My Freshman Year

What was the most surprising aspect of My Freshman Year, and why did it surprise me?

I’m not as old now as Cathy Small (aka Rebekah Nathan) was when she wrote My Freshman Year, but I have been out of college long enough to feel sorely disappointed by the lack of intellectual curiosity amongst the undergraduate students she described. I have been putting a lot of thought and energy into developing my course for next semester, and part of me feels like it’s all a big waste of time.

This surprised me because my own recollections from college include taking stimulating courses (not about sexuality), reading and loving books, meeting and admiring tough and challenging professors, in addition to making friends and having, uh, other experiences. I did not love every class I took, but I don’t remember ever thinking that a particular class or activity was a waste of time because it wouldn’t apply to my career. Perhaps this was only because I didn’t know what career I wanted when I was in college.

My disappointment is mitigated only if I compare teaching with being a boss. After all, the two roles are not dissimilar. Before coming to NDSU, I spent six years as the head of a large development media project in Africa. As one of the founders of the project, I was utterly devoted to it. It was my “baby.” For most of my staff, though, it was just a job. They generally liked what they did and saw at least some value in it beyond their own paychecks, but that was about it. Did I fault them for that? As long as they did their jobs well and didn’t create problems for the organization, no, but I must admit that I often wished they felt as passionately about the project as I did.

I suppose I should take a similar attitude towards students. After all, most have been doing nothing but attending school since they were toddlers. Academically, college (at least the first year or so) is really nothing new. If this nation’s high schools aren’t places where intellectual curiosity and diverse thinking thrive, why should we expect our colleges to be any different? Besides, as Small/Nathan points out, more and more students are going to college only because they need a degree to get a job. They’re not interested in education for its own sake, and most courses will never excite or interest them, no matter how much thought and effort teachers puts into those courses.

In light of the challenges faced by undergraduate students highlighted in the book, what advice would I give new college instructors?

Even before I read this book, I’ve tried to appreciate other cultures on their own merits, not based on my own values. This mostly applies to cultures I’ve encountered in other countries, but it applies equally to generational culture differences right here in the US. Ever since I returned to school at NDSU, I’ve reminded myself that fashion trends, hairstyles, music tastes, and other superficial manifestations of culture change all the time. Judging these things as good or evil would be to tacitly acknowledge that my generation’s fashion trends, hairstyles, or music tastes could also be evil, which seems silly. Thus, my first bit of advice would be to echo the author: take students on their own terms.

My second bit of advice would be to remind teachers that while not all of their students will be interested in their classes or find the subject matter stimulating, many will. Teachers may not be able to make a difference in all their students’ lives, but they may make a tremendous difference in some of their students’ lives. I just hope that I may inspire, advise, guide, and mentor my students the way my favorite teachers inspired, advised, guided, and mentored me.

Thirdly, I would urge new college teachers to be mindful of the many obligations their students face, particularly on- or off-campus jobs. The growing costs of a university education force many students to work longer hours, leaving them with fewer hours to read course material and complete homework assignments. Does this mean students should get a free pass on course readings and homework? No. But it does mean that teachers should be prepared to argue the educational value of assignments and course readings, or risk having students dismiss the assignments as “busy work.” In addition, teachers should be explicit and candid about required work. Information from readings and assignments that are merely “suggested” or appear to be optional should not be included on exams.

Has this book changed my perspective on undergraduate students? If no, why not? If so, how so?

My answer is yes and no. The book has reminded me that no matter how brilliant I think my course next semester will be, most of the students won’t think so. Or worse, they won’t care whether it’s brilliant or not. They just want it to be easy and over.

I’ve also been reminded that students generally enjoy the college experience, of which classes and teachers are no small part. According to Small/Nathan, students believe that most of what they learn in college happens outside the classroom. I’m not so sure. While many out-of-class experiences are probably more memorable, on average, than in-class experiences, is it empirically true that more learning takes place outside of class? To answer yes is to say that college is little more than a four-year summer camp. Yet, every year college graduates go off and get jobs in engineering firms, newspapers, schools, and government. While on-the-job training is usually provided, surely some of what qualifies these people to hold the jobs they’re given are skills and knowledge acquired in college classrooms.

