December 07 Tips for Teachers Meeting

In our final Tips for Teachers meeting of the Fall 2007 semester, we watched excerpts from the films, The Paper Chase, and Dead Poets’ Society. What follows are some of the highlights from our discussion of each film.

The Paper Chase: It was agreed that the Socratic method is indeed a good way of teaching and learning and making discoveries, but where Professor Kingsfield was less than adequate was in his tone and attitude of condescension to the students. We did think, though, about context, and since this film was set at Harvard Law School, we thought that perhaps there was more justification for this sort of severity, given the argumentative culture of the law courts, and possibly necessary preparation for it.

One member present, though, said that undergraduates today are so coddled, and are raised to think that they are geniuses. They shy away from challenge, she thought, and if they have any challenge, then they complain about their teacher. She asked if the students would ultimately be better off to be treated more toughly, as a preparation for the real world. She thought that in the past, fear was considered a great motivator, but that now society has turned too much in the opposite direction.

We then discussed whether fear is indeed a good motivator, and one member present said it might make you perform, but it won’t contribute to sustained learning. On the flip side, though, one teacher said if we are only very sweet and kind to our students, where do we draw the boundaries?

Getting back specifically to the Socratic method, we analysed the interesting scene in which one student said he had a photographic memory, and was desperately flipping through the pages of his book in the search for an answer. But Kingsfield humiliated this student by saying he would not find the answer there, as he needed to apply what he had learned to a new context. His message was definitely correct, in that we need to know not only how to find information, but more importantly, how to interpret it and how to use it. What again was wrong, though, in what Kingsfield did, was his unfortunate manner of publicly humiliating this student.

The discussion of Kingsfield’s methods very much reminded us of what Tannen says in her piece about challenge and argument in learning, and how this was true in Medieval universities, and also true in the military today. The fundamental irony, though, it seems, is that Socrates said there should be no emotions in learning, as they get in the way, and students should only be concerned with pure logic, yet the humiliating and frightening learning environment that Kingsfield established resulted in the production of many emotions, many quite negative.

Dead Poets’ Society: One teacher commented on how the Robin Williams teacher was full of poetry and passion, and said she does this in her classes, but wonders if the students comprehend. She said nostalgically that there was more poetry and passion in the 1960’s and 70’s than there is today, as now she feels the students don’t question very much.

To this, another teacher present said he deliberately asks questions he feels students have not heard before, such as asking them the difference between gender and sex. He likes to ask questions which truly challenge their assumptions, even if it makes them somewhat nervous, as this can ultimately be enlightening for them. In this, we said we were reminded of another film we had watched last semester; namely, The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie, in which she exhibited a lot of passion, thereby possibly igniting some students. We agreed that it is of vital importance to be enthusiastic in our teaching, and also to introduce challenging questions, which really help students to question their prior knowledge, and make new discoveries.

One teacher commented on how Dead Poets’ Society asked if passion has a role in education, as some of the students present said they were going to become engineers or lawyers, and why therefore was this relevant to them? But we thought that passion can be contagious, even if applied to a different discipline.

A question was introduced about the role of the teacher in terms of talking about ideas of freedom. After all, she said, aren’t the parents still in charge of these students’ lives? In Nafisi’s piece, someone pointed out, the book group was devoted to discussions of freedom, yet when one of the girls from the reading group returned to her home, her real (as opposed to idealistic) world was hampered by a restrictive and unfair brother. So we asked, therefore, if a teacher can really give freedom, or is it just an indoctrination of this particular teacher’s ideas?

We then tried to look at these two films in juxtaposition. At the one extreme, we saw Kingsfield, who was very cold and remote, to the extent that, despite the Socratic method and encouragement of dialogue, he still did not know the students’ names after the end of the course. This was in sharp contrast to the Robin Williams character who was very ‘touchy-feely’. Also, it was pointed out how each teacher used space very differently; Kingsfield was remote and took the role of ‘the sage on the stage’, whereas Williams not only walked down the rows between the desks, but even crouched down so that all the students had to huddle around him to be able to see him and hear what he was saying. However, it could be argued that the Williams character had an inflated view of himself, as he said to the students that they could call him “Captain”.

And finally we thought about the impact of teacher behaviour on student behaviour. In Kingsfield’s class, everyone behaved, albeit in a very rigid manner. In Williams’ class there was also good behaviour, but there was amazement, too. One student commented privately that their teacher was weird. And all the students had an initial reaction of horror to Williams’ demand that they rip pages out of their text book.

