Re: Random Thought: What's Your Answer

[Joan Warmbold]

Having a difficult time falling asleep, I have been giving this some
consideration.  My best response is that I would ask our incredible
president to come in to one of my classes and then tell me what she/he
thinks I might be and/or not be accomplishing.

Hey, I happen to teach at one of the most incredible CC in the country.

Joan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Associate Professor


> Paul Okami wrote:
>
>> I would say nothing.  Instead, I would immediately crush his/her
>> larynx with the heel of my palm, then rip it out of his/her throat
>> using the tiger claw technique.
>
> That might get you in trouble. (more trouble than my answer, even!)
>
>>  Actually, the Presidents of institutions I have worked at do not bump
>> into people.  They have appointments.
>
> Trouble averted. :-)
>
> --
> Christopher D. Green
> Department of Psychology
> York University
> Toronto, Ontario, Canada
> M3J 1P3
>
> e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> phone: 416-736-5115 ext. 66164
> fax: 416-736-5814
> http://www.yorku.ca/christo/
> 
> .
>
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>



---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Raynor or Rayner

[Wuensch, Karl L]

    Rosalie, 
Watson's student etc., is it "Raynor" or "Rayner?"  I've seen it both ways 
and forget which is correct.
 
~~Karl L. Wuensch, Professor, 
Dept. of PsychologyEast Carolina 
Univ., Greenville NC  
27858-4353Voice:  
252-328-9420 Fax:  252-328-6283[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://core.ecu.edu/psyc/wuenschk/klw.htm
 
---

You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org

To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Raynor or Rayner

[Joel S. Freund]

Rayner is the correct spelling.

Joel



Joel S. Freund  216 Memorial Hall
Department of Psychology
Fayetteville, AR 72701-1201

Phone:  (479) 575-4256
FAX:(479) 575-3219
E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Wuensch, Karl L wrote:

:-)Rosalie, Watson's student etc., is it "Raynor" or "Rayner?"  I've
:-)seen it both ways and forget which is correct.
:-)
:-)
:-)~~
:-)Karl L. Wuensch, Professor, Dept. of Psychology
:-)East Carolina Univ., Greenville NC  27858-4353
:-)Voice:  252-328-9420 Fax:  252-328-6283
:-)[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
:-)http://core.ecu.edu/psyc/wuenschk/klw.htm
:-)
:-)
:-)
:-)
:-)
:-)---
:-)You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
:-)To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
:-)

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Raynor or Rayner

[Ken Steele]

Rosalie Rayner.

Wuensch, Karl L wrote:

Rosalie, Watson's student etc., is it "Raynor" or "Rayner?"  I've 
seen it both ways and forget which is correct.
 


~~
Karl L. Wuensch, Professor, Dept. of Psychology
East Carolina Univ., Greenville NC  27858-4353
Voice:  252-328-9420 Fax:  252-328-6283
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
http://core.ecu.edu/psyc/wuenschk/klw.htm

 
---

You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


--

---
Kenneth M. Steele, Ph.D.  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Department of Psychology  http://www.psych.appstate.edu
Appalachian State University
Boone, NC 28608
USA
---



---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Raynor or Rayner

[sblack]

On 29 Aug 2005 at 8:54, Joel S. Freund wrote:

> Rayner is the correct spelling.
> 

Not so fast, history breath. This may be a case in which there is no correct 
spelling 
(and we've been through this before).

Wayback on October 10th, 2003 I contributed:

-
It seems there's a fair bit of confusion
concerning the correct spelling of her name even if, in the famous
Watson and Rayner paper, that's the way it appears. According to
Thorne and Watson (Watson's son!) (1999). her obituary in the New
York Times spelled it "Raynor". Thorne and Watson call this a
misspelling but, honestly, has the New York Times ever been wrong
about anything? And the APA Monitor also spells it that way (see 
http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec99/ss3.html).

