Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Learning is one thing, teaching another

Today, Alex needed help to guide 40 18-year old students in the Raffles Museum of Biodiversity and Research (RMBR) so he asked me, which I felt I wasn't qualified to do so, but decided to challenge myself.

And I realized, I don't have what I have learnt at the tip of my fingers and they've grown rusty from disused. I realized it was one matter to sit through a series of lectures and examination, and another to apply what I've learnt to a practical setting, such as arousing interest in students and guiding them around a museum, trying to help them appreciate the wonders of biodiversity.

The students were very attentive which I am grateful for, as that meant less worry for me in terms of control of people. Alex later told me they're from the top Chinese school in the South of Malaysia!

Some take home questions...
Can what I learn in theory be applied to the practical? When the situation calls for my knowledge, am I able to retrieve them in sufficient amounts to present them coherently? And do I have enough understanding to explain them precisely? Do I have enough confidence and preparation to promote enthusiastically and interestingly?

As I delve into myself to find words to explain a certain exhibit, I realized, how shallow it is, how I reach and find remnants and leftovers, and not much substantial.

Hmmm... my usage of the Chinese language is another matter, which I should address for my own good.

But being a museum guide might be the training I need.

Especially so, if I still want to work in a museum, whatever type, after graduation.

Oops! I just remembered being a tour guide is one of my dream occupations.

Etymology and Pedra Branca

I was so puzzled after I read Janadas Devan's column On Words on Sunday about the etymology of "sovereignty" and the context in which Malaysia used the word that I emailed him to clarify. He took the time to explain in detail and even cite examples, that I was able to think through what confused me myself. This I am very grateful. So here are my thoughts...

No, you don’t have sovereignty over Tibet. Sovereignty as we understand it today, did not exist at that time, so you cannot use the argument that we have sovereignty over this piece of land.

China’s reasoning is flawed.

So ICJ’s reasoning is flawed. Johor Sultanate did not have the sovereignty over PB.

The context of those times are fixed, we cannot project today’s context back into those days. Those days should have been understood by those days terms.

China has tributary relationships, vassalships, overlordships with many neighbouring states, but they did not have sovereignty over them, these states did not belong to China.

Johor Sultanate did not have sovereignty over PB as according to the terms of those days, to rule over a land, meant ruling over people there, but no one inhabited PB, hence, it was “no man’s land” as Singapore understood it.

Hence Singapore is etymologically correct

Singapore’s argument – PB doesn’t belong to anyone, no one is sovereign over it, until British took lawful possession of it in 1847

M’sia’s argument – PB part of Johor Sultanate

Hence, ICJ is flawed etymologically to support M’sia’s argument that PB is part of Johor Sultanate since 1512

What is etymology?
From Merriam-Webster: The history of a linguistic form (as a word) shown by tracing its development since its earliest recorded occurrence in the language where it is found, by tracing its transmission from one language to another, by analyzing it into its component parts, by identifying its cognates in other languages, or by tracing it and its cognates to a common ancestral form in an ancestral language

The root of the issue is that both country do not agree on the ownership of the land. Malaysia thinks it belongs to the Johor Sultanate, by virtue of its location. Singapore thinks it is no man's land as in those days rulership meant ruling over people, but there were no inhabitants on PB, until British took hold of the island, building Horsburgh Lighthouse on it.

But to me, I am so involved in this case, not for political reasons, but simply because Horsburgh Lighthouse is a historical architecture and gem. It was built by J. T. Thomson (the man we named Thomson Road after) in 1850, recorded in books, served a very practical and important function. This is a functional, important, historic piece of art, set on an island that is a paradise for bird watchers. There can be no better paradise island! For the hermit of course. I guess it will be pretty lonely as a lighthouse keeper.

I would want this lighthouse to be gazetted as a conservation site!

Monday, May 19, 2008

What is a primary publication?

R. A. Day has restated the definition given by the Council of Biology Editors (CBE) into three main points:

A) the first publication of original research results,
B) in a form where peers of the author can repeat the experiments and test the conclusions, and
C) in a journal or other source document readily available within the scientific community.

