On methods

I subscribe to a pretty straight-forward, uncomplicated pedagogy which you could call “graduate school,” “collaborative,” “communal,” i.e. basically consisting of just two components: material and discussion. You dive headfirst into it and hope you can swim. Obviously, the teacher has strapped on a vest. Starting with a concise, shrewd opening question is a good way to focus attention to a particularly tension-filled, or essential part of the material, which then typically, hopefully, catapults discussion into a life of its own, soon heading in a direction determined by participant interests, dependent upon the material and the guiding presence of the teacher. I consider this approach justifiably ennobled by time since Socrates sensed the Arcadian breeze on his forehead with Plato sitting giggling on the first bench.

Another element in my classes is the student presentation. This puts the student in charge of the material with inputs and inquiries from the rest of us. Obviously, group work – as described by Bean (cpt. 9, e.g., p.167) is a valuable variant in conjunction with the right material and the right instructions. Unfortunately, students are often too concerned with profiling themselves for final grade, resume, and future career purposes, for this method to reach its full potential. Our American cultural emphasis is not on co-operation either, so, you’re heading uphill. Many, probably most, other cultures, are stitched together differently. The pedagogy espoused by my childhood Danish educational system (as the message also was in society) had its emphasis, believe it or not, on communal concerns, so group work was an ingrained ingredient, teachers made sure to integrate individual brilliance into a communal purpose. (In all fairness, group work didn’t look terribly different from what I observe in my classes).

Let’s not leave out the lecture. It doesn’t have to last all fifty minutes. But if (excuse me: when) you really burn for something, you can generate a productive attention. Bean’s chapter 10 is useful in its discussion of many facets and applications of ‘lecture.’ I was surprised at his admittance in the Fishbowl-section on p. 178: “Pressure to perform well in the fishbowl motivates at-home study.” It’s my sense that our undergraduate system is more prone to hand-holding than pressuring. We sort of start already in the freshman year to wave a fond “farewell” to the anticipated alumni on the horizon. Cougar spirit and dressage is our glueful, cultural compensation for the protective shortcomings of society.

The weekly class reading-response blog I have incorporated in this course (and am using in my current UH 300) falls under Bean’s ‘exploratory writing’ (cpt. 6). I think it works very well as a way for students to structure their preparation, and also to think ‘freely’ in an exploratory fashion. It is important that the task is introduced as such: informal, so it doesn’t become a trial or ‘busywork’ (what an awful concept). For one thing, the blog registers the date and exact time of posting, so when a student consistently posts 2 minutes before (or past) the deadline, with, of course, ‘light’ comments, it is pretty telling – as opposed to a 3-paragraph, sophisticated posting three days in advance. I think, one must make a point of telling students that one does not look at the time factor but only gage the reasonable quality of the response; in order not to generate unnecessary stress and anxiety, associating the blog with some sort of public confession.

I have included my previous course write up on ‘learning’ below, please comment and suggest. Embedded in the formulation below is the intention to focus student attention to the necessity of being responsible for own education. I have outlined the ideal kind of preparation for class. Not that I expect of course, students to meticulously throw themselves into the task of procuring #s1-5 having sympathetically digested my gripping vision of pedagogy.


Learning

In my courses we engage in a collaborative learning model. Typically Honors courses are of a size and scope that lend themselves to such a format. It is a very simple and straight-forward pedagogy in respect of you and the individual, personal perspectives that you bring to class. It is a five-step system:

1. The material for a specific date is listed in the syllabus.
2. Please read the material beforehand carefully: write notes of questions and points you would like to make; do some research to expand on the text.
3. Come to class ready and willing to share your thoughts!
4. Go home and digest the class, think about whether or not your understanding of the material changed, was illuminated, expanded, or confirmed.
5. Revisit the issues again in the next or a later class when fitting; and/or discuss the issues with classmates and me outside of class.
   

In this manner our classroom will be full of impulses from different directions. Typically we come from all sorts of majors and backgrounds, while trying to establish an understanding of things that might be outside our normal or projected sphere of operations - and that is precisely the purpose of general education.

Is there any particular way to study the materials? And to engage them in class, pedagogically? I think there is great value in keeping it open, driven by, and occasioned by your questions. One could, formally, call it 'an inductive method': you read the stuff, have questions and reactions, and then together in class we try to pick things apart and reassemble them. We get answers to those questions; bring things together in comprehensive understanding. Beyond this, there are no formal tricks, nor do there need to be. You read the material and react to it: ask questions about any dimension of it! Then we generate knowledge and skills. It is as simple as that.

So, this is not a lecture-format providing you with all the routes, giving you the right answers which you then can retrace and confirm. Here, it is you taking on the text! And in class, your questions, and our discussion, will guide us to an understanding. I, of course, already have an understanding of the subject matters which I will bring to the table.

The Critical thinking guidelines and evaluating papers & essays can also be used as methods for how to ask questions to materials. Analyze, synthesize, contextualize, and form your opinion. The first times out we are probably going to miss a few pointers. But down the road, we will sharpen our tools.