It gets worse (or better). Thorne and Watson also say that on her
marriage certificate, it's spelled "Raynar". 
---

So presumably it was Watson who spelled it "Rayner". The definitive answer 
would 
be to ask how the Raynors/Rayners/Raynars spelled it.

Stephen

Thorne, B., & Watson, J. (1999). When was Rosalie Rayner born?
Psychological Reports, 85, 269-270.



--
Stephen L. Black, Ph.D.   tel: (819) 822-9600 ext 2470
Department of Psychology   fax:(819) 822-9661
Bishop's University  e-mail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lennoxville, QC J1M 1Z7
Canada

Dept web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy
TIPS discussion list for psychology teachers at
http://faculty.frostburg.edu/psyc/southerly/tips/index.htm
---

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Raynor or Rayner

[Christopher Green]

It is Rayner on her only major publication (Watson & Rayner). It is
Rayner in both Fancher's and Robert Watson's history of psychology
texts. I have seen it Raynor at times, but I think it is a typo.

Regards,
-- 
Christopher D. Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, ON M3J 1P3

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.yorku.ca/christo
Office: 416-736-5115 ext. 66164
Fax: 416-736-5814

Wuensch, Karl L wrote:

  
  
      Rosalie,
Watson's student etc., is it "Raynor" or "Rayner?"  I've seen it both
ways and forget which is correct.
   
  ~~
Karl L. Wuensch, Professor, Dept. of Psychology
  East Carolina Univ.,
  Greenville NC  27858-4353
Voice:  252-328-9420 Fax:  252-328-6283
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  http://core.ecu.edu/psyc/wuenschk/klw.htm
   
---
  
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]




---

You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org

To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Raynor or Rayner

[David Hogberg]

Here we go again(it's "er")   DKH

David K. Hogberg, PhD
Professor of Psychology, Emeritus
Albion College, Albion MI 49224
[EMAIL PROTECTED] home phone: 517/629-4834
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/29/05 9:40 AM >>>
Rosalie, Watson's student etc., is it "Raynor" or "Rayner?"  I've
seen it both ways and forget which is correct.
 

~~
Karl L. Wuensch, Professor, Dept. of Psychology
East Carolina Univ., Greenville NC  27858-4353
Voice:  252-328-9420 Fax:  252-328-6283
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  
http://core.ecu.edu/psyc/wuenschk/klw.htm
 

 


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Raynor or Rayner

[Annette Taylor, Ph. D.]

tips archive should have an EXTENSIVE discussion of this issue.

Annette

Quoting David Hogberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:


Here we go again(it's "er")   DKH

David K. Hogberg, PhD
Professor of Psychology, Emeritus
Albion College, Albion MI 49224
[EMAIL PROTECTED] home phone: 517/629-4834

[EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/29/05 9:40 AM >>>

   Rosalie, Watson's student etc., is it "Raynor" or "Rayner?"  I've
seen it both ways and forget which is correct.


~~
Karl L. Wuensch, Professor, Dept. of Psychology
East Carolina Univ., Greenville NC  27858-4353
Voice:  252-328-9420 Fax:  252-328-6283
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
http://core.ecu.edu/psyc/wuenschk/klw.htm





---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]





Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D.
Department of Psychology
University of San Diego
5998 Alcala Park
San Diego, CA 92110
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

7+- 2 Chunks

[Herb Coleman]

The way I always teach this as 7 plus or minus two chunks if information 
are what is stored in short term memory.  Then I challenge the Idea that 
zip codes and telephone number fit  this description.  The telephone 
number is at least 2 chunks but more likely 3 chunks of information.  
When we say a telephone number we rarely say 1-2-3-4-5-6-7.  Instead we 
usually say something like 1-2-3, 4-5, 6-7.  Some people even say "one 
two three, forty-five, sixty-seven".  Zip codes ar usually addressed the 
same way. For example my zip code is 7-8, 6-8, 1 (3 chunks not 5).  Just 
to the south of here is San Marcos and their zip is 7-8, 666 (two 
chunks).  The we do the 3-4 chunks and show how we easily remember 3 
chunks but frequently forget the 4th.


