesson—a question that helped keep her eye on the purpose of the lesson, even if she was infusing fun methods into the learning. She recalls, “I then planned backward from this question to develop a lesson that drove toward understanding.

When my class was objective driven, my students became engaged in the lessons because of the value of what we were learning rather than because of the props, games, and fun involved.”

Activity-driven lessons can take many forms. Perhaps the teacher has a personal preference for lecture, or thinks an activity will engage the students, or saw another teacher use an instructional strategy and wants to try it out. All of those factors may be legitimate considerations, but they all must be secondary to choosing methods that most effectively reach the outcome the teacher wants for the students. As Wiggins and McTighe explain:

Many teachers begin with and remain focused on textbooks, favored lessons, and time honored activities—the inputs—rather than deriving those means from what is implied in the desired results—the outputs. To put it in an odd way, too many teachers focus on the teaching and not the learning. They spend most of their time thinking, first, about what they will do, what materials they will use, and what they will ask students to do rather than first considering what the learner will need in order to accomplish the learning goals.

Like Ms. Doggett with her British soldiers who could not move their arms, all teachers are susceptible to the draw of activity-driven planning, whereby lessons or units are designed around some engaging activity rather than designed toward a key learning objective. As teachers, we have all found ourselves wondering, “What would be really engaging and exciting for the kids?” It is, in fact, a hugely important question: student learning can and should be engaging and exciting, but a fun activity cannot trump but must cause student learning. One of Ms. Doggett’s colleagues, Seth Cohen, recalled:

Before coming to my own realization about this concept, I remember struggling over my lesson plans for hours to devise whatever new and exciting activity we were going to be doing in class, and hoping that those activities would get at whatever objectives I needed to teach. It is not that the activities were devoid of objectives, but that the objectives were an afterthought. That time and energy could have been put to much better use had I started not with how we were going to get somewhere, but where we needed to get to in the first place. Once I began planning with the end in mind, I recognized that if I knew where I needed my students to be at the end of a lesson, week, or unit, then I could purposefully craft my lessons to reach those outcomes.

When you are planning purposefully, you are beginning at the end, starting with a vision of the knowledge, behavior, habits, skills, or actions you want students to demonstrate at some point in the future. In the words of Wiggins and McTighe, “Only by having specified the desired results can we focus on the content, methods, and activities most likely to achieve those results.” In a nutshell, highly effective classroom leaders do not first ask themselves, “What should I do?” but instead ask themselves, “What must students learn?”

Source: TEACHING AS LEADERSHIP-The Highly Effective Teacher’s—Guide to Closing the Achievement, by STEVEN FARR, 2010.

Transfer Tips—from Community College to 4-Year College

2011-03-31T01:13:00.001-07:00

Transfer Tips—from Community College to 4-Year College

1. Complete your associate’s degree.
National research shows that community college students who finish their degree program go on to complete their baccalaureate at a much higher rate than those who transfer with just a grab bag of credits.

2. Shop around.
Examine all of the options available to you as a transfer student. Consider both public and private four-year institutions to decide which will be the best fit for you. The four-year institution that you had your heart set on in high school may not ultimately be the best choice for the subject you want to pursue.

3. Plan ahead.
The earlier you begin to prepare for transfer, the better. Visit your top choices, collect transfer materials, and find out if there are any transfer agreements between where you are and where you want to go. The more information you have, the easier it will be to make a decision.

4. Know which courses actually transfer.
Make sure you are picking courses that are transferable to colleges and universities. There are Web sites, tools, and advisers at both community colleges and universities to help you choose wisely.

5. Don’t be shy.
Meet regularly with advisers at the community college. Keep your adviser informed of your transfer plans, and as transfer approaches, set a time to meet with an adviser at your target institution. If you try to navigate this process without the help of advisers, you may not be able to maximize your community college courses.

6. Choose a major.
Pick your major early, and seek advice about the best courses to take to meet requirements. By choosing your major early, you can take the prerequisites that you need for that program at the university. Well-planned course taking will help you finish your transfer program more efficiently, saving you time and money in the long run.

7. Get admitted.
Make sure you apply to both the institution and the program you want to attend at that institution. If you get admitted to the university, it often does not mean you are admitted to the specific program you want to study, such as engineering or nursing. The deadlines for the university admissions materials and the program admissions materials may be different. Do your research!

8. Make them show you the money.
Be sure to fill out the Free Application for Student Aid (FAFSA) at www.fafs a.ed.gov. Call the university admissions office to see if they have scholarships set aside for transfer students—many institutions do. Make sure you meet all of the deadlines for financial aid. Otherwise you may miss out on assistance that is available to you.