That, at least, is an encouraging thought.

Blog Entry #10

Just in case those of us in the introductory teaching course weren’t feeling sufficiently intimidated by our new role as teachers, chapters 23, 24, and 25 of Teaching Tips remind us that we must not only ensure that our students master all the content our university and department demands, we must also help students become self-regulated learners, teach them how to think, and teach them ethics.

When I was an undergraduate, I had some professors I really liked, respected, and learned from, but few—if any—did many of the things outlined in this section of Teaching Tips. Given that most of my professors were educated between 1960 and 1980, perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised by that, but I think my teaching would be helped if I had seen these teaching behaviors modeled when I was younger. Nonetheless, reading this section motivated me to try to model as many of these positive teacher behaviors as possible.

Before proceeding, I need to note that this week’s reading provided a relatively cursory overview of very complex pedagogical issues. As such, a lot of information was only hinted at, so much of what I wanted to know was not readily available in the text. I found myself going online and searching for some of the lists, surveys, inventories, statements, and other artifacts referenced in Teaching Tips. This means that—as usual—this blog entry will detail my responses to the week’s reading and contain a mix of what suggestions I will incorporate into my own teaching and what suggestions I probably won’t incorporate into my own teaching. It also means that instead of ending the entry with a few links to interesting internet articles or tools, I will insert several links—throughout the entry—to sites that provide some background information about some things I encountered in the book.


Chapter 23: Teaching Students How to Become More Strategic and Self-Regulated Learners

This chapter focuses on linking good teaching practices with a variety of effective learning strategies and skills. The essence of the chapter is that teachers should do what they can to help students learn how to learn. Part of this means making explicit as much as possible the content that will be learned in class and methods the teacher believes students can use to learn the content.

In my course next semester, I will also make explicit to my students my ideas about how communication scholars learn and think. One of my course objectives is that students will develop some basic media literacy skills. Media literacy embodies the concept of communication expertise in this context. And as we view mass media artifacts and discuss media issues throughout the semester, I can actively model the kinds of media literacy skills I want my students to practice.

There is, though, a limit to what the average teacher can achieve. Teaching Tips talks about helping students evaluate their learning styles and increasing their self-awareness. I’m not an education expert, so teaching study skills would probably not be very easy for me. Furthermore, spending too much time teaching what some might see as remedial study skills could be misconstrued or even counterproductive. Having said that, there are some tools online that may be used in class to help students identify how best they learn. For example, this survey is easy to take and score and gives students a general sense of whether they learn best visually, aurally, or kinesthetically. This questionnaire must be taken online, but is able to show students where they fit within a range of learning styles (this is more realistic because none of us learns exclusively in any one way). The styles are active versus reflective, sensing versus intuitive, visual versus verbal, and sequential versus global learners. These activities do not require much time and could be used to introduce the notion of discipline-specific approaches to thinking and learning.

Helping students recognize how best they learn is only the first step, however. Teachers must also do their best to ensure that their teaching methods target their students’ learning styles. Most good teachers incorporate many teaching strategies into their lessons anyway, but they may not know which strategies appeal to which learning styles. A brief list showing these linkages can be found here.

Next semester, I will be teaching an entry-level course. Teaching Tips says this means that most students will have very little prior knowledge of the field, which makes building bridges between old knowledge and new knowledge more difficult. Luckily for me (and my students), my course is a mass media course, so most, if not all, of my students should have some prior knowledge by virtue of having been consumers of mass media throughout their lives. They may not have prior knowledge of media criticism, but they’ve probably heard some things growing up about the dangers of watching too much TV, for example, and the criticisms of video games and rap or rock music. In short, even if they haven’t practiced media literacy skills themselves, they’ve had some exposure to these skills as practiced by others.

