Re: Solving Homework in Pairs

Hi!

Sorry for the late response.

On Monday 04 June 2007, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2007, Shlomi Fish wrote about "Re: [hackers-il] Solving 
Homework in Pairs":
> > P.S: and just for the record - I still think I'm right when claiming it
> > is a better idea to allow working in pairs. I find that Nadav has still
> > avoided refuting my reasons.
>
> Ok, let's make one last attempt, even though I think I already answered
> you.
>
> First, let's assume that you mean really "working in pairs" (because the
> more common requirement is "handing in pairs" and nobody checks how you
> worked).
>
> The reason one studies for a degree is, in my opinion, three-fold. ONE is
> to learn material. TWO is to get experience in solving difficult problems
> in your field (not necessarily the mundane problems you'll be asked to
> solve in your first year on the job - a university is not a vocational
> school). THREE is to "get on the same page" as the peers you'll be spending
> your professional life with - learn how they think, how they talk, how they
> cooperate, and so on.
>

I think reason #1 (repharsed a bit) - to get knowlege is the most important 
one, followed by #2. Usually, #2 is seen as means to understand and integrate 
this knowledge.

> Issue #3 - learning how to cooperate with your peers in your professional
> domain - is indeed important. You want future scientists and engineers to
> be able to talk to others using terms they understand, to work together,
> and so on. But how much emphasis should be given to this issue, vs. the
> other two (material and problem solving)? I believe that more emphasis
> should be given to the material and problem-solving skills, because of
> several reasons: these are wider and deeper areas than cooperation skills,
> they are harder and less natural for the typical student, and they are
> things a typical student would not be able to learn "on the job".

Right.

> So my belief is that a university should spend some time on issue #3 - it
> *should* teach terminology, nomenclemature and methodology that make it
> easy for researchers in its field to cooperate, and it should give the
> students some practical experience in cooperating - in the form of some
> pair-work courses, some cooperative project, or whatever. But it is my
> belief that the university should NOT turn each and every course into an
> exercise of cooperation. The reason there are a few dozen courses in a
> degree is because there are a few dozen subjects that need to be learned -
> not because cooperation has to be exercised a few dozen times.

What I said[1] (and you keep avoiding addressing) is that since the final exam 
is the lion's share of the grade, then a student who completely relied on his 
partner to prepare his exercises for him (and didn't otherwise study the 
material on his own) will likely fail the course. (Assuming the test is not 
fair, and other factors like that).

{{{
[1] - Point #1 in:

http://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/computers/education/opinion-on-the-technion/#why_pair_wise
}}}

So making the course pair wise, cannot cause a student to pass, because he 
relied on his partner to do his work his him, and thus get an undeserved 
grade.

>
> And I mentioned that when cooperation (pair work) is encouraged, care must
> be taken not to let it run wild. If students can finish an entire course
> not doing anything while their friend (or 5 friends, in the absurd example
> I mentioned in my last mail) do their work for them, it is simply not fair.
> This isn't a big problem when there are just a few courses like that
> (especially when in the Technion's undergraduate courses, there is normally
> a test in the end and that isn't done in pairs at all), 

Exactly. I wasn't talking about a course whose score is 100% dependent on pair 
work. By all means, a solitary test, on which most of the grade is based, is 
a good idea.

> but if you "run 
> wild" with the pair work idea, and every course is done completely in
> pairs, someone could concievably finish a degree without ever doing a
> thing, and without even violating any law (someone who buys solutions also
> can finish a degree without ever doing a thing - but at least this is
> considered illegal).



>
> I hope now you'll find that I answered your reasons. You don't have to
> agree with what I said, though ;-) Like I said, we can agree to disagree on
> this subject.

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish      shlomif-ik1l9ssToec+JF/[email protected]
Homepage:        http://www.shlomifish.org/

If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying
one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer.
    -- An Israeli Linuxer


 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hackers-il/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hackers-il/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[email protected] 
    mailto:[email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/