Am I on the right track?

had long heard (from where I don't 
know - source amnesia on my part) that George Miller's famous memory 
work on the "Magic Number 7 plus or minus 2" played some role in the 
telephone company's decision to limit phone numbers to 7 digits. Has 
  

 

anyone else 
   

 


Since I now have so much time on my hands,..
http://www.keller.com/articles/magic7.html 

I also found a page summarizing Bell telephone history in the US. It says that the first 
American city to use 7 digit calling was Wichita Falls in 1958. As Miller published his 
article in 1956, it makes the claim of a connection at least plausible. But it seems that 
seven character calling had been in effect for some time previous, but two of the 
characters were letters, rather than digits (e.g. ELgin 1-1017). So it was only a small 
step from two-letter, 5-digit calling to 7-digit calling, and if Miller's paper played a role, 
it was likely only a minor one. 

The webpage cites what is undoubtedly a most obscure source--Joel and Schindler, 
A History of Engineering and Science in the Bell System: Switching Technology 
(1925 -- 1975). But it might explain what considerations led to 7-digit dialing


The website is http://www.privateline.com/TelephoneHistory3A/numbers.html

Stephen

   



--

Herb Coleman
Instructional Technology Manager
Austin Community College
11928 Stonehollow
Austin, TX 78758-3101
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
512-223-4752
*
"I will go for my shots and not die wondering."
-Alicia Molik, Australian Tennis Player
*




---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: 7+- 2 Chunks

[Paul Smith]

I don't think that you are on the right track here, because what makes 
something a "chunk" is not how you say it, but the meaning behind it. 
For example, if your phone number were


914-345-9432

I would remember it with four chunks:

914 - A model of Porsche
345 - The course number of my physiological course
94
32 - These are both highways in my area, and so each would be a chunk 
held together by that fact.


	That way of chunking fits your 123 45 67 pattern, but suppose the 
number were this:


956-182-3450

In that case, I might remember it as
95 - Model year of my Honda Civic
61 - Year of my birth
82 - Year the Brewers won the pennant
345 - Course number of my physiological course
0 - Just plain old "0", a "chunk" of one item.

	In short, what matters, I think, is the meaningfulness of the chunks 
(their connection with information already in LTM), not how they're said 
aloud.


	I could have used a different chunking pattern for the first number, 
for example turning 91 into the year, and 43 into another local highway. 
That would probably be even easier, as it'd be 91 and then four of our 
local highways (43, 45, 94, 32).


	In general, "what constitutes a chunk" is specific to the individual 
doing the remembering: what is a chunk for me may not be for you. I 
always remembered the license number of my father's old '68 Chevy in 
part by remembering that the last three digits - 477 - were Willie Mays' 
batting average during his last year in the minor leagues. I doubt that 
would work for many people, though I'll bet Willie could use it.


	As a result, it doesn't make sense to say to try to impose a fixed 
number of chunks on a phone number or zip code. It varies by individual.


Paul Smith
Alverno College
Milwaukee

Herb Coleman wrote:
The way I always teach this as 7 plus or minus two chunks if information 
are what is stored in short term memory.  Then I challenge the Idea that 
zip codes and telephone number fit  this description.  The telephone 
number is at least 2 chunks but more likely 3 chunks of information.  
When we say a telephone number we rarely say 1-2-3-4-5-6-7.  Instead we 
usually say something like 1-2-3, 4-5, 6-7.  Some people even say "one 
two three, forty-five, sixty-seven".  Zip codes ar usually addressed the 
same way. For example my zip code is 7-8, 6-8, 1 (3 chunks not 5).  Just 
to the south of here is San Marcos and their zip is 7-8, 666 (two 
chunks).  The we do the 3-4 chunks and show how we easily remember 3 
chunks but frequently forget the 4th.