Teaching on Film

Our last "Tips for Teachers" meeting of the semester will be Monday, December 3rd from 12-1 in MU-305 (Plangere Conference Room). As at our last meeting in the Spring, we will watch two clips from films depicting teachers as a jumping off point for our discussion of good teaching practices. Tisha suggests The Paper Chase and Dead Poets' Society. For those interested, you can actually view all of The Paper Chase online via Google Video, or (especially for those with slower internet connections) check out a three-minute YouTube clip that shows the main character's first encounter with the scary teacher played by John Houseman. A search of Google Videos turns up multiple entries for "Dead Poets' Society," including the great "Carpe Diem" scene. Enjoy.

Documentary Film discussion on Tuesday, November 13

We had a good discussion of the potential uses of documentary film in Expository Writing on Tuesday, November 13 over the lunch hour in the Plangere Conference Room. There were seven of us in attendance. I had asked people to view Tony Silver and Henry Chalfant's "Style Wars" (circa 1983) available online:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5065949310221269915
During our discussion, the film played in the background on the Conference Room's computer projector, with the sound low (raised only to hear Ed Koch speak).

Everyone in attendance agreed that there is a place for documentary film in 101, and a film like "Style Wars" should already be linked to in the 101 link-o-mat entry for Malcolm Galdwell (also available from the New Hum website). The film would also make a good connection with Gladwell, Virginia Postrel's "Surface and Substance" and James C. Scott's "Behind the Official Story" -- or as a secondary text (or "case") in a discussion among any or all of these.

We especially thought that students reading Gladwell's piece, which is about New York City in the 80s and after, would benefit greatly from seeing the film since they really have no idea about the situation in New York in the Bernie Goetz era. Remember, our first-years were generally born in 1989 or even 1990! They just have no idea about New York in the 80s, so a film like "Style Wars" can give them more palpable experience to draw upon so that they can appreciate what Gladwell is talking about. By engaging with the graffiti "writers" of the period, the film also gives another voice (absent from Gladwell) that could even provide evidence to help students reframe the issues.

The main question seemed to be whether documentary films like "Style Wars" could ever take the place of a reading in the course. That is, should documentaries supplement readings (such as as Gladwell's) or occasionally supplant them? -- so that students might write on Gladwell for paper 1; then Gladwell and Postrel for paper 2; and then Gladwell, Postrel, and "Style Wars" for paper 3.

The consensus seemed to be that film should only serve a supplementary role in the course, but that we should begin incorporating links to available films (and other interesting media) into the link-o-mat. This may even become a necessity, as in the case of Henry Jernkins's "Convergence Culture" chapter on Harry Potter fan fiction, which we intend to use as the main selection for next year's training sequence for new instructors. Shouldn't we at least link to Harry Potter fan fiction directly referenced by the essay so that students can judge it for themselves? Wouldn't that material make a good supplementary text, especially for paper 1, where students write about only one reading?

It would also be interesting to create a video and mutli-media supplement to the text along these lines, which is one idea that Kurt and Richard have for next year. I think we would welcome suggestions for films to include.

Fall '07: 2nd "Tips for Teachers" meeting

After having read “Pedagogy” in the Teaching and Learning Support section of the University of Queensland’s Teaching and Educational Development Institute (TEDI), which is found at http://www.tedi.uq.edu.au/teaching/toolbox/pedagogy.html, we began our discussion with the question of student responsibility. One instructor who teaches 100 felt that students were often scared to discuss topics, and a 201 instructor commented that students feel fine when the class is working together, but they become scared when they have to start their individual research topics.

This then turned into a discussion as to the optimal way to encourage students to take responsibility for their work. One teacher said that she models what she would be doing if she were conducting research, as she is specifically trying to model the thought processes behind the research. Then the discussion turned to how we would like students to find a frame and counter frame, or, put differently, how they should try to discover different perspectives so as to add more depth and complexity to their work. One person present said this was akin to a thesis and an antithesis, and another said it was like a thesis and hypothesis, with the effort being to try to prove or disprove that hypothesis based on the evidence uncovered.

When discussing uncovering or citing textual evidence, we referred to the article which warned against preconceived ideas. One teacher commented that once evidence was starting to be gathered in a 201 class, it might be necessary for the student to go back and revise his or her proposal. And another teacher talked about what she drew in the air as a “diamond of knowledge”, which, starting from the base, is the accumulation and expansion of information, and then a shift back inwards to the peak of the diamond, as the knowledge is synthesized and organized to reach its point or conclusion.

