No Fluff and Students Still Learn… Shocking
CHEM 475 is notoriously known as Neurochemistry at Concordia college, and if I am looking to impress my friends outside of the sciences by the rigorous classes that I am taking, I sweet talk a little “neurochemistry,” and their jaws drop. It seems that the combination of the Latin root “neuro” mixed with “chemistry” gives a killer combination for people to assume that it is an intensely difficult class.
And it is true, the topic of neurochemistry focuses on how our brain works, and we humans clearly have a long way to go until scientists have even a small grasp on understanding how our magnificent minds conduct their daily business. But, in the meantime, students that are ambitious to uncover the secrets of our own brains, like me, must begin to tackle the problem by learning what is known. This is the point of the neurochemistry class: to gain an understanding and appreciation for what is currently known about brain. In addition, over the course of the semester we attempted to develop problem solving skills that prompt us to ask leading questions that need to be answered in order to accomplish this task.
But the intriguing thought is that this was by far the most simplistic course of the entire semester. How you might ask? How could a topic as difficult as neurochemistry come to be my easiest class? And if it was so easy, surely I must have learned nothing? In order to learn and retain information, the course must be academically challenging, right?
If you asked these questions, do not be ashamed; they are logical questions to ask that our societal norms continually reinforce. But as I have considered these questions in respect to this class, I have found that I was quite naïve in my understanding of what is necessary in order to learn.
The curriculum of neurochemistry works like this. Over the weekend, everyone in the class reads a brief (yet technically dense) scientific article about a certain brain disease, such as Alzheimer disease, migraines, obesity, or Parkinson disease. On Monday, we discuss what we did not fully understand, and each student is assigned a topic to look into for the upcoming class period. On Wednesday, we share these new pieces of information with each other to further our knowledge of the topic. Finally, on Friday, we simply come together to have a free discussion about the topic that may cover ethics, chemistry, disease, or even social standards surrounding the disease.
Outside of class, there is very little homework, and there is virtually no “study time” required for the class. With the exception of reading the article and examining one topic, all learning occurs within the classroom. Commonly, the standard “lecture-based” class involves a massive emulsion of information that is presented in a word-vomit style. This requires the student to take hours outside of class to sift through and organize the information into carefully packaged parcels of memorized concepts. Contradictory to this method of teaching, a discussion-based class in which the information is mutually foreign to the students AND PROFESSOR fosters the connection of bigger ideas during the class period. Thus, the information is still present, but in order to have successful discussion, the ideas must be collimated in the minds of the students during class rather than waiting until “the night before an exam” to actually learn the information.
As a busy student, myself, (and to be frankly honest, there simply is no such thing as a student that is not busy) the worst thing that a professor can do is to force multitudes of what I like to call FLUFF as requirements for the students. Fluff, in essence is trivial work that is meant to keep the student busy and thinking about the class. This type of work has little academic merit and is more or less mindless. Although fluff may contribute somewhat to the student’s learning, it is not as efficient as other methods of studying─ and I would go as far to say that cramming would even be more useful than fluff.
By limiting the amount of fluff (i.e. work to be done outside of class), learning occurs in the class, and the time that student’s consider to be valuable is not wasted. Efficiency is a virtue, and I am a strong proponent that if the student is focused and ready to learn during class, then the professor should at least keep in mind that assigning extra fluff may not be necessary.
Of course, pedagogy is a difficult subject, and there is no single best method to teach. In fact, teaching styles need to be tailored specifically to each class as the variability in curriculum and aptitude of the students will certainly influence the way that the class should be taught. However, in general, I believe that professors should strongly consider if the assignments that they give outside of class really are of benefit to the student or if they should be eliminated as fluff.
Neurochemistry has been a perfect example of this. I applaud Dr. Julie Mach for being mindful of student time by eliminating entirely the fluff. In this minimalist perspective, we have stripped the class to a barebones ensemble of discussions, and still, we students have found the motivation to pursue the academic rigor with which we are so familiar. In accordance with the mission of Concordia College, we are becoming thoughtful and engaged men and women dedicated to influencing the affairs of the world─ we just did it faster…
Final thoughts on neurochemistry written by Steven Dotzler
No Fluff and Students Still Learn… Shocking