Am I on the right track?

had long heard (from where I don't know - source amnesia on my part) 
that George Miller's famous memory work on the "Magic Number 7 plus 
or minus 2" played some role in the telephone company's decision to 
limit phone numbers to 7 digits. Has  



anyone else   




Since I now have so much time on my hands,..
http://www.keller.com/articles/magic7.html
I also found a page summarizing Bell telephone history in the US. It 
says that the first American city to use 7 digit calling was Wichita 
Falls in 1958. As Miller published his article in 1956, it makes the 
claim of a connection at least plausible. But it seems that seven 
character calling had been in effect for some time previous, but two 
of the characters were letters, rather than digits (e.g. ELgin 
1-1017). So it was only a small step from two-letter, 5-digit calling 
to 7-digit calling, and if Miller's paper played a role, it was 
likely only a minor one.
The webpage cites what is undoubtedly a most obscure source--Joel and 
Schindler, A History of Engineering and Science in the Bell System: 
Switching Technology (1925 -- 1975). But it might explain what 
considerations led to 7-digit dialing


The website is 
http://www.privateline.com/TelephoneHistory3A/numbers.html


Stephen

  





---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Review class for large lecture

[Shelby Devendorf]

Hi Everyone,

I'm teaching a large lecture (200+ students) of Intro Psych this 
sememster and I'd like to devote one full class to review for the 
first exam.  I've done this in smaller classes using group activities 
and "jeopardy-like" games, but these are obviously not conducive to a 
large lecture.  Does anyone have suggestions for a review class format 
that would be appropriate for 200 students?

Thanks in advance,
Shelby

***
Shelba A. Devendorf, M.A.
Doctoral Student
Psychology Department
Bowling Green State University
Bowling Green, OH 43403
Office: 419.372.2693
***



---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Review class for large lecture

[Martha Capreol]

Hi Shelby,

What I do now is offer a review time outside of class.  I print off some 
grading keys (I have multiple choice and short answer/essay questions) 
and let the students ask me questions (mainly one-on-one).  I only have 
a small proportion of my large class take advantage of this.  The reason 
I do this is when I have reviewed exams with the large classes in the 
class, I found that the proportion of students contesting marking was 
higher.  Perhaps it is the strength in numbers.  Although I realize it 
can be a good learning experience, I found that the in-class reviews 
were more trouble than they were worth.  It also means I can cover the 
class content in a more leisurely way and with more real life 
applications with the additional class time.


Cheers.

Martha Capreol
R.Psyc.
Instructor, University of British Columbia

Shelby Devendorf wrote:


Hi Everyone,

I'm teaching a large lecture (200+ students) of Intro Psych this 
sememster and I'd like to devote one full class to review for the 
first exam.  I've done this in smaller classes using group activities 
and "jeopardy-like" games, but these are obviously not conducive to a 
large lecture.  Does anyone have suggestions for a review class format 
that would be appropriate for 200 students?


Thanks in advance,
Shelby

***
Shelba A. Devendorf, M.A.
Doctoral Student
Psychology Department
Bowling Green State University
Bowling Green, OH 43403
Office: 419.372.2693
***



---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


 




---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Review class for large lecture

[Shelby Devendorf]

Some clarifiction.

I'm actually looking for suggestions on how to review before the 
exam.  But, thanks for responding, Martha.  That's great advice for 
next week.