Many students, we thought, are however, afraid of challenge, and prefer to remain in the safe or comfortable zone. It was also suggested that some students take the path of least resistance, and they ‘minimax’, meaning that they want maximum returns for minimum effort. The question then arose as to whether it would be beneficial to make students nervous, and it was thought that there is a fine balance between challenge and comfort.

It was also suggested that perhaps it would be an idea to let students do some free writing without being graded, and that they should then search for “seeds” in what they have written, and try to elaborate upon these. In general, it is thought wise to set students a reachable bar, which involves just the right amount, however defined, of stretching.

The idea was raised that it can be fascinating to ask students to write a self-assessment on how they did on their essay. This is good as it involves metacognition, but it also yielded the interesting result that those students who confessed to the assignment being very hard and challenging were actually those who did better than those who did not comment on it being particularly hard, and therefore possibly, by implication, did not stretch themselves that much.

We also asked whether we as teachers should change if students do not like something we do in class. However, it was thought that a more valid reason for change might be to try to be sensitive to the variety of learning styles amongst the students in our class, or to change because to a certain extent teaching involves thinking on our feet, and we might need to adjust our plan based on what is happening that moment in the class. We also talked about the benefit of the Mid-Semester Reflection, as a way to hear from our students about how the class is going, because, as one instructor said, if we teach a class multiple times, we might relax into it, and get into a habit of doing certain things, rather than being sensitive to the particular needs of that class.

We agreed that education should be fun, not as a diversion, but as a component of engagement. Of course this leads to the question as to whether we, as teachers, are meant to entertain. And one teacher said she had a very grumpy looking student with whom she felt she had to be careful not to dislike, but then he surprised her at the end of the semester by telling her that he had learned to write thanks to her. And another teacher concluded the meeting by saying that he had heard that in an angry, seemingly troubled class, a teacher received high evaluations as the class was very engaged, and in a happy, flippant class taught by the same teacher, her evaluations were lower as the class was less engaged.

Fall '07: 1st Tips for Teachers Meeting

Today (Monday, October 1st) we read "Classroom Management", by Lisa Rodriguez, which can be found at http://www.4faculty.org/includes/108r2.jsp. This prompted discussion on a lot of topics pertaining to challenging behaviour in the classroom and what we could do to prevent it from happening. We went on to discuss how, if it does happen, to deal appropriately with it.

Preventative and preemptive measures to deal with any kind of rude behaviour include:
* Trying to develop a feeling of community in the classroom, so that there is mutual trust and respect, and the class feels like a safe place.
* Having policies clearly outlined on the syllabus, and discussed with the students at the start of the semester.
* In certain situations, empowering students to choose consequences for student misconduct. (This led to some amusing outcomes, such as some students suggesting that students who arrive late to class should be made to sing a silly song!) Hopefully, though, having students be the co-creators of a ‘code of ethics’ for the class will help them to abide by the rules agreed upon by all of them.

However, if these preventative measures did not curb behaviour problems, then below are some ideas of what could be done with respect to specific situations. As seen, often a simple explanation for the policy can help students understand that the policies are not merely arbitrary but really help in the smooth functioning of the class, as well as in their individual learning.

1. Cell phones: Even if set to vibrate, they could still make a noise, and also some students might use them for text messaging, so it might be best to ask that all cell phones are turned off. It can be explained that use of cell phones during class is disruptive and also disrespectful.

2. Lateness: We agreed that lateness matters because often announcements and the agenda for the class are given at the start of the session. One teacher has a policy that ten minutes late is half an absence, and he does not take attendance until ten minutes into the class, as he can accurately note this way which students are late. It can be explained to students that being on time is therefore important, so as not to miss crucial information, and also so as not to disturb the rest of the class.

3. Attendance: Some students apparently resent having an attendance policy, but it can be explained that without it, those who attend when it is not compulsory, might look foolish. Furthermore, students can be told that six absences out of a total of twenty nine classes is quite significant, and any more than this represents too much of a loss of instruction time.

4. Page Length: Five full pages in Expos might seem hard to some students, but it can be explained that they will need this length to fully explore and develop their ideas. Also, if any later in their academic careers, go on to publish their work in journals, they will find that journals are strict about the length of an article.