A simple way to illustrate this with students could be to ask them how their parents or guardians monitor and control their television and movie viewing when they were younger? Did they ever watch something that was too “mature” for them? What affect might it have had?

The entry-level course is also where students are introduced to a discipline, and I am very excited about having the chance to introduce students to the fields of communication and mass communication. I think I will also have a communication department faculty member—ideally one who mostly teaches grad students or upper-level undergraduates—come in and speak about the discipline and being a scholar within the discipline.

This semester, I’ve seen many students struggle in the class I’ll teach next semester. Part of the problem, I think, is that the students are suffering from what Teaching Tips calls gaps in their knowledge that aren’t being revealed until the exams. Based on this experience, I will gauge students’ knowledge and understanding more frequently, through short writing assignments, in-class Q&A, short quizzes, and other tools.

My favorite phrase of the chapter came at the end: “executive control processes,” which the book used to describe students’ power to organize, manage, maintain, and monitor their own learning. This means that students have the power to set and achieve their own learning goals, but teachers can help students evaluate their learning skills. The book referenced a four-phase sequence (developed by Zimmerman and Paulson) for doing this, but then gave no details. I searched for publicly available editions of New Directions For Teaching And Learning, the journal in which this article was published, in vain. However, I was able to learn a bit about the four phases. Students met with an instructor who modeled four reading-comprehension strategies: predicting what is likely to happen next in the text; clarifying difficulties occurring during reading; summarizing, and setting reading goals.


Chapter 24: Teaching Thinking

Here Teaching Tips revisits learner-centered instruction, saying that in response to research findings that support pedagogical reforms, most universities have added “critical thinking or problem-solving skills” to the list of standard curriculum objectives (p. 319). To this end, and in keeping with teaching methods discussed earlier in the semester, I hope my media literacy skill development ideas and case study/discussion formats will stimulate critical thinking in my students.

We are also reintroduced to Bloom’s Taxonomy, but this time we also learn of a revised version. I always liked Bloom’s Taxonomy because the verbs linked to each of the learning orders helped me grasp the intent of the corresponding objectives. The revised version has even more verbs, as the names of the orders were changed from nouns to verbs. This makes the taxonomy even better, as far as I’m concerned. And I agree that “create” is higher than “evaluate.”

The other element from this short chapter that got my attention was the reminder that skilled test writers can use multiple-choice tests to tap higher-order objectives. I found a helpful example of multiple-choice items applied across the taxonomy here on the Penn State website, though please note these examples were written based on the original taxonomy.


Chapter 25: The Ethics of Teaching and the Teaching of Ethics

I almost wish we had read this chapter earlier in the semester when we were talking about proper teacher-student relationships, as it helped me to frame the issue in terms of teachers’ responsibilities to different groups—namely students, colleagues, the university, and maybe others. Perhaps teachers’ answers to ethical questions depend on which responsibilities teachers prioritize.

I was very interested to see that the bad teaching behavior most commonly engaged in was simply being unprepared for class. This is probably unavoidable for any teacher on some days, perhaps more unavoidable for graduate teaching assistants. Reading this did remind me that I want to prepare as much of this class as possible over the semester break!

The chapter mentioned that researchers identified 126 different behaviors that teachers were then asked to rate. The bad behaviors viewed as most serious were segmented into seven clusters. The labels for the clusters were noted in the text, but I wanted examples. So I dug up the document online. The text then alluded to a statement of professional ethics devised by the American Association of University Professors, which I also found online.

Making the classroom a place where safe but open debate can occur is not easy. Discussing sensitive issues can make many students uncomfortable. The book suggests drawing up rules for how debates or talks on these subjects would be conducted in the classroom. I think this is an excellent idea. I found a good example online. It includes alerting students to potentially controversial topic discussions in the syllabus and making sure that the teacher protects all students equally in the face of heated exchanges or potential conflict.

I am planning to have students write online media literacy blogs in my class next semester. To respect confidentiality, I’m going to encourage students to set up their blogs under pseudonyms, in the hopes that they will be more willing to write truthfully about their opinions and experiences.