-Shelby

-Included Message--
>Date: 29-Aug-2005 12:28:24 -0400
>From: "Martha Capreol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences" 

>To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences" 

>Subject: Re: Review class for large lecture
>
>Hi Shelby,
>
>What I do now is offer a review time outside of class.  I print off 
some 
>grading keys (I have multiple choice and short answer/essay 
questions) 
>and let the students ask me questions (mainly one-on-one).  I only 
have 
>a small proportion of my large class take advantage of this.  The 
reason 
>I do this is when I have reviewed exams with the large classes in the 
>class, I found that the proportion of students contesting marking was 
>higher.  Perhaps it is the strength in numbers.  Although I realize 
it 
>can be a good learning experience, I found that the in-class reviews 
>were more trouble than they were worth.  It also means I can cover 
the 
>class content in a more leisurely way and with more real life 
>applications with the additional class time.
>
>Cheers.
>
>Martha Capreol
>R.Psyc.
>Instructor, University of British Columbia
>
>Shelby Devendorf wrote:
>
>>Hi Everyone,
>>
>>I'm teaching a large lecture (200+ students) of Intro Psych this 
>>sememster and I'd like to devote one full class to review for the 
>>first exam.  I've done this in smaller classes using group 
activities 
>>and "jeopardy-like" games, but these are obviously not conducive to 
a 
>>large lecture.  Does anyone have suggestions for a review class 
format 
>>that would be appropriate for 200 students?
>>
>>Thanks in advance,
>>Shelby
>>
>>***
>>Shelba A. Devendorf, M.A.
>>Doctoral Student
>>Psychology Department
>>Bowling Green State University
>>Bowling Green, OH 43403
>>Office: 419.372.2693
>>***
>>
>>
>>
>>---
>>You are currently subscribed to tips as: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-tips-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>
>
>---
>You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-tips-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
-End of Included Message--

***
Shelba A. Devendorf, M.A.
Doctoral Student
Psychology Department
Bowling Green State University
Bowling Green, OH 43403
Office: 419.372.2693
***



---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: 7+- 2 Chunks

[Annette Taylor, Ph. D.]

I believe Paul is correct here; as well, there have been some recent articles
you could find with a psychinfo search that suggest that 7+/- 
OVERestimates STM

capacity, especially where chunks are involved.

Incidentally, I tend to remember zip codes more by rhythm and rhyme than
anything else: I live in 92128 and it's sort of sing-song for me. No chunking
per se, involved.

Annette

Quoting Paul Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

I don't think that you are on the right track here, because what 
makes something a "chunk" is not how you say it, but the meaning 
behind it. For example, if your phone number were


914-345-9432

I would remember it with four chunks:

914 - A model of Porsche
345 - The course number of my physiological course
94
32 - These are both highways in my area, and so each would be a chunk 
held together by that fact.


	That way of chunking fits your 123 45 67 pattern, but suppose the 
number were this:


956-182-3450

In that case, I might remember it as
95 - Model year of my Honda Civic
61 - Year of my birth
82 - Year the Brewers won the pennant
345 - Course number of my physiological course
0 - Just plain old "0", a "chunk" of one item.

	In short, what matters, I think, is the meaningfulness of the chunks 
(their connection with information already in LTM), not how they're 
said aloud.


	I could have used a different chunking pattern for the first number, 
for example turning 91 into the year, and 43 into another local 
highway. That would probably be even easier, as it'd be 91 and then 
four of our local highways (43, 45, 94, 32).


	In general, "what constitutes a chunk" is specific to the individual 
doing the remembering: what is a chunk for me may not be for you. I 
always remembered the license number of my father's old '68 Chevy in 
part by remembering that the last three digits - 477 - were Willie 
Mays' batting average during his last year in the minor leagues. I 
doubt that would work for many people, though I'll bet Willie could 
use it.


	As a result, it doesn't make sense to say to try to impose a fixed 
number of chunks on a phone number or zip code. It varies by 
individual.