5. Use of Computers: If students bring laptops to class, or if your class is meeting in a computer lab, and you see students checking e-mail, surfing the web, or playing games, any of which would mean that they are not fully concentrating on the lesson, what should be done? One research librarian, during a library session for a 201 class, said quietly to students playing a game, “I see you guys are having fun!” Another person at the meeting said he would simply tell the students that if they want to play games, they might as well leave.

6. Students who Challenge Authority/Have a Bad Attitude: We all agreed that it is best, as a teacher, never to seem uncertain or lacking in confidence. However, if a student does try to challenge, it might be best to see that student individually after class, and talk quietly. You might even try to see if the student shares some common interests and therefore try to befriend that student. Some students who appear very tough might be putting on a front as they are really quite insecure. One person present mentioned a student who was a complete loner, who would not join in any groups and would not speak with anyone. The teacher decided that since this student was so uncomfortable speaking, that she would rely on giving him written comments.

7. Students who Monopolise Discussion: We all agreed that initially we might be quite glad of a student who we can rely on to answer our questions, but if this becomes excessive, and excludes others from the possibility of participation, then it might be best to see first if any other students wish to answer. It also might be advantageous to take that student on one side after class, and say that whereas you are delighted that he or she is so enthusiastic, you would also like to make sure that others have their say as well. Perhaps if the student is bursting with good ideas, you can hear some of them after class, if you are concerned otherwise of running out of class time.

8. Misinformation: If you ask a question, and a student answers it incorrectly, what can be done? As teachers, we don’t want to publicly embarrass that student by correcting him or her in front of everyone else, but at the same time, we don’t want misinformation circulating the room. We agreed that it is probably best if we ask all the students if they have any other ideas, and keep going around the room until the best answer is given, which can then be highlighted for everyone else.

5th Tips for Teachers Meeting

In our final meeting of the semester, we saw excerpts from two films; The Prime of Miss Jean Brody, and The School of Rock, with its teacher, Mr. S. It seemed that each film exhibited a contrasting teaching style, but did they? This was the subject of much of our discussion. In The Prime of Miss Jean Brody, Miss Brody (Maggie Smith) states at the start of the film, “Give me a girl of an impressionable age, and she’s mine for life!” which sounds encouraging if this is interpreted as meaning that there will be sustained learning on the part of the pupils, who hopefully feel very inspired. And later on we see Miss Brody speaking with the school headmistress and Miss Brody tells her, “The word ‘education’ comes from the Latin ‘ex’ meaning out, and ‘duce’ meaning to lead, so it’s a leading out.” But the headmistress, clearly a little distraught at this thought, replies that surely education should be about putting instead, but Miss Brody says that is intrusion. However, the later irony of the film is that intrusion is actually more what Miss Brody is doing, as she really seems to indoctrinate her ‘little girls’ with her views and opinions.

The Mr. S. (Jack Black) teaching model in The School of Rock, on the other hand, appears to be about leading out, as he, a substitute teacher who does not appear initially to know anything about teaching, seems to be able to tell the talents that the students have, from having spied on them in a music class, and could draw them out from this starting point. He assigned parts to all the children in the class for a “class project”, in which they would create a rock band, and those who were not musicians would have other managerial and directing types of roles.

It was suggested by one person present that these two different teaching models – the leading out, and the putting in – might be discipline specific. In other words, subjects such as the Humanities, do well when they draw out from the student what he or she is thinking or already knows. This would be true for Expository Writing. Scientific and mathematical subjects, in contrast, might be more about putting in knowledge and needing to ‘intrude’.

But one participant mentioned how there is an abrupt change in teaching style when moving from a discussion of interesting texts in Expository Writing, in which the students are being drawn out, to the teaching of grammar which is giving of information. Of course this intrusion or lecturing is lessened by asking the students themselves to give grammar presentations, and one person present told of how she asks students to bring in any piece of writing from any source, so as to analyse the grammar usage. This led to more of a discussion of the teaching of grammar, with another participant saying how it would be beneficial to use Smart Classrooms and use more technology for this task. For example, she suggested projecting a passage of a student’s work to the whole class, so that all students could participate in a collaborative effort of peer reviewing the work. In this way, students would be able to differentiate between what the author intended to write and what was actually written.