Finally, Teaching Tips argued that we should teach some values and that all teachers end up teaching values through behavior, if not instruction. I agree that teachers do instill values in their students through modeling behaviors, in and out of the classroom. And I don’t disagree that all schooling is generally geared toward socializing students to be honest and have respect for others as human beings. How these values are taught, though, is another matter.

Research has shown that students learn most deeply when obtain knowledge through their own trial and error. This is at least as true for values as for fact retention. Values, after all, are emotional associations with issues and events, and if not internalized are not truly values at all. Students must be exposed to issues relating to honesty and human rights in a way that they come to appreciate those values in a genuine way. Simply being lectured about university policy or a particular instructor’s view on gender-sensitive language, for instance, may even be somewhat counterproductive, though it is important for students to know the university’s policies on such matters.

I’ll be giving this more though over the coming weeks and look forward to a healthy classroom discussion (in COMM 702) about this, since I expect values to be a recurring theme in my mass media class next semester. TV shows, music, movies, the internet—all these things tend to be judged based on values, in one way or another. How I approach discussing values will matter.

As a final note in this entry, I found an excellent teacher behavior inventory for students.
Originally printed in the Journal of Educational Psychology in 1983, it lists many good teaching behaviors. Students are asked to indicate the extent to which the teacher models these behaviors and whether the students would like to see more or less of this behavior. Filling this out may require a bit more time than the typical teacher evaluation, but I think it could be very helpful in providing the teacher with specific feedback about what he or she is doing (or not doing) in the classroom.

Blog Entry #9

Our readings for this week included part 5 of Teaching Tips, which contains “Skills for Use in Other Teaching Situations,” and chapter 9 of First Day to Final Grade, which contains advice for seeking out student feedback. In my entry here, I’ll write about my reactions to Teaching Tips first, then move on to First Day….

Teaching Tips, Part 5

Large Classes

One of the “other teaching situations” that teachers face is the large class. Next semester, in fact, I’ll teach a class of about 120 students. After reading chapter 19 in Teaching Tips, I was relieved not to be facing a class of 500, as apparently teachers in some schools do. In such classrooms, I thought while reading this, how does a teacher do anything but lecture? Clearly I’m not the only one with such thoughts, which is surely why McKeachie felt the need to write this chapter in the first place.

McKeachie says that even in large classes, teachers are able to stimulate active learning. Harking back to sections of the book that detailed facilitating discussions and making lectures more effective, he said the best way to promote active learning is to get students talking and asking questions about the material being discussed in class.

He talked about technology that can help get students involved in discussions without having to speak, which should certainly make participation easier for more reticent students. The remote handset keypad McKeachie discussed is already somewhat obsolete, mostly due to the added costs, but in COMM 702 I’ve seen other immediate feedback systems implemented that would be easier to use and not require students to purchase additional hardware. Cell phones can be used for this same purpose or for students to participate in polls. For example, in my introductory mass media course, it would be illuminating to know how many students illegally download copyrighted content (particularly music and movies) and why they do. Using cell phones to submit a response is a much safer way for students to discuss their behavior without revealing their identities.

I also liked the minute paper and half-sheet response writing assignments. McKeachie says you can tell students you’ll only read and return a sample of the papers, which I think is fine, so long as you vary the sample each time you do this exercise so that by the end of the semester all students have received some feedback. An alternative would be not to collect the papers at all, but simply to ask students to use their writing as a chance to gather their thoughts as preparation for class discussion.

The fishbowl idea sounds interesting, though I imagine it could make several students uncomfortable. McKeachie says to tell students that the teacher will choose students to be “in the fishbowl,” but I think you could probably ask for volunteers—at least the first time.

Lastly, I have found that bringing a guest to the classroom can be effective. I have an old, close friend who is an independent movie producer. As part of our talk about the motion picture industry in the mass media course, my friend came and told the class about his experiences and what he does for a living. Students were very interested and when my friend asked if there were any questions, over a dozen hands shot up. Given what has so far been a pretty subdued class this semester, seeing so many hands go up was rewarding.

