Spring 08 - 2nd Tips for teachers Meeting

We read “Diversity and Complexity in the Classroom: Considerations of Race, Ethnicity, and Gender” by Barbara Gross Davis, and started with a discussion about cultural difference by considering the impact of reading Abu-Lughod or Nafisi if we have women wearing head scarves in the class. One teacher present said that she did have a student who wore a head scarf who did not come to class on the day that this reading was being discussed. However, in contrast, another teacher present said that when he did this reading, a woman in a head scarf provided lots of extra information completely voluntarily.

The question then arose as to whether we can ask our students to tell us about cultural differences, or whether we should wait to see if they volunteer. It seemed to us that it depended on the country of origin, as one British person present said she thought nothing of it when her son was in kindergarten and the class was studying England, and the teacher asked her to come in and tell the class about the country.

One teacher suggested that the suitability of asking a minority student about a particular issue perhaps depended on the number of students in that particular group who were in the class, and if there was only one student a direct question should be avoided, but if there was a significant number of the group, such as a fairly large number of Indian students in a 201 class about The Family, then it was fine to ask them questions about arranged marriage.

We talked further about the cultural diversity in our classrooms, and the important difference between using the word ‘tolerate’ (meaning there is still a problem but I’ll put up with it) and ‘accept’, which is a more whole scale embrace. One teacher mentioned how the readings in The New Humanities Reader were not all diverse.

We also discussed how the teacher her or himself might be from a minority group, and we wondered, therefore, how the students read us. It was agreed that successful students adapt to each professor they have, and in general, it is the teacher’s aim to try to establish rapport.

We went on to mention how the act of writing is a very personal one, so that if a paper is criticized, it feels to the student that he or she is the object of criticism. This led to a fruitful discussion about commenting on student papers, and how, since our comments to students are mostly in writing, we have to be exceptionally careful that we are not being misinterpreted.

We also mentioned the importance of not giving an excessive number of comments, as the students might not read them and might feel overwhelmed, and how instead we should perhaps try to identify patterns of error, as well as using pens of different colours (one for mechanical errors and the other for content).

Not only should we be careful with our written comments, but also with comments in class discussion as well. The article discusses how sometimes the best intentioned teachers, if giving special privileges to minority groups, might be interpreted as being demeaning to them. For example, some teachers might unwittingly say, “We Americans treat immigrants well”, and this we/they divide automatically can be problematic. The same could be said to be true for the I/you divide of some teachers, rather than saying 'we’ to encompass everyone in the class, including the teacher.

One teacher also pointed out how she took offense at a student complaining about the course and the particular reading, and said she was going to write back straight away. However, she prevented herself from writing an e-mail while in a ‘hot state’ and allowed some time to pass. Then she wrote asking him to explain his comments, and found to her surprise that he was not meaning to criticize her, but that he had taken a previous course and had not liked it. She realized, therefore, that he was giving a criticism about the reading, and not about her. This shows the importance of really trying to find out about a situation, rather than making assumptions.

Tips for Teachers: Spring 08 – Session 1

We read “Exammanship and the Liberal Arts: A Study in Educational Epistemology”, by William G. Perry, Jr. This led to an interesting discussion about authenticity, in terms not only of exam taking or writing papers, and gaining knowledge, but also of the teacher being able to truly appreciate the work done by the students. One teacher present told some stories of how, as a student, she had ‘got by’ in difficult exams that she knew she did not comprehend (e.g. statistics) by doing something quite unorthodox in terms of the way she answered the question, (she wrote an extended philosophical contemplation of the merits and demerits of the inductive versus deductive methods of reasoning, rather than attempting to engage in the statistical calculations) and received an ‘A’ for it. So, we might ask, do grades truly reflect the level of learning – moreover sustained learning – in any particular subject area?

Another teacher present talked about how she asks her students to do some free writing about a reading, to try to gauge their preliminary understanding of a complex text, and this was likened to Didion’s statement about “How do I know what I think until I see what I write?”