Some people present did not feel that either Miss Brody or Mr. S. were good teachers, as they felt that both teachers were trying too much to take over the classroom; that each lacked self discipline; and neither was transmitting valid education. Mr. S., for example, did not know the students’ names, but made up names such as “brace face”. And Miss Brody only spoke of her opinionated views, such as telling a pupil that da Vinci was not the best Italian artist, but Giotto was, as he was her favourite. This certainly does seem more like an inputting of opinion, than a leading out model of education. Arguably, it would have been a more leading out approach, for example, if she had allowed students to question why she felt this way, and be open to why other students might have had other views (although, of course, they were only young children). And also Miss Brody brought in a lot about her personal life, such as how her lover, Hugh, was slain on Flanders Field, and we questioned how appropriate it is to bring in this level of personal information into the classroom. We all agreed that it is appropriate to find the right balance in knowing how much personal information to give to our students.

But certainly there were others present who felt that Mr. S. knew exactly how to connect with his students. For example, Lawrence, who was a slightly overweight Asian American who was chosen as the pianist, came up to Mr. S. quietly at lunch and said how he did not think he could do this as he was not cool, and Mr. S. was amazingly supportive, and said that of course he was cool, and that once others heard him play, they would think he was the coolest boy in the school as he would be the bees’ knees, which definitely reassured Lawrence.

And there were others at the meeting, too, who felt that pupils had the potential to learn so much from Miss Brody, as she had so much passion about the subjects, such as art and poetry, about which she spoke. One participant suggested that students can learn hard facts from a book, but that it was tremendous to have a teacher with passion for a subject, as that passion would be contagious, not necessarily only for the particular subject under discussion, but also maybe could show the way to be passionate about other disciplines as well.

Mr. S. was passionate, too, and what was impressive was how Zack, a shy student chosen to be lead guitar, had written a song of his own in which he recognized how exciting learning had now become under the questionable but certainly passionate tutelage of Mr. S. His song had lyrics which spoke of how all he used to care about in “the old days” was getting straight A’s, and how, in those old days, all he had to do was “memorise lies.” Now, though, learning seemed more meaningful, as it was exciting and seemed relevant and tapped into his and others’ talent.

There was plenty more that we would have liked to talk about, but unfortunately we ran out of time, as some of us had to go and teach!

Meeting 4: "Evaluating Your Own Teaching", by L.Dee Fink

Our next reading was "Evaluating Your Own Teaching", by L. Dee Fink, which can be found at
http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/intranet/committees/FacDevCom/guidebk/teachtip/evaluate.htm

What follows is a brief review of our discussion. We started by talking about the mid-semester reflections, and whether or not they should be done anonymously. Some of us found that in answer to what were the preferred classroom activities, many students said they liked discussion and an indication of pertinent quotations the best. We wondered whether, and to what extent, this was because students like to be told what to think.

We then moved to the subject of teachers being filmed. Some of us had been in different institutions where we were filmed whilst teaching, and had mostly negative comments about how we came across, such as not liking the sound of our voice, or not sufficiently moving around but being rooted to one spot, or of resolutely staying behind the desk. This brought us on to the important topic of increased self awareness, such as realizing the need to move around more, or come in front of the desk to be more part of the group, or to vary one’s tone of voice, or to not speak so fast. We even mentioned one example of a teacher who had been recorded for an hour’s presentation, and when the “you knows” were edited out of it, the actual content of the talk lasted only 25 minutes instead! We questioned, though, whether the presence of the camera might change the dynamics of the class, and whether even peer observation might also change this dynamic.

We asked the interesting question as to whether teaching is performance. Jane Gallop had written a controversial piece about how actors could substitute for teachers, but we agreed that even though this may be true for a lecture, it would not hold for a smaller interactive class, such as we teach here. It was suggested, though, that students look for performance, and one of the participants even remarked on how he juggles three balls in the air when he wants to get across the concept (and maybe the difficulty) of connecting three textual readings.

Linked to teaching as performance is the question of the use of humour, and it was agreed that students often like you if you are funny, and also it relaxes the atmosphere. But, it was remarked that humour can backfire, as it can imply great relaxation, and then when the teacher shows rigour in grading, that this can come as a shock. It was suggested that what potentially works well is to have variety in our classes, not only in blending humour with seriousness, but also in varying classroom activities.

We also talked about nervousness in teaching, and how this can come about if not well prepared. But it was suggested that nervousness can be positive, as it can mean that the teacher has a lot of energy and can be dynamic, rather than trying to suppress and deflate the energy. Some mention was made of music students who had frightening auditions under stressful circumstances such as dropping books, coughing, rustling papers and moving around, and those students who did not suppress their nerves, but continued to play their instruments energetically and with devotion, were the ones who did best. It was likewise suggested that often the teacher who does best does not over-prepare, but is ready to best accommodate any unexpected events or changes in direction.