Teaching Tips offers ten ways to reduce students’ feelings of anonymity. I agree that this is important. In the mass media course I co-teach this semester, virtually the entire class is anonymous. This makes it easier for students to slink out when they’re bored (which they do) and hide in the back and sleep. It also makes the teachers’ calling on students more difficult. If several students raise their hands, I can’t indicate one student by calling his or her name. Instead, I have to describe the student, usually by what he or she is wearing. I usually start by asking the student to give his or her name. Through this method, I have learned the identities of a handful of students, but in a class of 130 students, most students remain anonymous.

McKeachies’ suggestions—including creating flash cards with students’ name and photos and asking students to fill out autobiographical sketches—are helpful. Inviting students to join the teacher for coffee after class, however, struck me as a bit odd. I think for this to work and not creep students out, teachers would have to be very clear in the invitation why they were issuing the invitation and that several students were being invited. Even so, most students would probably find the experience odd and resist. And imagine if only one student of the opposite sex should join the teacher for coffee! Not only might that student feel embarrassed, but I can imagine that the teacher could be questioned by colleagues or superiors about the whole thing.

Teaching Tips also talked about giving tests in a large class. I like the idea of including a short essay question, though I’m not sure I’ll do that. Perhaps I’ll do as McKeachie suggests and tell students I will only read it if it will affect the student’s letter grade for the course (or perhaps the exam).

One thing not mentioned was the challenge of proctoring an exam to 100 or more students. Next semester I’m going to try and create three different versions of the exam and make sure that the versions alternate as they’re distributed, so that no three students sitting in proximity of one another has the same exam. Otherwise, given the theater-style layouts of these large classrooms, it is just far too easy for students to cheat.

Laboratory Instruction

I really enjoyed reading about laboratory teaching. I don’t think I’ll be able to incorporate any of these lab techniques into my introductory mass media course next semester, but there are ways to incorporate practical learning into communication courses.

Last night, I woke up in the middle of the night to get a drink of water and on the way back to bed I thought about a great twist on the “discovery instruction” technique that could be implemented in an investigative journalism class. It would be done in the form of a treasure hunt and should incorporate space outside the classroom.

Have students work in pairs or groups no larger than four students. Give them a slip of paper with a few clues to get them chasing what promises to be an explosive story. They need to gather enough clues to be able to write a first story. In other words, they need to have the basics of who, what, where, when how, and why answered, but they will probably also need one or two other tidbits of information to have a well-rounded story.

The first clues they see in class should send them around campus—to the library, the information desk at the student union, the departmental office, etc. The teacher would need some confederates in each of these places to drop more clues. For example, the confederates might give students another slip of paper that contains more clues, or if they’re dramatically-inclined, act out the part of a source in the story.

There is a great deal of flexibility with this activity, of course. Each pair or group could start with different clues, for example, or even be given clues for different stories. This would prevent groups from following each other. More advanced students could be given conflicting clues that students would have to investigate more thoroughly. The activity could be extended beyond one class period, so that “investigating” and “writing” take place over several days or weeks. Such an activity would engage students in higher-level learning and permit them to make their own decisions in pursuing and applying knowledge. If this activity were to follow classroom lecturing about investigative reporting, students would have some theoretical knowledge to apply. A class might also watch “All the Presidents’ Men,” for example, to see the dogged determination of professional journalists that they could emulate during the exercise.

As Teaching Tips says, this kind of activity is a much better way to engage students and put them in control of their own learning. Students’ success would be measured by the stories they write. Students would also be challenged to critique their own learning process and how well they worked in groups.

Such an activity might almost compare to an experiential learning experience, as described in chapter 21 of Teaching Tips. Hands-on or “real world” experience gives students the chance to see things for themselves, “using their own powers of observation and interpersonal skill” (p. 278).