Paul Smith
Alverno College
Milwaukee

Herb Coleman wrote:
The way I always teach this as 7 plus or minus two chunks if 
information are what is stored in short term memory.  Then I 
challenge the Idea that zip codes and telephone number fit  this 
description.  The telephone number is at least 2 chunks but more 
likely 3 chunks of information.  When we say a telephone number we 
rarely say 1-2-3-4-5-6-7.  Instead we usually say something like 
1-2-3, 4-5, 6-7.  Some people even say "one two three, forty-five, 
sixty-seven".  Zip codes ar usually addressed the same way. For 
example my zip code is 7-8, 6-8, 1 (3 chunks not 5).  Just to the 
south of here is San Marcos and their zip is 7-8, 666 (two chunks).  
The we do the 3-4 chunks and show how we easily remember 3 chunks 
but frequently forget the 4th.


Am I on the right track?

had long heard (from where I don't know - source amnesia on my 
part) that George Miller's famous memory work on the "Magic 
Number 7 plus or minus 2" played some role in the telephone 
company's decision to limit phone numbers to 7 digits. Has


anyone else




Since I now have so much time on my hands,..
http://www.keller.com/articles/magic7.html
I also found a page summarizing Bell telephone history in the US. 
It says that the first American city to use 7 digit calling was 
Wichita Falls in 1958. As Miller published his article in 1956, it 
makes the claim of a connection at least plausible. But it seems 
that seven character calling had been in effect for some time 
previous, but two of the characters were letters, rather than 
digits (e.g. ELgin 1-1017). So it was only a small step from 
two-letter, 5-digit calling to 7-digit calling, and if Miller's 
paper played a role, it was likely only a minor one.
The webpage cites what is undoubtedly a most obscure source--Joel 
and Schindler, A History of Engineering and Science in the Bell 
System: Switching Technology (1925 -- 1975). But it might explain 
what considerations led to 7-digit dialing


The website is http://www.privateline.com/TelephoneHistory3A/numbers.html

Stephen







---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]





Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D.
Department of Psychology
University of San Diego
5998 Alcala Park
San Diego, CA 92110
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.



---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

In-class reviews (was" Review class for large lecture")

[Beth Benoit]

I'm interested in finding out how many of you think it's 
worthwhile/important to do a review of material in class.


I've always felt it should not be necessary at the college level.  (I 
usually mention my feelings on this topic during the first class.)  If 
they're at the college level, they should be learning the material during 
class, reviewing on their own, and studying on their own.


Have I been expecting too much?  In my earlier years of teaching, I would 
occasionally do a review, and it always seemed to devolve into a "Are ya 
gonna ask this on the test?" scenario.  It seems to me that if you've 
already taught it, you shouldn't need to teach it again.


In light of this tangential thread, I've changed the subject, as per TIPS 
instructions from many years ago...


Beth Benoit
Granite State College
New Hampshire



---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: In-class reviews (was" Review class for large lecture")

[Dennis Goff]

I agree with you Beth. College students should be responsible for
reviewing and learning outside of class, so I do not offer in class
review sessions. However, I will on occasion offer an out of class
review. On those occasions I tell the students in advance that they are
responsible for structuring the review session. They need to bring the
questions, and I will bring answers or additional explanation where it
is needed. This approach forces the students to give some thought and
organization to the material before the review session and provides an
opportunity to "fill in the gaps" for those who might need it. 

Dennis

Dennis M. Goff
Professor of Psychology
Randolph-Macon Woman's College
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


-Original Message-
From: Beth Benoit [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 12:52 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences
Subject: In-class reviews (was" Review class for large lecture")

I'm interested in finding out how many of you think it's 
worthwhile/important to do a review of material in class.

I've always felt it should not be necessary at the college level.  (I 
usually mention my feelings on this topic during the first class.)  If 
they're at the college level, they should be learning the material
during 
class, reviewing on their own, and studying on their own.

Have I been expecting too much?  In my earlier years of teaching, I
would 
occasionally do a review, and it always seemed to devolve into a "Are ya

gonna ask this on the test?" scenario.  It seems to me that if you've 
already taught it, you shouldn't need to teach it again.