Some caveats are that there is prepublication peer review and that scientific papers are published in peer-reviewed publications.

Reminds me of the assignment Prof. Sodhi made us to in Behavioural Biology class where we acted both as review scientists and peer reviewers!

Thursday, May 15, 2008

IMRAD

Adapted from R.A. Day 5th edition:

Ask these questions and answer them IMRAD.

What question (problem) was studied? Introduction
How was the problem studied? Methods
What were the findings? Results
What do these findings mean? Discussion

The Need for Clarity in Scientific Writing

State your facts as simply as possible, even boldly. No one wants flowers of eloquence or literary ornaments in a research article. - R. B. McKerrow

The best English is that which gives the sense in the fewest short words. - a dictum printed for some years in the Instructions to Authors of the Journal of Bacteriology

What all budding Scientists must know...

Being a controlling perfectionist, I have a disdain for older editions of books when newer editions are available. I just did not want anything less than the best. But I never full appreciated why newer editions of certain books keep appearing, whilst for others, they stop at edition one.

I finally saw the significance of updating your editions, especially when it's no longer relevant to the current society. I picked up the 5th edition of R. A. Day's "How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper". I blogged about the 1st edition in March. It's amazing but the preface is different and the reason why this 5th edition, published in 1998, is so important is because of the internet age, where online journals are now available, something the previous generation of Scientists never had. :)

I am glad I captured the 1st edition preface.

I found in the preface, what is of utmost importance to all people wanting to be scientists or plan to go into the academia line. It is something I never knew as a child and had the ambition of wanting to go into research.

"The goal of scientific research is publication. Scientists, starting as graduate students, are measured primarily not by their dexterity in laboratory manipulations, not by their innate knowledge of either broad or narrow scientific subjects, and certainly not by their wit or charm; they are measured, and become known (or remain unknown) by their publications.

A scientific experiment, no matter how spectacular the results, is not completed until the results are published. In fact, the cornerstone of the philosophy of science is based on the fundamental assumption that original knowledge must be published; only thus can new scientific knowledge be authenticated and then added to the existing database that we call scientific knowledge."

It overwhelms me sometimes and troubled me in the past. I often heard about how NUS chooses its lecturers based on their research and publications. And how we have not so good lecturers because their teaching is secondary to their research. I don't think this is completely true but I believe there is some truth in it, since Science is about getting things published. Then again, it makes having a lecturer who is both passionate about teaching and research, a rare gem.

It will take a while to get this into my mind. Never in my 12 years of education did I know there was something called primary literature. I always though textbooks was it. I didn't know people wrote textbooks based on all these scientific publications. If I were a teacher in a Secondary school or Junior College, I would tell them and explain to them.

Then again, I might be the frog in the well. I believe my other friends who were attached to some schools doing research know about this.

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Life Sciences Task Force dialogue session afterthoughts

I just attended the Life Sciences Task Force dialogue session to improve the quality of the Life Sciences course.

It's heartwarming to see students and teaching assistants turn up for this. For the students, many were graduating and whatever comments they give, is only for the benefit of future students. The fact that these people turned up to share their views and feelings, show that these people take ownership and feel that they have a personal stake in this course. Equally pleased I am that there is a committee that looks into this, that is eager for feedback, to understand and be understood, in order to ensure future generations of Life Sciences student would stand to benefit greatly from the course.

I have one regret that I was too "excited" I didn't think through carefully what I had said and might have appeared disrespectful to the panel. But that was definitely not my intention, because I am so thankful that such people exist, people who desire to examine the NUS Life Sciences curriculum to make education for its students more meaningful and relevant.

Though the Biology concentration students come with a mindset to increase the Biology orientation of the course, that was not the intention I came with, though slightly. The stronger reason why I came was because I was very upset with the surface approach of learning that had been inadvertently encouraged in the students. This should not be the case for University students. We should not be encouraged to skim through knowledge without thought, and to memorize as much as we can in order to do well for the examinations! We should be encouraged to think and to learn.

