Alex,
Many thanks for this. There is much I agree with and some things that as you said we have agreed to disagree on in the past. A few comments though starting with language:
1) To contextualise English teaching by Finns - there is one half of one course that is taught by a Finnish lecturer in English and the other half of the course is taught by me and a) the course is supposed to link in with English for Biochemists I and b) there are often non-Finns in the student body. Tuomo cannot be expected to have the material prepared in Finnish and in English. Since most/all years we have had non-Finns present and the supposed link with English I the language has to be English.
2) You say "it is necessary to have courses in english and start early with these courses in the program" but that "forcing the english so early in the studies it is an effective means of chasing away interested students". What are you views then on when it should start?
3) I agree with your comments about students in the old system by the time they did their Pro Gradu their English standards were appropriate, but see also my previous comments about the shock of the 1st course in English in the old system. I would also add that the standard of English (and Finnish communication about science) of the current 3rd year students is much higher on average than that of 3rd year students in the old system (but then we have specific courses on communication).
4) We have one other thorny issue that I know will upset some people to think about - if we carry on with the policy of only allowing senior staff to lecture (which gets rid of lots of problems we used to have - though creates others) - we do not have enough senior staff who can teach in Finnish to cover all of the basics. Furthermore if we keep to the policy we stated earlier of recruiting the best people regardless of nationality this problem may get worse (or it may get better). If Biomolecules gets taught in Finnish then the 1st course the students will have in English will be Physical Biochemistry I and that will be an even bigger shock to their system (no offence meant Andre, but thermodynamics and English all in one)
5) If a student has weak English and sees me I am happy to go through things with them. One year I spent one hour per lecture going through the material again with respect to langauge issues with one individual student. One thought discussed before is a tutorial system that aids teaching. Uli offered to do this for chemistry courses, other people used to have sessions where no students turned up. If we can get some other issues sorted out I am happy to do this for Biomolecules i.e. 1 hour per week specifically timetabled to discuss issues (including lanaguge) connected with the course.
6) There was a grand plan of helping the students by integration of language courses with other courses. I think it has worked very well for English II and Swedish I. It has not worked at all for English I, with only 1 tiny part of the integration remaining (the practice for the debate). I think English I has to be biochemistry orientated and has to be 1st year (to cope with reading textbooks in English and practicing oral and aural skills), but this means that to work properly it has to be integrated with a biocehmistry course taught in English that runs in parallel....
Your other issues:
1) I agree we need to get the group size down for Biomolecules practicals - this was just a limitation of how many demonstrators we had available during the phase in.
2) We have agreed to disagree on whether practical classes should be evaluated in the sense of counting towards the mark for their class and we shouldn't go through those arguments again (unless somebody else wants to), but I will say that no demonstrator on any of my courses spends more time evaluating students than teaching them. They spend no time on evaluation, I mark all the reports. Also I do not require the "old-system" standard report, which as many of you know I think is a waste of time for students, staff and demonstrators on most courses (it has a function on Methods I). I aim to test understanding and to try and reinforce what is taught on the "lecture" part of the course through comprehension and data analysis questions.
3) In the 2nd year course methods II students are characterizing and analysing the data for a previously uncharacterized mutant protein (with each student ideally have a unique mutant, though in practice there are something like 10 variants in the class of 15 this year). Students do most equipment individually and are then supposed to combine results for the report. It is VERY demonstrator intensive (15 x half days with each student individually on the stopped-flow, CD, fluorometer, quenched-flow, micro-calorimeter and BIACORE). At least some of the results they get are novel, to the extent that one mutant this year we want to do some major follow up work on because it behaves SO unexpectedly. The new integration into research group course should also help from the 4th year. Also I take on 2-5 summer students every year all of whom are 1st or 2nd year students and Andre has several undergraduate students very firmly embedded in his group doing research. There are lots of possibilities.
Finally the microsymposium idea sounds good - but the implementation relates to the question I posed earlier to 1st year students - any answers from you yet?