From here we moved to the topic of student presentations, especially in the research writing classes, and one teacher remarked how students tend to privilege performance over content, as he gave the example of how one student gave a slick performance of little content, and another had much more substance but little of performance merit, and the students preferred the presentation of the first student. But in terms of whether students are nervous about presenting, it was thought that the best thing to tell them would be that they are now experts on a research topic that they have been working on exclusively.

Returning to the question of evaluating our teaching, as opposed to student presentations, we discussed the possibilities of gaining feedback from our students. We decided that the best way to request feedback would be to put it in a positive framework, asking open-ended questions such as “How effective was…?”, or asking for suggestions for change. This would hopefully lead to constructive comments, which could provide useful insight, and even give grounds for changing certain learning activities or emphasizing others, based on the needs and dynamic of the student group.

Third Meeting: "Critical Thinking Development: A Stage Theory With Implications for Instruction", by Linda Elder with Richard Paul

Our third reading was "Critical Thinking Development: A Stage Theory With Implications for Instruction", by Linda Elder with Richard Paul, which can be found at

http://www.criticalthinking.org/articles/ct-development-a-stage-theory.cfm

In this article, six stages of thinking are described, from the most basic “Unreflective Thinker” to the “Master Thinker”, and we started our discussion by asking whether it is necessary for a student to pass through all these stages. It was suggested that students often take the path of least resistance, and use “satisficing” behaviour, whereby they stop when they have achieved their goal. If the goal is a particular grade, the student might only do what is required to earn that grade, such as having the right number of quotes per paragraph. Furthermore, although we might warn against this, some students might only work under pressure, doing their work at the last minute, and therefore rob themselves of much time for thinking.

It was asked whether, if students are working towards a particular grade, this can be thought of as critical thinking, and it was suggested that this is more strategic thinking, rather than a student being truly critical in his or her approach, as time is needed for the development of concepts, and also for the assessment of thinking, or metacognition.

In terms of metacognition, we decided that Peer Review, when used well, is a great system for metacognition, as it allows students to be reflective, and to evaluate. It was also suggested that teachers who ask their students to do a Mid-Semester Reflection on the semester so far, are also asking students to do metacognition.

It was stated that students generally do not learn how to think in high school; they mostly only know how to regurgitate. This is the beauty of the Writing courses, and a much needed skill. But how do we teach students to think about thinking? The article does not give recommendations for this, apart from saying that the Master Thinker is intuitive, which would imply that thinking should not be mechanical, and also innovative, implying that thinking should be creative and open-ended. Thus we thought that the optimal way to teach students about the importance of knowing how to think is to have open ended questions, and free form discussions, which allow students the room to explore and discover their thoughts. This is also why the best assignment questions in Expository Writing will ask ‘Why?’ questions, in which students will learn to discover their position. Indeed new students in Expository Writing might not be able immediately to reach this level, but the sequence of assignments should build through the six stages of thinking outlined in this paper.

The article also did point to the possibility that regression is possible, and that students might forget to think critically, but certainly it seems that our goal in these Writing Courses is for there to be sustained learning, meaning not just being able to write well, but also to be able to read and think critically, and to keep and carry these skills with them as they progress through the university and beyond. It was suggested that the process used in the Writing Program, in which students move from a Rough to a Final Draft, is a definite area in which students are encouraged to actively think and are therefore amenable to making changes.

However, it was asked whether there is the possibility that thinking could become habitual, and therefore might impede progress. But it was suggested that the fourth stage of thinking, namely the “Practicing Thinker”, has now reached the understanding of personal commitment. This seems critical, so that if we, as teachers, can encourage students to reach this level of personal commitment, thereafter students might then realize the benefits of commitment, and stick with it. Indeed, students who can’t think well often feel frustrated, so it would be advantageous to show students that thinking well can actually contribute to an improved quality of life in all areas. In other words, it is not domain specific, but students who can think critically at an advanced level, are able to make all sorts of connections between seemingly disparate disciplines.

We then moved to a discussion as to how society (beyond the university) often might not encourage critical thinking. After all, we are consumers, so advertisers want us to succumb to their product, and within many organizations, people are taught to think as part of the team rather than as individuals. It was even suggested that the grading system used within the Writing Program, might look for conformity rather than individuality. But to this point, we discussed how there are many implicit assumptions about critical thinking within the Grading Criteria, such as how a coherent paper implies logical thinking, and complexity of ideas implies that the student is able to move towards challenge and thus more advanced thinking. We mentioned how in our classes, we often tell students to face the complexity, as they might have exciting new realizations based on thinking critically and making connections, rather than staying in the safe, comfortable zone which probably will result in a more mundane paper with less profound ideas or originality.