Course Design

Chapter 22 in Teaching Tips offered advice for teachers of online courses. I’ve never taken or taught an online course, so I can only imagine what an online course looks like, but the advice in this chapter seemed appropriate. After all, in an online environment the teacher-student interactions are very, very different. Teachers must be prepared to go the extra mile to ensure their students are grasping the material and are following what’s being discussed.

The book says ensuring the quality of a distance education course starts with the design of the course, but I think that applies equally to face-to-face courses. So as I read the chapter, I took the advice for my own course.

The chapter says a common problem for teachers is that they don’t realize just how much distance separates their view of course material from their students’ views. Teaching Tips calls these views “frames of reference.” To overcome this, teachers must first try to ground the material in what students know. From there teachers can move inductively to more abstract concepts.

This flow becomes what the book calls a “teaching narrative that drives and supports…students’ thinking as they work through the course” (p. 294). It’s like writing a play, the book says. The narrative begins with an opening scenario that captures students’ attention and deepens their curiosity. The plot thickens as new issues and questions come up. Then there is resolution when questions are answered and opinions formed.

The playwright metaphor might suggest that the teacher provides these elements through exposition, or lecture, but like any good play, a good class should “show, not tell” these elements. In other words, use examples, case studies, activities, etc. to develop the plot.

First Day to Final Grade, Chapter 9

Teachers give feedback to their students throughout the semester. Grades are the most obvious form of this feedback, but other forms include written critiques of writing assignments and even what teachers say when students answer or ask questions. But chapter 9 in First Day… reminds us that teachers must also seek feedback from their students. The main reason to get this feedback, of course, is to learn how well students are learning, though it would also be gratifying to hear that students enjoy the course. Ultimately, if students are learning, they are probably enjoying the course, at least at some level.

I like some of the suggestions First Day… offers for getting informal feedback from students. Giving students a variety of means for contacting the teacher is important. I will invite my students to put notes in my mailbox in the department office if they want to communicate anonymously. Otherwise, office visits and e-mails are always welcome, of course.

The “meta-teaching” suggestion, or talking with students about the state of the course or of a particular aspect of or activity in the course, is also worth doing if the teacher is prepared for wherever such a talk might lead. If the course is not going well and the blame lies largely with the teacher, most students will be reluctant to say so. If no one is honest, the teacher will probably not learn much that is useful in such circumstances. However, if a student or two criticizes the teacher, the teacher must be prepared to handle such criticism in the right way or the talk will only serve to undermine the teacher.

If the class overall is generally a good one, then asking students why one particular discussion or activity flopped could yield some very useful information. Perhaps the topic was too sensitive, for example. In such circumstances, the teacher could provide students with other ways of sharing opinions without revealing their identities, such as in writings or cell phone polls like I mentioned at the beginning of this entry.

As I end my entry for this week, I leave you with a brief video from educational development advisor Dr. Luke Desforges at the University of Sheffield in the UK, who describes another way to get students’ feedback.





Finally, the University of Hawaii has a great website with tools for teachers in designing a course. It has tips for designing lesson plans, many ideas for first day ice breaker activities, and principles for designing a course.

Entry #8

Part 4 of Teaching Tips promotes writing, active learning, and problem-based learning when generating assignments and activities in the classroom. In my blog entry this week, I’ll describe three activities that I’d like to try, based on what I read. Afterwards, I’ll lay out a couple of best practices that I witnessed from the many teaching demonstrations we’ve seen in COMM 702 so far this semester.

Class Activities/Assignments

Low-Stakes Writing

The first class activity I propose is a generally “low-stakes” writing assignment. It’s actually more of an on-going writing exercise, as I intend to have students keep a journal of mass media musings. Each week students will respond to a prompt that relates to what we’re reading and/or discussing in class. For example, in discussing journalistic controversies, we'll talk about privacy issues and photojournalism. In class we will look at some of these controversies. Then I will ask students to read an essay by photojournalist David Perdew, in which he describes some of the agonizing moral dilemmas he’s faced during his career.

