1 Teaching and Learning at Undergraduate Level at IIT B A Diagnostic Study Presentation based on...
-
Upload
vincent-sherman -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of 1 Teaching and Learning at Undergraduate Level at IIT B A Diagnostic Study Presentation based on...
1
Teaching and Learning at Undergraduate Level at IIT B
A Diagnostic Study
Presentation based on report prepared byAshish PandeyVirendra Sethi
K Sudhakar
Faculty RetreatGulmohar, IIT Bombay, Mumbai
September 14-15, 2010
2
Background
• Informal discussions where various faculty members shared their concerns over level of motivation, inspiration, ethical standards, subject knowledge, employability of students (UGs in particular)
• No new revelations are expected• Formally capturing ‘what most may
know’ is the motivation
3
Methodology
• List of “Diagnostic Questions”• Sessions with
– Dean AP, Dean FA, (Dean SA)– PiC Placements, ARP, NSS– Student counsellor– Faculty
• Less than 5 years @IITB• More than 15 years @IITB
– Students• 1st and 2nd year• 4th and 5th year• Those who dipped in the performance
4
Key Findings - Faculty
Student Motivation• 60% of students do not demonstrate interest in
academics• Only 10% are highly motivated• 25% to 30% are focused on non-academic
activities• A good %age of students are not even motivated
by placement pullsReasons• Students see a career in non-engineering sector• Failure to create enough interest in core branch
5
Key Findings - Faculty
Student Performance• Most faculty feel ‘knowledge levels of passing out
students is not high enough’• Academic rigor at IITK and IITM is higher• (PGs are more interested in academics)
Reasons• Primary aim of UGs is a degree from IITB• Lack of interest accentuated by large class rooms
with poor infrastructure• Academic accomplishments are not adequately
rewarded
6
Key Findings - Faculty
Ethical Standards• Ethical standards of UG students – all
concur• Copying in assignments, projects• Bloated CVs
Reasons• Ethics nowhere emphasised• Assignments not formulated with clear
learning objectives and time availability
7
Key Findings - Faculty
Generic Issues/Reasons• Increasing class size is a constant
challenge• No explicit incentive for good teaching• Majority of (new) faculty focused on
research and less on teaching• Students are not clear of their objectives
8
Key Suggestions - Faculty
For Students• FacAd role to be rationalized• Message “knowledge is more important than
grades”• Help them set their objectives
For Faculty• Reduced administrative burden on (new) faculty• Faculty mentoring - Structured input to faculty on
pedagogy, course design• Handbook on “How to be a Good Teacher”
9
Key Findings - Students
Academics• First year kills it all : Class room environment not
conducive for interaction. Large class rooms with poor infrastructure
• No linking of ‘what is taught’ to ‘where applications lay’ for an engineer
• Why is ‘, ’ required!• No big picture of curriculum. Why HSS?• Poorly functioning labs, thoughtless experiments,
untrained TAs• Inability to handle freedom• Lack of interest in allotted branch
10
Key Findings - Students
Ethical Standards • Lopsided emphasis on grades
Tentative action points:• Better planned students’ orientation in the
beginning• Making the logic of sequence of the courses clear
in students mind• Better connection between real life challenges and
things being discussed in the class• Structured inputs on personal effectiveness and
leadership
11
Survey at Registration
No of faculty who particpated = 80
0
5
10
15
20
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% Students passionate about acads
No
of f
acu
lty w
ho
th
ink
so
12
Survey at Registration
• Ethical issues need addressing speedilyYes = 84No = 4No comments = 8
• There are things that faculty can do to improve thingsYes = 81No = 5No comments = 10