In the last edition of Viewpoints, Tom Ott discussed the need to examine “who we are as teachers” and “what we take our purpose to be.” One of the best ways to do this is within the context of a supportive community, the kind of community that a Teaching Circle offers. Those of us who teach on the Main Campus have easy access to a support system and to collegial dialogue through vehicles such as the Teaching Center. In Regional Centers, this is harder to find, possibly increasing a sense of faculty isolation.
I remember one of the first attempts by a colleague to do something about this. When I was a part timer, early in my career, before there were any Regional Centers, Fay Beauchamp, as English Department Chair, began a Saturday morning meeting each semester for adjunct faculty to meet and discuss their concerns. Prior to this meeting, I taught my classes at community centers and vocational centers without finding significant opportunities to engage in discussion with colleagues, but dreaming of small places in time where I could share my profession. At this first adjunct faculty meeting, I met other part timers who became close friends, friends with whom I shared my craft.
When Simone Zelitch and Barbara Spadaro first discussed Teaching Circles at an English Department meeting, I remembered my first adjunct faculty workshop, and I was delighted about this new possibility of working with full- and part-time colleagues. I looked forward to sharing the scholarship in our profession and the concerns of our department.
In Fall 2002, we formed a Teaching Circle at the Northeast Regional Center (NERC). We began slowly. There were three people in our Circle—myself as facilitator, Phebe Baker, and George Swales, a newly appointed part timer with an impressive history working for the Philadelphia School District. We met three times that semester, beginning by addressing “housekeeping” issues such as arranging computer classroom time for George’s 102 class. Now, George had colleagues and friends to help him with this process.
In the second meeting, we supported each other in determining our teaching goals. My office on the third floor teaching lounge became a Teaching Center for the three of us. George and I actively debated the role of literature in English 102. George was concentrating on critical approaches to Kafka. I began with The Tempest and a small assignment on critical views of Caliban and the romance genre, but ultimately I asked my students for a larger research paper dealing with topics from multiple disciplines emerging from our study of the play. Although Phebe was teaching CAP, we learned that a Teaching Circle with faculty teaching different courses empowered us to see common problems and many approaches to our work; also, Phebe’s sense of humor was always welcome.
In the Spring semester of 2003, Grace Flisser and Deb Sanville, a new part timer, joined the circle. This semester we have grown to six colleagues at NERC—the Teaching Circle limit. Two of these people, newly hired this semester, offer the entire group fresh approaches from graduate school. I hope the Teaching Circle has helped their transition from graduate school to the classroom. For the more experienced members of the group (Grace, Anne Marie Keenan and me), it is encouraging to see that we all share similar goals. At the first meeting, Tracey Romero discussed the need for her students to learn “a clear sense of audience and purpose” in their writing, while Jen Rossino wants her students to end the semester having learned they need to “stay on thesis” and “follow instructions.”
In our second meeting of this semester, we were joined by Marian Nelson, another part time colleague. At this meeting, we discussed writing assignments. Specifically, the role of narrative essays and the 500 word essay. I was particularly interested in Marian Nelson’s personal narrative assignment, which called for a fair degree of critical thinking skills. We made no easy assumptions about the validity of the 500 word essay, but decided it provided sound organizational structure for our beginning students, especially those coming to us from remedial or Developmental courses. Still, we do not rigidly adhere to this model. Although we find four paragraph essays to be too thin, both Marian and I move on to three page essays as the semester progresses.
Finally, we discussed grading strategies, defining what we value in writing and what kind of consensus we could reach in grading. I distributed a grading model I give students—one that examines content, organization, and mechanics. We explored other questions. What do we do about students who have no problem with content and organization, but who have serious trouble with sentence fragments? How do we differentiate the grades of these students as opposed to those who know what a sentence is, but can’t detail and organize an essay? Some recent scholarship has questioned the weight given to grammar in grading. However, our community decided grammar is an inherent part of communication and should be weighed heavily.
Yes, we are a community, a community vital to NERC, to the English Department, and most of all, to ourselves. In continuing dialogue, we support each other, challenge our teaching assumptions, and pierce the veil of isolation.
Readers interested in learning more about Teaching Circles might be interested in Grace Flisser's article One Teacher's Reflections on the Rewards and Tensions of a Teaching Circle .
©Copyright 2004. Contact author for permission
Maintained by Jay Howard,Jan 2004