9. Attend orientation.
You may think you do not need this because you already are a college student. But navigating the university is different. Take advantage of the opportunities the university has created for transfer students. These orientations will help ease the transfer process.

10. Stay focused.
This one is easy to forget. Whether it’s your associate’s or bachelor’s degree, finishing on time is not easy. But it can be done if you are focused and work hard. Keep your goal in mind, even when you’re working in your hardest class, which you don’t much like. It will all pay off.

Source: THE Secrets of Professor’s Guide: College Success . Author: Lynn F. Jacobs and Jeremy S. Hyman

Thinking About Grad School? The 10-Step Program

2011-03-31T01:12:00.001-07:00

Thinking About Grad School? The 10-Step Program

1. Don’t fixate too early.
There’s no point making a decision about whether to go to graduate school until you’ve finished about half of the courses in your major—especially the upper-division or advanced courses. Only then can you see if you like the field enough to devote yourself full-time to working in it. And if you’re good enough in it to make it your profession.

2. Get the tools.
Many graduate programs expect you to have certain skills by the end of your undergraduate career—perhaps the ability to read in one or more foreign languages, proficiency in statistics, or competence in some particular sciences. Make sure you know what’s needed for your field and that you’ve taken the courses—even if not required for the undergraduate major—that furnish the relevant skills. Otherwise you might have trouble getting into grad school in the first place, or have to play catch-up once you get there.

3. Don’t overload with one professor.
It’s tempting to take four or five courses with one prof, especially if you like him or her and are getting good grades in his or her courses. But there’s a pitfall: exposure to too few points of view might stifle your development in the field and hamper your ability to get three expert letters of recommendation to apply for graduate school. Cast your net too narrowly and you’ll come up short, come application time.

4. Take the professional-level courses in the department.
Focus on the harder courses and be sure not to skip the junior seminar, senior colloquium, or undergraduate thesis. This is where you can distinguish yourself as a serious player in the field, at least among the undergrads. Just what you need to do to position yourself for grad school.

5. Try before you buy.
If you can, as a senior take a graduate course (especially if there’s one in the subfield in which you are interested). Or do an internship or join a research project with a faculty member in your area of interest. That way you’ll get a taste of graduate school or graduate-level projects—all the while building up those relationships that are going to net you those stellar letters of recommendation.

6. Get at least 600s on your GRE s.
Some universities won’t even consider you for admittance to the graduate school if your GRE scores are below 600. For top grad schools, 700 is often the floor.

7. Get three bang-up letters of recommendation.
Grad schools pay lots of attention to both what the letters of recommendation say and whom they are from. Good letters come from tenured faculty in the field who have a national reputation, who have given you an A, and who can talk about you and your work in detail. Less good letters are ones written by someone whom no one in the field has ever heard of; from faculty in fields other than your major (unless you’re going into a joint graduate program); from TAs (rather than professors); and, worst of all, from family members, your minister, or your Facebook friends (who would read those?).

8. Give a great sample.
Many graduate schools ask you to provide a writing sample, and the sample can be critical after the first cut in the admissions process. Be sure to submit a strong sample—one that has a topic, methodology, and quality of argumentation and writing that demonstrates your readiness for graduate-level work. And pay special attention to the suggested length. A school that expects a twenty-page journal-sized article will not be happy to receive your hundred-page senior thesis. (Conversely, a school that’s looking for a substantial piece of work won’t be bowled over by your four- or six-page short paper.) If in doubt, ask your adviser what’s expected.

9. Write a killer personal statement.
The personal statement you submit should focus on the one or two projects you’d like to pursue once you get into graduate school. Be sure to include evidence that you can actually do the project(s)—that is, that you have the intellectual tools and the background necessary for carrying out what you’re proposing (there’s no point bluffing or blowing smoke). Your personal statement is meant to be an intellectual plan—not a general autobiography, your musings about the state of the field, or a testimonial about how much you love the field. At least not if you hope to get into graduate school.

10. Don’t romanticize grad school.
There’s lots of drudge work and many courses to be taken in all aspects of the field you’re going to be studying. If you’re going to grad school in psychology, for instance, don’t assume that every course will be probing the minds of death row inmates or improving your parenting skills. And keep in mind that grad school is a long haul. Four to ten of years of your life could be a big bite if you think that economics might be kind a fun so that you can figure out whether the stock market will be hitting 14,000 again in your lifetime. Make sure grad school is really for you—and you know what it really involves—before you send in that application.