It might be linked, whether one applies the deep approach and whether one has interest in the subject. But never should a teacher teach and assess the student in a manner that encourages him or her to lose interest in the subject and to focus only on the grades.

My feelings have been so reinforced after reading the book. I don't know how many students out there are like me. Who have been so blur as to go through their education and end up not becoming someone better. And so blur as to think this was what education was all about! Sitting through lectures, osmosizing knowledge, attempting to re-osmosize it back to the lecturer during the examinations, and then implode or explode, coming away with nothing except the painful experience of cramming for the examinations.

I am dramatizing it, because I feel so strongly for it.

I stop myself from learning every time I make the decision that I am going to choose to study for the grades instead of for the joy of it. Because to do well, you need to study in a manner that compromises deep learning, you limit yourself to what is tested or worse still, what is coming out for the exam (when the teacher hints). This is for assessments that test merely recall or knowledge.

And I have been doing this for many years. I have made that fateful decision many many times. I sacrificed learning for grades. I have learnt nothing much but techniques to scoring well during Secondary School and Junior College.

Back then, I could not see the value. I was too short-sighted. I could only see how attaining good grades garnered me favour and a good reputation. I could not see how it would have negatively affected me for life, impairing my ability to think.

If I could turn back time...

I do not know whether I have the guts or wisdom to go against the system. To learn for the sake of learning instead for the sake of achieving a good grade.

Monday, May 12, 2008

Surface vs Deep learning 2

And how did it end up being so surface?

"...While the approach used determines the level of enjoyment and commitment, interest in the task for its own sake encouraged a student to use a deep approach."

Could this be the link? Why students who choose subject that they like do well? Could it be because they will use the deep approach when they study what they like? Is this why I always perform better for the modules that I enjoy? And is it circular? I will study more and deeper I study, the more I enjoy, the more I enjoy, the deeper I study.

"Real education makes howlers impossible, but this is the least of its advantages. Much more important is the saving of unnecessary strain, the achievement of security and confidence in mind. It is far easier to learn the real subject properly, than to learn the imitation badly. And the real subject is interesting. So long as a subject seems dull, you can be sure you are approaching it from the wrong angle. All discoveries, all great achievements, have been made by men who delighted in their work." (Sawyer 1943:9)

But a caveat is that the approach of learning doesn't correlate with the grades achieved. There is a more direct link between the approach and the quality of learning.

"Many assessment methods do not test understanding..." Students who use the surface approach, can succeed (look it took me all the way to University) and those who use the deep approach might not have the chance to display the full range of their understanding because of the assessment methods used.

Prof. Hugh Tan always talks about how the open book exam test higher order thinking, while closed book tests for recall. And I have always hated recall assessments. I find it a total waste of time. I would rather not use my brain as a memory storage tank since textbooks are so readily available.

"Surface approaches have nothing to do with wisdom and everything to do with aimless accumulation."

Surface vs Deep learning

I still remember the dread, the I-really-don't-want-to-study-this-but-I-know-I-have-to feeling when I was trying to make myself study. I used to pride myself for my discipline, which I managed to train up through distance running, but trying to study something I did not want to study, required way more mental discipline than running when it hurts did.

After some reading of this book, I realized it could be my surface approach of studying that ended me up this way. It served its purpose well in Secondary School, I scraped through Junior College with it, but I could no longer do it in University level. It works well when the content level is low, but when boundless, it cannot work at all.

Attitudes to studying
"... the regularity with which students obliged to use a surface approach to a task, or to an entire course, describe their feelings of resentment, depression and anxiety. In contrast, deep approaches are almost universally associated with a sense of involvement, challenge and achievement, together with feelings of personal fulfilment and pleasure. ... STudents who are taking a deep approach find the material more interesting and easier to understand, and are therefore more likely to spend 'time on task'. But studying using a surface approach is a tedious and unrewarding activity: persisting with this approach leads to procrastination and delay (exactly!)"