The writing assignment requires students to answer the rhetorical questions Perdew poses in his essay, like, “do photojournalists serve their readers by running controversial pictures?” and “can journalists be accused of censoring or softening the news when they don’t run those pictures?” Unless students have experience in photojournalism, they should respond as consumers, not producers, of news photographs and video.

The assignment is low-stakes because the grade will be based on whether or not students complete the assignment and meet the basic requirements of the assignment, which are that the writing must address the questions posed and must be at least 400 words. How students answer the questions or the positions they take will not impact their grades.

The purpose of this assignment is, as Teaching Tips says, to help students process class material with their own experiences and opinions. In this case, they'll think more deeply about the kinds of images we see all the time in the news media and at least start to formulate an opinion about the role of photojournalism in society. The writings will deepen students’ learning without burdening them with anxiety about how well or poorly they write. They also help students prepare for a longer paper near the end of the semester. I can cite students’ views—anonymously, even—to jump start classroom discussions afterwards.

At first I was going to have students write a traditional journal that only they and I would see, but I was inspired by this course and the text to have students make their entries in a blog. To accommodate students who might feel anxious writing in the public domain, I will let students establish blogs under pseudonyms, so long as I know their real identities. This way we might even be able to look at blog entries as a class, without embarrassing the writers.

Peer Learning and Teaching

The second activity I propose is a small group assignment, in which students will work with 4 or 5 colleagues to present research on a relevant issue or event. I intend to have a list of issues and events that students can select, but they may also propose to research an issue or event of their own, subject to my approval. Examples of an issue or event could be the role that radio was shown to have played in the 1994 Rwandan genocide, and the evolutionary relationship between the music industry and the internet.

Groups will have to present what they learn in their research to the class, using PowerPoint or other visual aids. A paper need not accompany the presentation, but students will have to submit a references sheet. The purpose of this assignment is to make students responsible for investigating and then teaching course material. The students in the groups should learn their issue/event especially well. After all, in the words Teaching Tips uses to describe peer tutoring, in preparing their presentations, students must think about the material and make informed decisions about how to present it in their own words. There is also a discernible benefit for students watching the presentations: the book supports my own observations that classes tend to pay more attention to students’ presentations than teachers’ presentations.

To ensure as much collaboration as possible, I will spend time talking with the class about what effective groups do and how they can work cooperatively. The book lists several suggestions. Students will also anonymously provide feedback to me about their groups and group members.

The Case Method

Teaching Tips describes case methods as a type of problem-based teaching method that attempts to get students to apply knowledge and concepts in solving a problem or figuring out a particular situation. One case study I propose presenting will look at the effects of depictions of violence in the mass media on audiences. In small groups students will answer five questions based on brief excerpts from ten or a dozen different sources, including research articles into the causes of violence and news accounts of allegedly media-inspired violence. Before they read the excerpts, students will be asked about what they think they know about media’s links to violence. After they read the excerpts, students will be asked to analyze who is making the various claims and how those making these claims might benefit from their claims.

The purpose is to introduce students to media effects research and get them to think critically about research findings. It should also encourage them to reflect on their own views about depictions of violence in the media. Presenting the issues of media effects research and violence in the media through a case method should promote deeper learning than talking about these issues generally. The key difference, as Teaching Tips points out, is that the case method contextualizes the material to be learned.

Best Practices: Classroom Learning Activities

The most important thing when conducting any learning activity is for the teacher to know precisely what students are to learn and how, in their best estimation, the activity will result in that learning. If the teacher doesn’t know this, there is a high probability that the activity will fail. Even if it’s fun, most students will see it as pointless, or “busy work” designed to do little more than pass the time. The teacher must also share this information with the students. Telling the students what they will learn does not mean telling them exactly what facts they will uncover or opinions they might form. This, after all, could very well spoil the thrill of discovery and joy of learning. But students must generally grasp the purpose of the activity so that they will be motivated to participate fully and actively.

