These articles (see also A Way to Improve Teaching/Learning Partnership with Values and Respect) below were first presented at the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) presentation on November 16, 2004. The panel members were asked to speak in response to the following question:
Given that community colleges are unique post-secondary institutions “providing standard academic education, occupational training, remediation, work-force development for employers, lifelong learning for older adults, and community support” (Grubb and Lazerson, 2004), and given that Community College of Philadelphia presents its own unique set of challenges and opportunities, as colleagues who have been identified as exemplary members of the teaching profession, what would be one recommendation specific to teaching that you would make to fellow faculty which you believe would improve the teaching/learning experience?
When Tom Ott originally ran the “one recommendation” question past me, I had a few problems with it. I responded by saying it was too restrictive. Then, I did what some politicians and some students do regularly. I decided what I wanted to say and figured out a way to use those ideas to answer to the question.
To bastardize the old JFK quote: Tom, ask not what I can do for my colleagues. Instead, ask what they have done for me. Although the assignment was to focus on what you, my colleagues, can learn from me, I’ll be talking instead about what I have learned from you.
The other problem I had with Tom’s question is professional in nature. In training as a counseling psychologist, I learned specifically not to give advice. Instead, I was told to be objective, and help the clients evaluate their options so that they may come to their own conclusions about the proper course of action.
With all of that in mind, here’s my one recommendation: Identify, clarify, and then incorporate your professional values into your teaching. I’m not suggesting that you should incorporate my values. Rather, I’m emphasizing how useful it can be to have values as a foundation for teaching.
As an overarching theme, I value process. I came to a realization of the importance of process when I was in Venice 25 years ago. As a seasoned gondolier was maneuvering us through some tight back canals and around difficult obstacles, I naively asked him how long it took to become a gondolier. Without missing a stroke, he replied, “Forever.”
I think he was talking about the process. Like the process of becoming a gondolier, the teaching process involves maneuvering around obstacles and getting from one point to another. It’s not a linear progression. There are numerous ways to value process in teaching. One simple example is to give more weight to assignments at the end of the semester than those at the start of the semester.
In a more complex way, Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives offers a solid structure for the learning process. It starts with knowledge, comprehension and application, then flows into analysis, synthesis and evaluation. If we view Bloom through the lens of developmental psychologist Lev Vygotsky, this process sounds like “scaffolding,” where one type of thinking is structured or built on a previous type. Vygotsky sees cognitive development as a sociocultural experience in which a teacher/mentor and a learner/apprentice interact through guided participation. Expert teachers construct educational scaffolds for the learners. Ideas, questions, illustrations and challenges provide the framework for this development. Vygotsky refers to an “apprenticeship in thinking” as he describes how learning occurs in an interactive, social context. It involves attitudes and behaviors as well as ways of thinking. Enculturation is a vital part of the process in which individuals learn from peers as well as from teachers. Direct involvement in joint activities from all parties allows for learning to occur in all parties— students, teachers, young and old. The process progresses from one in which learners are invited into a dialogue with a teacher/guide, to the point where their involvement transitions into independent thinking, reasoning and problem solving.
Learning to be a teacher or engaging others to be learners is an ongoing process that, like becoming a gondolier, can take forever. Process encompasses and is intertwined with many of the other values discussed below.
As an outgrowth of Critical Thinking and Writing seminars I participated in a decade ago, I’ve come to value critical thinking and writing. Assignments should require students to go beyond reflexive memorization of facts. Critical, purposeful thinking, involves figuring things out and solving problems. It involves a commitment to make sense objectively about something. It requires monitoring and assessing how the process is evolving. It avoids parroted learning by asking students to clarify what they have learned using examples they have created or using their own words. It involves creating situations and opportunities in which students can thoroughly think through a problem. A key component of critical thinking is an emphasis on depth of topic coverage over breadth. The depth with which students understand a particular theory or concept is positively correlated with the effort they put into figuring it out.
With only ten minutes to talk, I’ll only be able to give you part of my whole list of values and go into depth on two I believe are most significant. Here’s the partial list. I value:
Besides process and critical thinking, the two other main values that have helped guide my teaching are collaboration and communication. Collaboration with faculty is critical. Get connected with other faculty. Writing teachers, find a teacher in another discipline with whom to link. Social science, business, technology, math, science, allied health teachers, find a writing teacher. Teaching in special programs like CAP, CLC and TOP makes collaboration easier because it brings us into contact with faculty in other disciplines. You’ll never know how interesting and intellectually challenging you can make a course or how clearly written an assignment can be until you collaborate with a member of the Department of English. It has been my great fortune to collaborate with so many of those fine teachers. My ongoing and extensive collaborations with Ned Bachus and Girija Nagaswami have been especially rewarding. Informal collaborations around the table in the Teaching Center are another good place to start.