But it was thought in general that much education is geared to test taking with the impact of the No Child Left Behind policy, in which the stakes are elevated. Also there is a concern that students being taught how to write might find it formulaic, which might prevent it from being authentic. On the other hand, though, would following the formula of making connections actually open up the possibility to students of discovering exciting new ideas, which indeed feels very authentic, both in terms of the ideas themselves and the emotional charge that accompanies their discovery?

We asked how we can grade for authenticity, and it was initially thought that this can not be easily measured. However, as the conversation progressed, it was suggested that our grading criteria can indeed measure authenticity by looking at the position that the paper adopts, as stated in the thesis. Also it was thought that all teachers appreciate an authentic paper when they come across it, as it is the sort of paper that flows, and that the teacher does not even realize he or she is reading it. In other words, it is a genuine expression of belief, rather than a mechanically executed homework assignment. Essentially, then, an authentic paper is not only one which demonstrates complete comprehension of the texts it analyses, but also one which is injected with feeling and positive emotion.

Some teachers present suggested that it was easier for a student to demonstrate passion and involvement in a 201 course than in Expos, since students have to take a position in their research, after having debated the research question from different angles. Even so, though, we agreed that there are some 201 students who wear blinkers, and approach their research with a preexisting assumption, and then only read materials which prove that their assumption was correct, as in a student trying to prove that video games lead to violent behaviour. Their assumption therefore remains unchallenged, and a lot of complex layers and counter-arguments ignored. This generally turns into more of a report than a research paper.

We agreed that Perry’s essay was interesting in that the ‘cow’ approach, (as he terms it), which was one only of perfect summary, might lead the previously ‘A’ student down the path to receiving an ‘NP’. The question then becomes one of what do we value? Do we prefer to reward big thinkers, who may be lacking a foundation for their thoughts, simply because they have tried to think originally, and because we are bored with the minutiae of regurgitation? This then leads us to ask, how do we reward at the university; should we be impressed by summary and regurgitation, or do we look for analysis as demonstrating that the student is learning how to think for him or herself?

But is the binary opposition of ‘bull’ (Perry’s other term) versus ‘cow’ (which roughly translates to ‘freedom to think originally’ versus ‘summary’) that Perry sites, an oversimplification? Should we instead be considering discovery of knowledge versus summary? Or summary versus opinions which are not backed up by textual support? We asked, too, if all ‘A’ papers are the same, or are they distinctive in their own manner? It was suggested that all ‘A’ papers have complications, and perhaps surprise us in pleasing ways, but given this they will all be different as they are each from the unique point of view of the student.

We talked a little longer about the ‘A’ paper, and one teacher said she had always thought that the ‘A’ paper should dazzle, but then went on to wonder if she was ‘blinded by the light’, and whether therefore the dazzle could mask the truth. This even led us to question whether Perry’s essay, on which our discussion was based, was itself authentic, and whether the scenario he paints at the start of the work, of a student taking an exam in a class in which he did not belong, was completely fabricated, in which case the rest of the ensuing argument could carry no weight. However, several of us believed in the authenticity of the original scenario.

Conversation swung again to what exactly is meant by authenticity. If it is related to being meaningful and searching for truth, we asked how can we differentiate between truth and bias, as in the concerns about global climate change, or other environmental or political matters? One teacher went on to say how two students could use exactly the same quotes, but interpret them completely differently. And we, as teachers, will also bring our own interpretation along as well, and thus judge students accordingly, which could lead to a divergence as to what grade we think a paper merits.

Certainly we want students to get in touch with what they truly believe when writing their papers, but of course we can’t make them swear that they really believe what they write. This led to a discussion of the advantages of the debate form, and of asking students to play Devil’s Advocate, to stretch them, and take them away from the comfort of only talking about prior beliefs, thereby possibly helping them to discover a new position.

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.