Description: Learning excellence is of value to both candidates and credentialed actuaries learning new areas. Learning mastery and excellence requires 1) use of executive function (EF), multiple brain areas, for example, verbal, formal (algebraic), computational, and geometric (rule of four), and 2) goal-setting, skillful breaking down of complex tasks into subtasks each of which are simultaneously 2a) clear and specific, 2b) achievable in a short time and 2c) challenging. 10 examples are presented illustrating use of the "rule of four" to achieve elegant solutions to otherwise complex problems as well as goal setting using fellowship-exam approaches, approaches to multi-component problems, and skillful use of databases as visual organizers. The material reflects a new approach to learning complexity that is easier to use than the pedagogic hierarchies and unifies them.

Description: Article describes accomplishments as Chair during the year. Four accomplishments are mentioned: i) Actuarial Research Conference ii) Early Career Award, iii) Establishment of Outstanding Educator Award, iv) Push to create surveys from the section containing a reservoir of ideas that can be used for webinars, podcasts, etc.

Description: The article discusses the use of the keyword strategy in teaching. The literature with a negative view of keywords is reviewed and responded to by advocating keywords with multiple meanings supplemented with relevant instructional guidance. Numerous examples are presented from the SOA preliminary exams. Additionally, advanced use of keywords to problems not having them are presented.

Description: The basic thesis of this paper is that student capability to iNteract with new problems can be significantly increased by frequently exposing them to Written derivations, verbal-Intuitive justification of formulae and core sets of Comprehensive techniques by which to approach problems. Both instructor composition of problem resources for presentation and student practice of these problem resources can be achieved by semi-mechanical procedures accessible to everyone. For brevity we shall refer to this type of instruction by the acronym WINC. Presented at the 30th Actuarial Research Conference, August 17-19, 1995, Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania

Description: A description of a new award for outstanding educators in actuarial science.

Description: The incoming E&R chair for the coming year reflects on past accomplishments of the E&R council, acknowledges with thanks contributors, and looks forward to continuation in the coming year.

Description: Traditionally the SOA formulates pedagogic excellence in terms of the Marzano Taxonomy. For example, the "analysis level" consisting of generalization, specification, classification, contrast, matching, and error identification, is considered superior to the "retrieval level" consisting of rote memorization such as recognition, recall, and using. In this presentation, we first show that pedagogic excellence can be equivalently, but more simply, formulated in terms of executive function and goal-setting. Here executive function refers to problems requiring multiple mental modalities - such as, formal, verbal, computational, and graphical - for their solution. Goal-setting refers to the skillful breakup of a complex problem into a sequence of subgoals each of which is clearly formulated, challenging, but achievable timely. Light examples from the literature illustrate these concepts. Five "challenging FM problems": reinvestment, refinancing, multiple rate/deposit problems, pricing deferred bonds using a term structure, and obscure loan problems, illustrate the following fundamental techniques of goal-setting and executive function: i) a fellowship approach to teaching preliminary exam material, ii) using subgoals to give difficult homework, iii) alternating between different mental modalities to achieve elegant brevity in solutions, iv) goal-setting reflecting familiar vs. new, and v) skillful definition of unit subgoals.

Description: This presentation proposes a solution to the student actuarial paradox “I mastered the syllabus but failed the exam,” by utilizing the two-dimensional syllabus vehicle which pedagogically focuses on the two dimensions of content and problem difficulty. This presentation advocates the PMR characterization of three levels of problems difficulty: Plug-ins (easy), Monkey-wrench (intermediate), and Research-type(hard) questions. PMR was developed by examining difficulty levels in SOA exams, and problems of various software vendors. The author's students routinely score high on the SOA FM exam; it is hoped that these methods will assist other instructors in their quest for good pedagogy. Very briefly: “Plug-ins,” refer to multi-part problems, for example, calculating the price of an annuity that is first increasing and then level; “Monkey-wrench” problems specifically refer to plug-in multi-part problems where one component is a monkey-wrench, an issue the candidate has not previously encountered. It might be a non-typical modeling or it might be a non-typical algebraic simplification or it might be an unexpected integration of distinct modules in a manner that the candidate has not yet seen. “Research-type questions” refer to problems requiring some type of experimentation for example, looking at initial cases, seeing a pattern and then applying methods

Description: The article describes principles for optimal sub-tasking of a project goal. Two experiments each one comparing different approaches are presented. A summary of principles for optimal goal setting presents seven key points: i)levels of outcome goals should be recognizable and lack ambiguity; ii) each subtask should be atomic, i.e. not be capable of being broken up into further subtasks, iii) the subtasks should be uniform, lacking ambiguity, so that any new trainee could master it without the need for further guidance; iv) each subtask should be attainable in a reasonable amount of time; v) mentor feedback should be provided during the initial stages of learning or training; vi) upon mastery of each subtask trainees should be encouraged to maximize their overall score; vii) after mastery of individual subtasks, while attempting to maximize scores, trainees should be provided with a mixture of easy, intermediate, and difficult tasks.