Collaboration can take place in critical thinking and writing oriented professional development workshops. So much of what makes teaching rewarding for me is based on what I learned from collaborating with Dave Berg, Don Bowers, Marcia Epstein, Larry MacKenzie, and Susan Tobia in those early faculty workshops. Collaboration with students is the real clincher. Social psychology research tells us that students learn more when given the role of teacher. On the first day of classes, I write this question on the board. “Who is/are your teacher(s) for this course?” Then I ask students if anyone can figure out the purpose of the question. They go through a process that leads them to the conclusion that there is more than one teacher for the course. Fairly quickly, someone will suggest that although I’m the one who gets the big paycheck for teaching, we will all be teaching each other. Then I point to the line in the syllabus that states this is a student oriented, student driven course. I state that if each person comes to class ready to be a significant part of the driving force, every class will be more fruitful. Next, before a textbook is cracked, I have each student write his/her definition of psychology. Students then offer up their definitions and we piece together, using input and revision suggestions from all, what turns out to be a very accurate and comprehensive definition. They walk out surprised that they’ve been able to do so much. I leave them with the thought of how much we will be able to achieve once they actually read the research.
The last value I’ll discuss is communication. To communicate better with students, I get to know every student’s name. According to an ancient native American saying, if you know the name of a person, you have power over him or her. While it can be argued whether or not we really want power over our students, it’s useful to know their names when calling on them or when you have to wake someone up.
At the start of each class, I post a daily agenda that communicates to students the objectives for that session. It also helps me remember what I want to do. As most of us do, I invite communication via “electronic” office hours, a-k-a email. We all know students who are reluctant to talk in class or even one-on-one during office hours. Email solves that problem for many students.
I assume an authoritative teaching style modeled after Diana Baumrind’s Authoritative Parenting style. Authoritative teaching calls for setting limits, providing structure, and engaging in two-way communication that balances listening and speaking.
Issue-specific Socratic questioning is an effective communication tool. The questions can be for clarification,or they can be questions that probe assumptions, questions that probe implications, questions that probe evidence—that is, questions that challenge anecdotal belief with factual knowledge. I ask more questions than I answer. But I never leave students hanging without having a question answered. Using an interactive learning technique, I check the extent to which one student can answer another’s question in the Socratic process before I intervene.
My expectations on reading and writing assignments are clearly communicated. For reading assignments early in the semester, I distribute discussion questions that students must answer based on the assigned readings. Some may view this as academic training wheels, but most students indicate that they appreciate how chapter questions help them learn to focus and differentiate levels of importance of content. They answer these questions in a composition book I call a Personal Study Guide. These questions also promote active engagement when students read the text. As the semester progresses, I wean students from discussion questions and call for them to identify and discuss the main ideas presented in the readings.
When writing assignments are distributed, the class performs a close reading. When drafts are collected, writing groups are held. The groups focus on content and expression. I don’t necessarily feel that I am teaching writing as much as I’m having students look at how they are able to express the extent to which they understand the task and the material. I prepare students to expect a lot of feedback in the form of ink on graded writing assignments. They are told not to treat their graded essays like a six year old with a birthday card who looks for the prize/grade only. Instead, they should read the sentiments, and incorporate the message to transform future behavior. I remind students that they are paying for me to provide feedback, and I want to give their money’s worth so they will know what they’ve done well and where improvement is needed. The goal is to build on the writing process so that the next assignment will be even better.
Before returning graded papers, I have students submit a slip of paper predicting what grade they will earn on the assignment, based on effort, their understanding of material, and their ability to effectively communicate what they know in writing. Often, when I return papers, we have a “celebration of writing,” and I read an “A” paper to the class. To settle any question about what an “A” paper sounds like, I make sure they hear one. When students get their graded papers, I have each student write a brief assessment statement about what he/she could do differently in the future to be more successful on the next assignment.
I offer a heart-felt thank you to so many colleagues for helping me, over the years, identify, clarify and incorporate these values into my teaching.
©Copyright 2005. Contact author for permission
Maintained by Jay Howard,Apr 2005