Source: THE Secrets of Professor’s Guide: College Success . Author: Lynn F. Jacobs and Jeremy S. Hyman

Warning! Bad Professor Ahead- Surefire Signs That Your Prof’s A Dud

2011-03-31T01:11:00.000-07:00

Warning! Bad Professor Ahead- Surefire Signs That Your Prof’s A Dud—And That You should get out while there’s still time:

1. The professor is deadly boring.
Even in the very first classes, you can tell when it’s a struggle to stay minimally conscious for the whole lecture. If you’re bored to tears and need to text message nonstop, down a six-pack of Red Bull, or pinch yourself—hard—just to stay awake, you know something’s not right here. (Hint: it’s the professor.)

2. The professor is bummed out.
If a professor comes in on the first day of classes already grumbling about how much he or she hates teaching this course, how much he or she would like to be teaching at a better college, or how teaching is a waste of his or her time (because research is where it’s at), don’t expect things to get any better as the course progresses. Rule of thumb: bummed out to start gets more and more bummed out as the weeks drag on.

3. The professor is condescending, combative, or full of him- or herself.
Do you really want a professor who treats you like a fiveyear-old? Or thinks that students are the enemy, to be defeated in the pitched battle that is the course? Or that he or she is God’s gift to student kind? Probably not.

4. The professor shows favoritism.
Maybe he or she doesn’t like students who have experience in the field (since they’ve already been corrupted or learned bad habits) or prefers majors or upperclasspeople (even though the course has no prerequisites). Or perhaps the professor has a cadre of students who keep taking his or her courses, so there’s an in-crowd and an out-crowd before the class even starts. Since college courses aren’t rock concerts, groupies shouldn’t be part of the scene.

5. The professor doesn’t give out a syllabus—or gives out a oneparagraph syllabus that is just the course description from the Web.
Some professors say they want to let the course evolve, making careful adjustments based on the pace of the lectures, the speed at which students are doing the work, or the general ebb and flow of the semester. Right. More likely is that the professor who doesn’t distribute a detailed syllabus doesn’t actually know what he or she is going to be doing in the class this semester. Students in this course could well be buying a pig in a poke, which, of course, is not recommended.

6. The professor isn’t clear about the requirements and how much they count.
Professors who don’t have a clear and easily expressible idea about how the grading will be handled can wind up springing all sorts of wacky systems or inconsistent grading schemes on the students as the semester progresses. Often students in this sort of class never know how they’re doing during the semester and experience unpleasant surprises at the end.

7. The professor has incredibly petty rules.
Bail out if you encounter a syllabus with page upon page of rules dealing with everything from the use of cell phones to whether you can wear caps to an exam; how to address the professor and when to ask questions; when you can enter the room and when you can leave; policies about eating, drinking, and using the bathroom; twenty-five acceptable reasons for an extension and fifty-three unacceptable reasons; grade penalties for lateness timed to the half hour, and so on. Sure, some rules are required by the school (due dates, grading policy, and, in cold climes, even snow policy), but the prof’s supposed to be teaching a course, not rewriting the health care system.

8. The professor can’t fill the whole class period.
Lots of professors hold a short class the first day of classes: they introduce themselves, go over the syllabus, and call it a day. But if class is let out early the whole first week, you can be pretty sure that the professor is either inexperienced, a bad planner, or, worst of all, doesn’t really give a damn about the course. Sure, you’d like to blow it off early every day. But why cheat yourself out of the education you’ve paid for?

9. The professor seems unsure about the material.
Professors who present their lectures in a halting or tentative way could well be professors who aren’t on top of the course content. You might think that colleges would only hire people who really know the material backward and forward, but you’d be wrong. It’s not at all uncommon for faculty to be saddled with a course in which they have no expertise. Why should you be saddled with it too, when you’ve got a choice?

10. The professor presents the material in a confused or obscure way.
If your professor’s lectures wander aimlessly through lots of unrelated details—or if the professor seems to be just dumping everything he or she knows about the topic without making any of it clear or understandable—something is definitely wrong. Like that the professor isn’t able to explain the stuff in a way the students can understand—or, in street language, that he or she can’t teach.

11. The professor uses the class as a political platform.
Even if the class is a political science or government course, the professor should not be using the lecture to spout off on his or her own political views. If your prof wants to be a politico, let him or her go on O’Reilly or Olbermann.

12. The professor never involves the students.
If a professor attends only to his or her notes and never even looks at the students—or never pauses to accept or invite questions—it’s not a good thing. A good class is a dynamical class, and a good professor engages with the students.

13. The professor has no passion for the subject.
If the professor is just slogging through the material with no apparent enthusiasm for anything he or she has to say—well, how are you supposed to get excited (or even at all interested) in what’s about to go on? Find a prof who’s engaged with his or her material—and with teaching it to you.

Source: THE Secrets of Professor’s Guide: College Success . Author: Lynn F. Jacobs and Jeremy S. Hyman