In light of this tangential thread, I've changed the subject, as per
TIPS 
instructions from many years ago...

Beth Benoit
Granite State College
New Hampshire



---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Review class for large lecture

[John Kulig]

Shelby:
I have stopped doing reviews of this type in lecture (or at
least calling them "reviews") to avoid the practice of students blowing
off work until the review session. My standard "joke" (guaranteed to get
1/2 of a SD off my evaluations) is that every lecture is a review. On
the other hand, it is good for students to hear about thinks repeatedly,
so I routinely offer to have review sessions outside lecture, and every
semester I get a few; mostly these are groups of 1 to 3 people who show
up during office hours and I look at their notebooks, we kick around a
few ideas that came about in lecture, and grades of these students
usually rise for a variety of reasons, the least of which is what I do.
But if you do it in lecture, a simple way to start would be to make a
list of topics covered so far, listing what they should already know
("we covered the cortex, so you should be able to locate and name the
majors lobes ..."). This usually gets a few hands raised, and requests
from the audience to "go over" certain things again. But, my preference
is to call these sessions something other than review, to avoid students
procrastinating until the Cliff notes are available. Good luck!


John W. Kulig
Professor of Psychology
Plymouth State College
Plymouth NH 03264


"Push not the river; it will flow of its own accord" - Polish saying.

> -Original Message-
> From: Shelby Devendorf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 11:51 AM
> To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences
> Subject: Review class for large lecture
> 
> Hi Everyone,
> 
> I'm teaching a large lecture (200+ students) of Intro Psych this
> sememster and I'd like to devote one full class to review for the
> first exam.  I've done this in smaller classes using group activities
> and "jeopardy-like" games, but these are obviously not conducive to a
> large lecture.  Does anyone have suggestions for a review class format
> that would be appropriate for 200 students?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> Shelby
> 
> ***
> Shelba A. Devendorf, M.A.
> Doctoral Student
> Psychology Department
> Bowling Green State University
> Bowling Green, OH 43403
> Office: 419.372.2693
> ***
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: In-class reviews (was" Review class for large lecture")

[David Campbell]

I find that there is never enough time to cover in class all the topics 
and applications in the assigned reading.  So to cut down on regular 
lecture/discussion sessions for a test review session is unacceptable to 
me.  College-level students should be fully capable of reviewing 
material on their own--especially given all the instructional help 
provided by publisher web sites, student CD's, and in-text review 
material.  On the other hand, I am quite willing to provide lists of 
review concepts and questions for students to use on their own time.  
And often I'll use a few minutes of class time to facilitate the 
formation of student study groups that can meet out-of-class for test 
review.  They seem to appreciate that.

--Dave

Beth Benoit wrote:

I'm interested in finding out how many of you think it's 
worthwhile/important to do a review of material in class.


I've always felt it should not be necessary at the college level.  (I 
usually mention my feelings on this topic during the first class.)  If 
they're at the college level, they should be learning the material 
during class, reviewing on their own, and studying on their own.


Have I been expecting too much?  In my earlier years of teaching, I 
would occasionally do a review, and it always seemed to devolve into a 
"Are ya gonna ask this on the test?" scenario.  It seems to me that if 
you've already taught it, you shouldn't need to teach it again.


In light of this tangential thread, I've changed the subject, as per 
TIPS instructions from many years ago...


Beth Benoit
Granite State College
New Hampshire



---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]






--

--
___

David E. Campbell, Ph.D.[EMAIL PROTECTED] 


Department of PsychologyPhone: 707-826-3721
Humboldt State University   FAX:   707-826-4993
Arcata, CA  95521-8299  www.humboldt.edu/~campbell/psyc.htm 





---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: In-class reviews (was" Review class for large lecture")

[James Thomas]

Regarding in-class reviews, I agree with those who don't think they are a
good idea or necessary at the college level.  Given the limited number of
class sessions in a semester and my experience with poor attendance on
"review" days, I would rather not lose an opportunity to cover new
material.  It was also my experience that ones who probably needed a review
did not show up for in-class or out-of-class review sessions.