But, apart from the incentive of a better grade, what would motivate a student to move beyond the comfort zone of shallow thinking? After all, thinking takes effort and has uncertainty. We agreed that the ultimate incentive is the pleasure and excitement derived from thinking at an inspired level. Seen this way, the greatest reward from high level thinking, then, is that it has intrinsic and internal value, and this is more meaningful than recognition or an external reward.

Students, as similar to the rest of us, need to have vision to appreciate that it is worth moving to stage 6, the Master Thinker level. We want students to find meaning and understand the purpose of thinking critically, so that knowledge will be sustained, their notes and papers retained, and their books and readings cherished for years to come. As was said in the article, once the purpose is understood, students need to realize that thinking is driven by a search to answer questions; that information is needed in answering these questions; that interpretation is needed to use information; and that our interpretation is affected by our assumptions, values and point of view. We also need to help students to move from egocentric to sociocentric thinking. This we can hopefully do through our discussions of the readings, and also through the assignments that we set for our students. And if some students are not good thinkers, and they make the same pattern of errors because of trying to compensate for any deficiencies, hopefully we, as teachers, can see their thinking as it becomes more visible, and we can try to help them to seek other more profound modes of thinking.

Second Meeting - The Seven Principles of Good Practice

Our second reading was “Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education”, by Arthur Chickering and Zelda Gamson. It can be found at http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/intranet/committees/FacDevCom/guidebk/teachtip/7princip.htm

We decided that the principles make inherent sense, but what was important was to discover and discuss the practical applications of each of them.

Principle 1: Establish Good Contact between Faculty and Students
We agreed that this makes sense, and the idea behind the Rutgers Freshman seminar was a way in which to encourage faculty to reach out to students. We also mentioned how the Writing Department provides very nice opportunities for students, since the classes are smaller and more intimate than many of the large lectures that the students may take. We did think, though, of trying to see this from the students’ point of view, and one participant said when she was an undergraduate, how faculty members seemed old and distant. It was suggested that e-mail is a good tool by which to encourage communication between students and faculty, especially since this is a medium that students use a lot and like.

Principle 2: Develop Reciprocity and Cooperation among Students
Under this section, the “think-pair-share” model was discussed, in which, when asking a question to the class, students are given time to think about it, pair up with another student, and share ideas between themselves and ultimately the whole class. Also, one member present said that she asks students in Peer Review to ask other students about what they did to make their papers successful. Another member said she asks students in 201 classes what they learned in 101 about successful essay writing.

Principle 3: Encourage Active Learning:
One member present talked about how she reduces herself in the sense that if there is a question that no one can answer, she tells the students to research it. Although the following statement was not actually brought up in discussion, I think it is fair to say that the philosophy of the Writing Program is for students to actively explore ideas and analyse issues, rather than merely regurgitate back what the readings say.

Principle 4: Gives Prompt Feedback
Again, this is part of the Writing Program philosophy

Principle 5: Emphasises Time on Task:
We started this topic by talking about the concept of “Just-in-Time” teaching, meaning bringing something fresh and spontaneous from the online discussion to the campus class. We talked quite a bit about what this would mean in the online section of a hybrid class, and said how, even though time is asynchronous in the online environment, that it is important that students move forward in their learning activities at the same approximate time, so that they can truly work collaboratively. We discussed, too, how there is a time lag in the asynchronous online environment, but maybe this can be advantageous, as perhaps students can respond to each other (as in Principle 2).

Principle 6: Communicates High Expectations:
We mentioned how it is important to create the right balance in expectations between challenge and comfort. The Writing Program already has a clear set of policies and grading criteria, and we still need to think through the appropriate expectations for the online environment, in terms of lateness, absences, and the frequency by which both the teacher and students should be participating online.

Principle 7: Respects Diverse Talents and Styles of Learning:
It is precisely because of the diversity of learning styles that we think that the hybrid class might provide some good opportunities for participation, giving, as it does, two different learning environments. Also, in the campus class, we talked about the merits of varying the class activities to suit different types of learners, and also to provide an element of surprise and overall variation.