"When students appear to be 'unable to study' we should examine their approaches to learning before blaming them for being idle and unmotivated..."

I'm so moved by this passage. I have been a victim of the surface approach of learning for many many years. Sometimes I catch glimpses of the deeper approaches which is very much heavenly. I wish I realized my problem earlier and was more self aware earlier. But thank God, it's still not too late!

Saturday, May 10, 2008

a short evaluation of one of my childhood ambitions

Did you know that as a child, one of my dream job was to be a researcher, work in a laboratory or even work my way up to a lecturer?

I think it was my interest in Science as a child, together with my introverted nature that made me prone towards such an area. I had wanted a job with minimal human contact. I also had interest to educate. I often imagine myself teaching and sharing what knowledge I had with others. To me, a laboratory job would be good because it meant staring at non-living objects. A lecturer job better than a lower level teacher job (SS, JC), as it also meant, I had less need to control a class, which I knew I wouldn't be good at (I have had a problem disciplining people all these while).

I was aware that I wasn't a very bright or talented student all along. I was very aware that while some could score and write fluently without much hard work, for me to do something impressive required me to squeeze every ounce of blood out of me. And to me those people were naturally smart, while I'm a fake smart, meaning I can produce results with a lot of hard work, while they without much hard work can produce results. And no matter how hard I work, I will never reach their standard when they do not work much at all.

My sister was one such example of a naturally smart person. I looked up to her a lot as a very intelligent being. One who produces results while not putting in a lot of work. I attribute that to intelligence, she picks things up easily. Or perhaps she can understand with minimal effort, or catch concepts with just a glance, or capture the knowledge while the teacher teaches and have no need for revision after class.

It was a similar case for my "running ability". A lot of people often boast of my running ability. I have been in school team, I have even completed a marathon. But I am very very aware and clear about my "talent". I do not have talent. If I have talent, it is in training and perseverance. It is definitely not physiological or morphological, but intellectual and emotional advantage.

I am good at reading up running magazines, treating my injuries, taking care of my diet and workouts and running even when it hurts. But I am not one who can run fast without training or with minimal training. And even if I train to my maximum, I am never as good as the naturally talented who train minimally.

What do you call this? Something like the middle class grouping? I am never good enough nor bad enough to be noticed or for someone to place their attention on. I think it is this group of people that could possibly be neglected in the society/education system. We are good, but never good enough. Bad, but never bad enough. We are average, just okay.

As I became a Christian, a whole new whole opened to me. I realized that when I love people, I become less anti-social and more outward-looking. I started to realize I actually enjoy company and interaction with people. So my view towards laboratory work started to change. I started to consider careers such as counselor, tour guide, civil servant etc.

As I entered into University and got the biomedical/cell and molecular/genetics/biochemistry-treatment and experienced "boring" education which is education that does not engaged one's heart or mind, but simply attempted to drill knowledge into the brain, I was no longer able to churn out top quality grades. I no longer desired to memorize as I did in high school and junior college and work so hard pointlessly for grades... It was here, that I stopped dreaming to be a lecturer, nearly crossing it out of my list of possible careers for good.

It was the pains of university life together with greater self-awareness of who I am that caused me to stop dreaming to be a lecturer.

However, recently, I experienced a revival of sorts. As I began to attend Biology classes in which I was interested in, I started to dream a little more. I realized I really do have interest in growing intellectually. I desire not just to make my heart a garden, but also my mind one. I enjoyed learning and sharing the joy of what I learn.

I am still aware of who I am. But I do not wish to short-change myself by limiting myself to my expectations and beliefs of my capability. Neither do I want to slough my way through land which God has no intention for me to pass through.

So my decision is to be humble and to learn. To desire humility and wisdom. To be aware of my capability and aware of who I am. Yet, never discounting what hard work and a touch of luck can do in my life. It is important to be discerning to God's leading and not be so caught up in a I-me-mine attitude where the world revolves around me. I need to be aware of God's work in my life and follow His leading. This is my conclusion. I shall do my best, whether in deciding my career or attaining my career, and let Him do the rest.

