Valorie McAlpin: Welcome to this special episode of Teaching and Learning Matters. I’m Valorie McAlpin, Director of the Center for Teaching and Learning at UNC Charlotte. It’s my pleasure to introduce our Bank of America Teaching Award Roundtable series.
In this episode you’ll hear from Yogi Kakad, one of the 2011 Bank of America Teaching Award finalists. Yogi led a discussion entitled "Teaching is Not Merely Lecturing" recorded on November 18, 2011.
Yogi Kakad: I’d like to welcome you all. I think looking at the faces I know everyone here. Rather than preparing notes or handouts, I would rather make it more interactive and share my experiences here.
As Valorie said, I’ve been here since 1976. So, I would like to give a little historical perspective. In 1976 when I came here, we didn’t have graduate programs. I was thrown into teaching undergraduate courses and I had done some TAship at Florida so I had some experience. But I was thrown into four classes, brand new classes, four different preparations, but every semester we taught four courses so you know it was very difficult.
But I had some good mentors. Our first dean of the college, he belonged to my department and he taught what is now very popular, the energy, the power area. And he and our first chairman, Dr. Lane, and Dean Bonnett, they were very good mentors to me, they treated me like their son. Then they found out I was a refugee Uganda, they treated me as if I was their son.
And so you know they mentored me. They would give me tips as to how to handle students, et cetera. Because here there are nearly 25 students in each class and you are brand new and you do not have that confidence. But anyway, they also encouraged me to develop graduate courses on the side. They said, start developing proposals for graduate courses because we are ready to send a proposal for graduate courses.
One other thing that they did was to make me in charge of the curriculum in the department. They said you are the chairman of curriculum committee. So I had to go through every course topic by topic. We would have informal meetings at lunch. We would all eat lunch. I would put up all the topics in every course showing the arrows as to how the prerequisites were met, core requisites were met, what topics we did not cover, how did the lab experiments went with the theory courses. So in the process, I think I learned a lot.
And before I knew it, they made me a member of the course and curriculum committee at the university level as well. So I was engaged constantly in curriculum matters. And also we revamped our curriculum. We had a very interdisciplinary department called Analysis and Design and we wanted to evolve into Electrical and Computing Engineering. And we had a little bit Mechanical Engineering that we wanted to give to the other department called Engineering Science and Mechanics.
So, I worked with the Mechanical Engineering department as well to develop their curriculum because I had some courses in our department that I had to brief them about them and help them develop their curriculum. So I got involved in both departments it turned out.
But at the same time both my dean and the chairman they were very supportive of my research. They said, “You know, you got to be working on your research, don’t let it drop. You may have teaching responsibilities, but don’t drop that research because at the end that’s what’s gonna count.”
And so in the meantime, we wrote the proposal for our Master’s program and that got approved. And the way it was approved is that we did not get any new resources. It was done on our backs you know basically.
So in 1980 I started teaching the first graduate course and most of my students were from IBM because IBM had just moved here. And I had 24 students that came from all very good universities. So I had to really be on my toes to really teach them well, you know. And fortunately for me it worked out well, we kept on pushing.
I got my first Master’s thesis student, in fact, that was the first Master’s in the college. I sort of evolved with the university as the university evolved. I was always involved with the accreditation process. I was always down with the courses.
But one good thing was that I felt I had really good students. The students had come from Vietnam, they were eager to learn and they were highly motivated. They worked in the industries and they were supporting themselves. That really helped. I probably learned more from them than I probably taught them.
But, I developed a style of teaching where I would invite a lot of discussion in class. My classes were always very interactive. Even today I maintain that format that I tend to be very interactive. I don’t like to just go and present theory. What I try to do is bring as much enthusiasm as I can get. If I’m excited, I feel the students are excited.
And I try and break down very complex concepts into smaller understandable concepts. I put them together gradually, get them involved, and start a discussion in the class so they also have discussions amongst themselves and I encourage that. I say, “Look, we are going from this step to next step, what do we need to do? Let’s see”.