VBW,
Lloyd
-----Original Message----- From: bklist-bounces@lists.oulu.fi [mailto:bklist-bounces@lists.oulu.fi] On Behalf Of Alexander Kastaniotis Sent: 14. toukokuuta 2008 11:53 To: Tuomo.Glumoff@oulu.fi; Tuomo Glumoff Cc: histoni@paju.oulu.fi; bklist@lists.oulu.fi Subject: RE: [Bklist] more about feedback
Hello all,
here's my contribution to the discussion:
1) on the matter of courses in english vs. courses in finnish.
Lloyd is correct in stating that english is THE science language of our time, and our students have to be able to communicate clearly in this language. Therefore, it is necessary to have courses in english and start early with these courses in the program
However, I find it unnecessary (if not absurd) to have courses by finnish lecturers held to finnish students in english. The point has been made by several people that the students have to be able to speak about their studies (and later about their reseach) to other finnish speakers. It is one of our task to be able to communicate to the rest of the world (i.e. the public) what we are doing. I strongly believe that forcing the english so early in the studies it is an effective means of chasing away interested students; also please consider that it is not uncommon that mathematically gifted people have less of a gift for language - do we want to chase these away?
Students can witness the communication in english by fins in our department every day, which is the best in terms of function as role models.
A slow build-up of english skills rather than a first semester shock treatment is more appropriate in my opinion
The overall level of english in this department is very good; certainly compared to Universities in other, bigger (in terms of populations) European countries. I have not met a single student form the old system that was not able to communicate on an level in english by the time they finished their Pro Gradu. That we have to start earlier in the new B.Sc. program is clear, but there is enough to cope with already in the first semester.
2) I do not think that we have to take it as a law of nature that we will lose a large number of first years to med school. Certainly, if we are able to make the first year exciting and get the students even more interested in the field, we should be able to sway some minds.
Hence, it is VERY important that the first practical course is exciting, and I again strongly suggest that we find ways to have more teachers in that course. Students should be working in small groups of 4-5; with a dedicated assistant that is available to them all the time (barring lunch and coffee breaks) during the course
3) (this is related)I have heard from several assistants that they feel they spend more time evaluating the students than teaching them. I believe this is backwards from how things should be. I know that Lloyd and I disagree on this, but for me excitement and "fun" comes first in the practical courses. People should be in awe of what wondrous experiments we can carry out, what great tools we have to do so, and have the privilege to play with, instead of having to worry about getting evaluated about the outcome of their work at this stage. There is nothing more instructional than making mistakes (and tracking them down and fixing them).
4) This refers to the comment made by a student about nor really knowing what biochemístry really was until he did their Master's thesis research.
Going to schools to advertise for our field is important, but it will not change the fact that people will only start to understand what biochemical research really is when they actually do research on the bench - which has previously meant basically by the time students are well into their pro gradu work. Hence, the sooner we can get students to work on independent projects that mean something (i.e. produce new data) the better. If I understand correctly, the module that is now going to be in place instead of BKII will attempt this.
5) If you read the article Lloyd attached, you'll realize that he simplified the statement there; it says ("omitted" parts of the statement in caps): UNTIL YOU ARE WELL INTO YOUR CAREER, there will be time in your life for just one additional significant activity, but PROBABLY NOT MUCH MORE THAN THAT. So, it's not quite as miserable an existence as it sounded in the email, and there's a light at the end of the tunnel. Also: since my daughter was born, my active social life revolves mostly around my family, so that's two for the price of one :-).
(Excitement revisited: How about a microsymposium for first years, where representatives of the research groups talk about the work done here, with a more of a focus on what amazing things we do here and less on the scientific details)
Best
Alex
Alexander Kastaniotis, Ph.D. Department of Biochemistry and Biocenter Oulu P.O.Box 3000 FIN-90014 University of Oulu Finland Phone: +358-8-5531201 FAX: +358-8-5531141
_______________________________________________ Bklist mailing list Bklist@lists.oulu.fi http://lists.oulu.fi/mailman/listinfo/bklist