Thanks to Angelina for inspiring this entry. While talking to her on the bus today about University education, I thought of this.

Thursday, May 8, 2008

Year 3 Sem 2 modules... Going deeper

Why do I prefer the modules Behavioural Biology and Evolution and Comparative Genomics over Ecology and Environmental Systems and Natural Heritage of Singapore?

I shall do a short analysis and evaluation to investigate in this post.

One possibility is the lack of proper lecture notes for the former two modules. I came with an open mind, heart, a pen and some paper and was open to exploring and retrieving new knowledge. It gave me the feel that the discipline was dynamic and not fixed. I can go back home after class to search up journal papers to read up more etc., the lecture was not exhaustive. This subjects were open. I saw how I could apply things I learn in class to life. Furthermore, those two modules were related, and I often cross what I learn between them.

This meaning, the latter two modules were highly structured with proper lecture notes and clear guidelines as to what I need to study to do well, which limited my mind and heart. I felt closed in. That all I had to know for this module (module objectives) were on my lecture notes and recommended textbooks. I had less incentive and interest to explore. Straightaway, I was robbed of the joy of learning. I felt what there was to learn was confined to the two hours a week I spent in class.

Could the trick to spurring my interest be the removal of the lecture notes? I can recall another module without lecture notes which I loved. And the modules which I enjoy normally have lecture notes that have minimal words! But only those I voluntarily chose!

Hmmm...

Another thing that assisted my learning and made it fun was the ability to see the module in the light of the other modules. The interdisciplinary part of it. When I was studying for Behavioural Biology, I used knowledge I attained from modules such as Life Form and Function, Ecology and Environmental Systems and Natural Heritage of Singapore. Actually, that was the most fun module I've studied for so far! :)

So...

Maybe next Semester, I will need to curb my perfectionistic tendencies and my inertia for change and forgo the lecture notes, come to class with a blank piece of paper, my pen, an open mind and an open heart.

What Students Learn

Taken from "Learning To Teach In Higher Education" by Paul Ramsden (2003). 2nd Edition. London and New York: RoutledgeFalmer, Taylor & Francis Group.

Studies of the Outcome of Learning

Level 1: General Intellectual Development

Student 1 - " I think I learnt to organise my work and myself, to think theoretically and evaluate concepts, to look things up before I made statements, and that first draft work should be left in a drawer for a week before being re-read and totally re-written several times more.

I have realised since finishing at university that I didn't gain so much a body of knowledge as an approach. I became a problem-solver.

What I believe I learnt was a capacity to apply logical principles.

... self-directed research, flexibility of approach and resourcefulness and tenacity in grappling with the varying demands of university and family life."

Student 2 - " I latched on to the idea that to pass you got a clear view of what you were expected to know, and learnt it, word for word. Not much thinking. Just learn the sacred texts. I had no more trouble passing university examinations. Unfortunately, the apparent success of this mind-stunting technique impressed me and retarded my mind's development for years to come."

Level 2 & 3: Content-Related Outcomes

"In summary, the research indicates that, at least for a short period, students retain vast quantities of information. On the other hand, many of them soon seem to forget much of it an they appear not to make good use of what they do remember. They experience many superficial changes - acquiring the jargon of disciplines, for example - but they still tend to operate with naive and erroneous conceptions. Moreover, many students do not know what they do not know: they have not developed self-critical awareness in their subjects."

Accountancy teacher - "Many students go from week to week, from topic to topic, without being able to see how anything fits together. Therefore they find the subject difficult, and this reduces their motivation to work at it."

Psychology teacher - "The general impression I get is that they don't seem to see how things hang together. They seem to treat the articles they read as if they were all disparate and not related to the same topics - there's no coherence in it, they don't see a pattern. They don't see why somebody's done something in relation to somebody else's experiment, or they don't see any kind of systematic approach to the kind of reading they're doing, or the kind of material they're being offered. They aren't able to tie it together into a package."