During a long conversation with Jeff Ritter and Lori MacConnell at lunch yesterday, I discovered a number of interesting things. One of them was a clearer articulation of what I’m trying to do in my teaching, no matter what the subject.
The insight arose because Jeff asked me, “What do you want to do in your English course next year?” I had come to the two of them to get assistance in figuring out how to use tech tools (probably the so-called Web 2.0 tools) effectively in my English courses. I have seen how to use them in research-oriented projects and in tying together communities that don’t meet face to face, but how to use them in a powerful (rather than perfunctory) way in my English classes (apart from what I already do) was eluding me. Jeff finally said, “I need to know a problem you’re having in your course, and then I can recommend a tool to help you solve it.” Which seems obvious in retrospect, but…
Further discussion led to his question above about what my root goals were. I started by considering what I do and the goals at which the activities were aimed. I came up with a tentative conclusion and decided to see if my assertion would be true in other courses I teach (principally math, these days). In considering it from a number of difference course-perspectives, I decided it would be. So, here it is: I want to push students to think deeply and then to present in a persuasive manner the results of their thinking.
To test that assertion, I asked myself how general it was and how it was applied in various courses. In senior English, the pushes come initially in the choice of literature; subsequent nudges come from getting students to ask good questions and to answer them; the final push usually comes from expecting a well-reasoned and fluently written paper demonstrating insight, analysis, fluency of expression, and (often) synthesis. Check.
In math, the pushes come initially in the choice of mathematical material to study and the approach to their study, which is an emphasis on students’ learning as much as possible for themselves. The student-directed learning showed in the way labs were constructed and in the way in which the classroom was run: few questions answered directly, with nudges in a useful direction posed by leading questions, with the amount of direct assistance individually tailored to how much assistance the questioner actually needs (as opposed to wants) in my judgment. Subsequent pushes come in the choice of problems to investigate (rarely am I a fan of one-step problems or problems that students can solve easily algorithmically unless they have to develop the algorithms themselves). Final demonstration of competence comes either from a written exam that requires synthesis of knowledge and skills acquired in various aspects of the course or in an oral exam that starts with a consideration of solving problems but that ends when students have been pushed by a series of leading questions to the limits of their competence in various areas in the course. In such a case, the grade would be assessed based on how far I have to go with my questions before reaching their limit of competence.
Several people have commented on how “vague” the statement of philosophy is. It’s meant to be general enough to cover essentially everything I do in my teaching, so naturally it has to be general since it was designed to pick out the common elements between courses as disparate as complex analysis and French literature….
One colleague pointed out that he thought “we’d also want thinking grounded in a knowledge of the subject.” I certainly agree. As I pointed out to him, though, this statement is meant to reflect my own personal thinking/teaching, and I’m not going to teach a subject without a sufficient knowledge of the subject.
Next post will be some logical and thus perhaps disturbing implications of this philosophy. At some point, I need to address the gap of “creativity” in the statement as well.
I feel like there should be some easy, algorithmic problems in the course to help establish the foundation on which students can expand. I know that’s not a lot coming from a student, because obviously, it makes it seem like I just want easier tests, but seriously, I feel like drilling in basic problems not only helps in building our self esteem (which is extremely important), but also helps us solve those more complex problems easier.
I think this works for crazy smart people that can effectively interact on the crazy intellectual levels.
I think there’s value in pushing students intellectually to foster a new way of approaching and solving problems, but I also believe in focusing on some sort of foundational development, especially when teaching brand new topics.
I think one step / simple problems are an important part of the learning process. When first learning a subject, they are useful in understanding what the symbols stand for and how manipulations translate into visual changes of the problem at hand.
I work better when you aren’t poking me with a stick. Pushing us the find answers is challenging sometimes. However, in the end it feels really rewarding when I figure out the algorithm rather than you just teaching it to us. I enjoy the independence of learning in class. I also apprecoiated the synthesis of topics on the midterm. Dr. Raulston you are doing a great job teaching us with this philosophy.
Honesty, I thrived in your class because of the Chill Zone (yes it deserves capital letters). The relaxed atmosphere that your class provided allowed me to think and problem solve, ask questions, and seek help from classmates without feeling pressured to always have the right answer or get the best grade. It was about the journey and not the destination (grades). I am a very laid back person when it comes to school, and your class provided me with the best outlet to work in the way I work best and achieve at a higher level. Although there were times when I did need nudges to keep me on track…but you have a good feel for when that is necessary. You are the best teacher hands down. That is all.