Courses Is Constant Leap-Frogging Through a Text Normal?

[DS2C]

In my current math class, we are constantly leap frogging throughout the text. In week 1, we did a couple things from chapter 6, not going through it fully- just a few sections here and there. In week 2, we went to chapter 3, again only doing a couple sections somewhere in the middle of the chapter. We just finished week 7 and this is non stop. This next class period will be on chapter 8.8, and in going through the section, it assumes you know about functions and domains- yet we aren't going over functions and domains until next month.

This is extremely frustrating. I asked about it, and I was told "the head of the math department wants it to be taught this way". I also asked why we don't cover entire chapters, just little bits and pieces of them, and I was told "I don't expect you to know this information". What the hell kind of approach to teaching is this? I don't want some watered down garbage so that you can raise your pass rates for your class. My notes are near impossible to decipher now that I have a minuscule portion of a chapter, the followed by a minuscule portion of an entirely different chapter.

Is this common methodology in university math courses?

 

[fresh_42]

The word for lecture in my language is something like "a-read-aloud". It cannot be properly translated, but basically this is it. I've had a couple of those, where you simultaneously could read the book. Believe me, this isn't better, and it seduces students not to attend the lecture for it can be read anyway. However, after a while it isn't read anyway anymore. So switching around might be a way to avoid such effects. I mean you could still read the missing parts on your own or build a learning group with others to do so. In general I don't think there is a unique general method. Often professors have their own scripts which might be also available online. At least I've found a lot of those as I was searching for a certain proof or a definition or similar when answering a post on PF. So the short answer is: no, it isn't a common methodology in math courses. However, this doesn't imply there is one at all. It is as everywhere else in life: every person (professor) is different. Textbooks are normally much wider in the range of topics they present, than what can be done in a semester. So, depending on the book, there has to be a selection. Furthermore, it isn't always needed to cover all aspects of a theory at certain stages of a study - again depending on the example.

 

[DS2C]

Interesting, and I appreciate when professors try to keep things lively. I wouldn't want to be "read to" as by the time the class has started I've already read it. I would want the class time devoted to doing examples and going over specific questions. And that's a good point that a semester may not allow all the book to be covered.
I do go over extra stuff on my own as I want to learn it not just pass the class, and my main gripe is that we go over sections that have a prerequisite of having read another section (which we havent).
In the future, would it be out of line to email the professors to ask how the course is laid out? I truly hate this method and would prefer a more linear approach to it, where we build on what was previously learned.

 

[jtbell]

would it be out of line to email the professors to ask how the course is laid out?

I would certainly consider that to be a reasonable request. In the US, professors are generally expected to distribute a syllabus at the beginning of a course, which indicates how the course is laid out: which textbook is being used, at least an approximate timeline for which topics/chapters/sections will be covered, when tests and exams will be given, etc.

 

[tygerdawg]

As an engineering instructor, I personally think the flow of the course through the selected text should be approximately sequential through the chapters. It is not always possible to do this because of how the selected text might be laid out by the author. Instructors can't help that sometimes. It has happened to me where I've had to go through Chapter 10 in Week2 because it was more critical for what I was trying to build upon for later weeks.

The other challenge is the chapters contain way too much material in most cases. If I try to use most textbooks end-to-end, a 16-week semester would require 32-weeks or more sometimes. Yeesh. Cherry-picking is essential.

What I've learned to do is create syllabi with Outcomes, and Topics to achieve those outcomes, and map the text chapters to match the Topics, and then cherry-pick the content of the chapters to provide the content for the Topics. Then I build per-chapter "study guides" for students clearly identifying what sections are covered & not covered, and the specific items they are expected to know. What a pile of work, but is necessary to lead the students through the maze of material.

Of course, given that few students ever exert the effort to read the syllabus (or in some cases, read ANYTHING for that matter ), all of this effort is wasted. Except for the 2% that actually want to be in class and participate in the learning process.

 

[DS2C]

I would certainly consider that to be a reasonable request. In the US, professors are generally expected to distribute a syllabus at the beginning of a course, which indicates how the course is laid out: which textbook is being used, at least an approximate timeline for which topics/chapters/sections will be covered, when tests and exams will be given, etc.

Yeah I got a syllabus for this course. Its my fault for assuming we would be going through the text as I always have. I looked through the syllabus as I always do, but didnt check to see where in the book the topic was going to be. I just assumed the text location of Topic A in week 1 would come before the text location of Topic B of week 2. The syllabus is a really important tool to me and when I get it I put all the information into my planner. Ill just pay more attention next time to the syllabus vs text layout.

As an engineering instructor, I personally think the flow of the course through the selected text should be approximately sequential through the chapters. It is not always possible to do this because of how the selected text might be laid out by the author. Instructors can't help that sometimes. It has happened to me where I've had to go through Chapter 10 in Week2 because it was more critical for what I was trying to build upon for later weeks.

The other challenge is the chapters contain way too much material in most cases. If I try to use most textbooks end-to-end, a 16-week semester would require 32-weeks or more sometimes. Yeesh. Cherry-picking is essential.

What I've learned to do is create syllabi with Outcomes, and Topics to achieve those outcomes, and map the text chapters to match the Topics, and then cherry-pick the content of the chapters to provide the content for the Topics. Then I build per-chapter "study guides" for students clearly identifying what sections are covered & not covered, and the specific items they are expected to know. What a pile of work, but is necessary to lead the students through the maze of material.

Of course, given that few students ever exert the effort to read the syllabus (or in some cases, read ANYTHING for that matter ), all of this effort is wasted. Except for the 2% that actually want to be in class and participate in the learning process.

I can definitely appreciate the work that goes into all of this. Since my university is so set on having their "Take Your Money State Univeristy Special Editions" maybe it would be nice to make their "custom tailored" texts fit their "custom tailored" instructing approaches.