First Meeting: Rapport

Our first reading was "Establishing Rapport: Personal Interaction and Learning", by Neil Fleming. It can be found online at:
http://www.idea.ksu.edu/papers/Idea_Paper_39.pdf

What follows is a brief review of our discussion. The Almanack does not contain information on the practical details of teaching, and in graduate school, there is seldom discussion about effective teaching practices, so this series of meetings would like to fill in with some discussion on pedagogy.

Today’s discussion was about “rapport”, which means “establishing connection”, so it’s all about student interactions and dialogue. It is thought that the potential for that dialogue is helped when the teacher uses inclusive language, such as saying “we” or “us”, rather than “you”. The article had a good suggestion in recommending that students call on other students. We also thought that in group work, such as we do in our classes, students answer their own questions, and that is good for them, as it encourages students to take responsibility, rather than always looking to the teacher for answers and being too reliant.

How do we create rapport? We thought it’s good to try to establish rapport from the first day of class, especially in terms of learning names and majors. One participant even said that on the third or fourth class, it’s “Candy Day”, and if he doesn’t know the name, correct pronunciation of that name, or major of a student by then, that student gets candy! Another idea for creating rapport is, as the teacher, to make oneself available and accessible outside of class, as in responding to e-mails or talking after class. Getting to know students very well, and personalizing their educational experience as much as possible is beneficial.

How important is humour in the classroom? We decided that group laughter is good, as it creates community, but of course it needs to be handled sensitively. One participant mentioned how last semester she had two classes, and they were so different from each other. One laughed at everything she said, and the other did not. So she made a paper ball and tossed it over her shoulder, and whoever caught it had to speak. Then the students started to throw the ball around between themselves, and so called on each other. It was agreed that it can be nice for a teacher to stand back sometimes, and let students interact and exchange ideas.

What should we do if there is silence and no one wants to respond? If a teacher asks a question and no one answers, it is often uncomfortable for the teacher to be met with this silence, so the teacher provides the answer. But it is better if the teacher rephrases the question or waits a little longer, as maybe students just need some more time to find the answer.

What are some class activities which might generate enthusiastic response? One participant said her class was discussing Krakauer, so she set up a competition as to whether or not Candless was a fool. When students decide this for themselves, they get more out of the reading, than the teacher telling them. Another participant said she sometimes organizes discussion as if they are producing a TV show. Today, for example, the students were looking at two authors in the Environmental research course, so she split the class into each of the authors, and gave them some time to work in their pairs formulating ideas. Then they had to come up, one pair at a time, and be “on TV” answering questions as to the state of the environment. It was an “interactive TV program” as the audience could ask questions, as did the teacher, as the moderator of the show. We agreed that role playing is good, as the students are not themselves, but can take another point of view. They get to try on different ideas that they might not have agreed with before. Variations on this would include playing Devil’s Advocate, or holding mock trials about controversial issues that are being read. In fact, we think, all these things – role playing, debates, games – create the stage for exchange, and therefore rapport.

One participant wondered whether full participation might be unrealistic. Even though we, as teachers, would like all our students to be engaged, he asked whether enforced inclusion is right. Some students might be uncomfortable. Another responded that she starts her class with a “brain teaser”, such as “Define Happiness” and ask them all what they think as that loosens them up. Generally speaking, though, that’s where personalizing education is so important. We get to know the individual personalities of the students, and try to engage them on their own terms. That’s also where Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences is so true, since there are many different learning types, and also a wide variety of experiences that students bring into their learning.

What should we do about the student who monopolises discussion? One participant said one male student was always interrupting a female student when she spoke. She had to cut him off and tell him to let her finish. In general, with the students who talk a lot, she tells them that they are saying good things, so she is pointing this out in positive terms, but that they should let others have a chance to speak. Another idea is to take the dominant student aside and talk to him or her privately.

We realized that the reason some of us were talking about problem students is that they are the monkey wrench in establishing rapport. We wondered how to what extent the perceived rapport that the students experience affects teaching evaluations. There is no question on the evaluation sheet about rapport, but there is one on teaching effectiveness. A discussion ensued as to what teaching effectiveness means, and it was suggested that teaching effectiveness can be seen if we put on the syllabus what the goals of the course are, and then each student can see to what extent he or she has accomplished these goals. That would say something about the effectiveness of the teacher.

Welcome!

Hello! This will be a blog in which we will post the main highlights from our fortnightly pedagogical discussions. We look forward to your attendance in the meetings and online participation.