James Thomas
University of Nebraska at Omaha
([EMAIL PROTECTED])


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: In-class reviews (was" Review class for large lecture")

[Marc Carter]

I used to do TIPS about ten years ago, and then didn't do it much until
recently, so I'm forced to wager that in the archives there's a somewhat
extensive discussion of this -- at least once.

Nonetheless, I'll risk a reply without doing my homework.

Almost everyone I know (of the psych colleagues I've had over the
years), excepting me, does them (or has a TA do them).  I do not know
how to compress a discussion of the work-to-date into one class period
(even an extended one), that does not degenerate into either a litany of
topics or a discussion of the items that are going to show up on the
exam.  And it has always seemed to me that if it happens a day or two
before the exam, there's little chance it'll impact learning very much.

I've tried to require them to bring questions that I would be most happy
and willing to answer for them, but most of those who come do not (and
instead rely on others to do that for them).  Or worse, those who attend
the reviews are those who really don't need it.  So I've just stopped
trying.  It's college.  It's *supposed* to require lots of hard work.  I
meet individually with students who need help with study habits or
techniques, whenever and however frequently they wish.  But I don't want
to stand up there and tell them what's going to be on the exam with any
more specificity than they can get by looking over the list of topics on
the syllabus.

Maybe that makes me a curmudgeon.  But still: what good does it do them?

I would be interested to hear from those who do reviews.  

m

-Original Message-
From: Beth Benoit [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 12:52 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences
Subject: In-class reviews (was" Review class for large lecture")

I'm interested in finding out how many of you think it's
worthwhile/important to do a review of material in class.

I've always felt it should not be necessary at the college level.  (I
usually mention my feelings on this topic during the first class.)  If
they're at the college level, they should be learning the material
during class, reviewing on their own, and studying on their own.

Have I been expecting too much?  In my earlier years of teaching, I
would occasionally do a review, and it always seemed to devolve into a
"Are ya gonna ask this on the test?" scenario.  It seems to me that if
you've already taught it, you shouldn't need to teach it again.

In light of this tangential thread, I've changed the subject, as per
TIPS instructions from many years ago...

Beth Benoit
Granite State College
New Hampshire



---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To
unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Review class for large lecture

[Sandy Price]

Comments on reviewing in class reminded me of a technique used by 
Bernard Bailyn at Harvard.  He took a year off before he began college 
teaching to go to the Ed School and learn about pedagogy.  As a result, 
he began each of his lectures with a brief, maybe five minute, summary 
of the previous lecture which both provided a review and set a context 
for the new lecture.  Studying notes from his class was a cinch.


Sandra Price
Retired high school teacher
Oak Park and River Forest High School
Hinsdale South High School

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Review class for large lecture

[Frigo, Lenore]

This is what I do to review in larger classes (although it's fine for small 
classes as well).

1. Create a series of slides (e.g., PowerPoint, but there are alternatives). 
Each slide has a question that is either T/F, fill-in-the-blank, or brief 
multiple choice. Each slide is on an automatic timer (35-60 seconds, 
depending), with a "bing" as the slides change. The timer keeps it moving along 
nicely.
2. In small groups (3-4), students work together to answer the questions with 
one answer sheet per group. (remind them to work together as a group, but do 
not let other groups hear their answers)
3. Collect all answer sheets. 
4. Provide answers (I do a copy of the question slides, with answers added)and 
a little pep talk.
5. All groups get a few participation points, best group gets +5 bonus on the 
test (of course announce this before the activity starts)
6. Post all questions/answers online after the review activity is complete

The slides are not necessary. You could do this in a less fancy way by having 
questions on paper. But the slides make it more engaging and you don't have to 
run around making photocopies.

-Lenore Frigo
Shasta College
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]