tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31085516.post5215966511928698607..comments2024-03-27T03:13:12.133-04:00Comments on Change of Basis: A somewhat schizophrenic conversationDocTurtlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15154912977859107986noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31085516.post-63900538114883720202011-10-22T20:11:43.685-04:002011-10-22T20:11:43.685-04:00C'mon, Patrick! Homework, and I'm not eve...C'mon, Patrick! Homework, and I'm not even in your Calc 3 class yet? Alas, I better get started!<br /><br />These cross-up courses sound like a brilliant idea. I would be perfectly willing to take them, even if they aren't required. But, rather than have one course focused on a subject that crosses disciplines, I would rather see two courses with the same name that examine a subject from two very different disciplinary perspectives. Suppose, for example, we had a cross course pair on The Science of Music - one side would examine the physics behind the music and the other would involve making music. Students would be required to take both courses in the cross course pairing, sort of a co-req. They would not be co-reqs in the traditional sense, but rather both courses would explore the same topic from a different perspective, leaving students to connect the dots while in and after the course is over. <br /><br />So, why have a cross course pair instead of one single cross course? I'd rather the faculty teach within their discipline - its what they do best. Asking a professor to relate and explain a specific topic from their discipline sounds like something more enjoyable to them and, therefore, more enjoyable and engaging to the student. I would also like to see professors ask more of us, as students! My greatest fear for the single cross course model is that the professor will be required to emphasize the interdisciplinarity (probably not a word, but you know what I mean!) of a topic. I would prefer students be asked to figure out the interdisciplinarity on their own, or not. Connecting the dots can be encouraged, but shouldn't be something the professor needs to do for the student. <br /><br />Finally, I've taken a few cross courses in my time. Computer Science 273: Mathematical Algorithms, is one such course. The title sounds beautiful and challenging, but the truth of the matter is the course was simply basic java programming for math majors. To a computer science major, the formulae were somewhat challenging, but the programming was simplistic at best. To a math major, the programming was near impossible, but the formulae were elementary! Such a course attempted to cross disciplines, but did not succeed well. Many students struggled tremendously and came to very few points of insight. Not good! <br /><br />Perhaps a solemn point to end on, so I'll go on to say...<br /><br />I am waiting with bated breath to see what you and the rest of the CRTF accomplish, especially in reducing the NIMBY feeling amongst the departments. We're all in this together, eh?Jack Derbyshirenoreply@blogger.com