And I will pick on some students and in the beginning they resent that, they don’t like to be picked on. But I say “Look, I care about you, I would like you to learn, don’t take it personally. I feel that unless you are engaged, you are not going to learn this material.” And I go back and forth. It is sometimes very difficult. It is challenging to draw some students, they’re very shy and that is a challenge, how do you do that?
So, you know I generally try to get them drawn in with jokes or something you know get them involved. And try and make it as interactive as I can. I also do not like to just go and lecture. I really feel that if I lecture the course, they probably would fall asleep. They are not going to do anything, they’re not going to be participating, so I try and keep it lively.
If I think the material is a little difficult, more abstract, I try and bring in some practical applications. Someone’s cell phone may ring in the class and I’m teaching circuits, I’ll put a positive spin on that and say “Look, you know what that device is, don’t you? What are the components in it?” And then I start breaking it down so that they understand. And all of a sudden the fact that someone had a cell phone on is forgotten and we are basically scrutinizing the construction of this cell phone and I make the course relevant to that cell phone. And I find that that approach seems to work very well.
Now I always made it a point to teach at every level because I started teaching four courses. So I used to teach Freshman Engineering, Sophomore Engineering, Junior and Senior Engineering. But as we started developing graduate courses, I tried to not teach Freshman Engineering and now none of us teach Freshman Engineering.
But I still try and teach sophomores as much as I can because I think that’s the group that you can excite. And I always tell them, “Look I’ll not try to fail you. I don’t consider this to be a weed out course.” This is the perception they have. I say, “No, I try to get you all to succeed. So you know, let’s work together. You come and see me after the classes if you have questions and you feel shy, don’t worry about it. If you don’t understand, I’m failing. I need to get you on track”.
So I keep my doors open, all these guys will know my door is always open. I keep roughly 8-6 or 8:30-6, sometimes I come in late. But about 8:30-6 I try to keep my door open. And even if I’m working on my research or with my graduate students, I keep my door open. They should feel welcome. That’s my thinking that they should feel that they are more important than anybody else because undergraduates to me are extremely important. Because the taxpayers are paying for it, I feel that it’s my obligation you know. So how or another we need to live up to that expectations, they need to succeed.
Then in the senior courses, I try and mentor some students to get engaged in my research. I consider my research to be part of my teaching because I don’t separate that out. I think if you really want to be an effective teacher ,you got to be doing research. This is the only way you can do it. And I don’t always mean funded research. I’ve been lucky to have had funding but I consider any amount of scholarship you do always helps you to be a better teacher, an effective teacher. So, you know I try and spend as much time as I can on research to bring in students.
And also I think that sometimes this is lost on a lot of research campuses that our job is to train the next generation of researchers. So when I mentor my graduate students I tell them. I say, “Look, you know I want you to have broad knowledge so you can be an effective researcher. I’m trying to teach you how to do research.”
Research to me is an inquiry of knowledge with a much broader perspective. And I tell these undergraduates that come when I advise them, they complain about the humanities or the electives and I tell them, I say, “No, I enjoyed my history courses, I loved history. You should have a very broad-based interest so that you can always address all the issues. Engineering should not be a narrow discipline. It affects mankind. You need to be aware of safety, economic impact, environmental impact, societal impact. You ought to be aware of these things so read a lot more outside engineering. Take all the humanities you can take because that’s the only chance you’re going to get.”
And I really impress that I think that the broad-based knowledge is really very important. And also I always stress to get as much mathematics as they can get because an effective engineering graduate has a very strong background in physical sciences and mathematics. Because I think that’s the base they stand on. So, these are some of my experiences that I can share with you.
Valorie McAlpin: Thanks for listening to Yogi Kakad’s discussion about teaching being more than lecturing. Please join us for our next Roundtable Discussion with Jack Piel from the College of Education. And remember, Teaching and Learning Matters.