The second most important thing is to ensure that after the activity the class has at least a little time to review what was learned. This is useful in making sure that any students who may not have performed as well as hoped during the activity recognize what errors or shortfalls may have occurred, especially since students should be permitted to ask questions. Depending on the course and the activity, the review may also be the ideal time for the teacher to situate the activity into a real-world context, or at least reemphasize the applicability of the learning gained through the activity in another academic context.

In COMM 702, most of the teaching demonstrations have showcased teachers’ ability to design fun, relevant activities that do promote deeper learning of their material. However, mostly due to time limits, few of the teachers (including me) have spent sufficient time after the activity reviewing what was learned.

Links

While researching how to design writing assignments for large classes, like the one I will teach next semester, I came across this website from the University of Kansas’ writing center.

Lehman College offers some additional ideas for incorporating writing in class, including how to use Blackboard as a writing tool.

Blog Entry #7

This week my entry is all about the concept of learner-centered teaching, or LCT, based on chapter 2 of Maryellen Weimer’s Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice, and chapters 12 and 13 of Wilbert McKeachie’s Teaching Tips. I shall attempt to answer three questions—namely, what is LCT; which aspects of LCT could I incorporate into my own teaching, and which aspects of LCT would be difficult or even unwise to incorporate into my own teaching.

What is learner-centered teaching?

As all our readings throughout the semester have shown, college teachers around the US are largely disappointed by the attitudes and behaviors of today’s students. Students are “anxious, indecisive, and unsure of themselves” (Weimer, p. 23). Too many are driven only by the desire to get good grades, not by the desire to master the material. Cheating, procrastination, and absenteeism are commonplace.

The authors of this week’s readings clearly agree that much (if not all) of the fault for this state of affairs is with teachers. The remedy, they say, is for teachers to motivate their students. For weeks we’ve been talking about how we can do that. But this week’s readings present some bold, even radical, ways to help students become “empowered, confident, self-motivated learners” (Weimer, p. 23).

Learner-centered teaching (LCT) is a pedagogical philosophy that puts students in charge of their own learning. Weimer says its ultimate goal is to eliminate the need for a teacher, at least as we conceptualize this person traditionally. Students taught progressively through this philosophy will, theoretically, develop “learning skills so sophisticated that they can teach themselves” (p. 29).

Practically speaking, LCT is teachers’ sharing power with students, meaning that students are allowed to participate in decision-making processes or even make outright decisions that are directly related to their learning. Weimer, for example, says she lets students set some course policies, such as class participation. Other examples she gives include letting students select the course textbook, suggest course objectives, and even determine which topics will and will not be covered in class. Teaching Tips suggests letting students have some choices of assignments and, in the case of “ethnic” students, allowing them to measure aspects of academic success according to their cultures.

The purpose of these suggestions, all three authors agree, is to increase students’ intrinsic desire to learn and decrease students’ apparent aversion to academic challenges. In other words, the purpose is to motivate students to learn. Where the authors appear not to agree, however, is in how much power can and should be shared.

I think it’s fair to say that Weimer embraces the LCT concept more fully than do the authors of chapters 12 and 13 in Teaching Tips. Weimer is genuinely disappointed that she hasn’t relinquished more power to her students. At the same time, she recognizes that LCT is not easy to implement to today’s students, though she argues that this is because the current pedagogical paradigm makes students so dependent on teachers that they don’t know how to handle the power.

The authors of Teaching Tips, on the other hand, seem to feel that smaller transfers of power are sufficient. Chapter 12 provides an overview of motivational theories. The chapter points to studies that say that students who are intrinsically motivated to learn use higher-level cognitive learning strategies, and that students who feel a greater sense of autonomy and self-determination in their learning feel more intrinsically motivated. Ipso facto, students given more autonomy in their learning will learn better.

Chapter 13 looks at student motivation through a cultural lens, arguing that the white American majority’s view of good academic performance is not always the same as minorities’ views. For example, the majority culture expects that students will maintain eye contact with the teacher during lectures. In some cultures, however, young people are not supposed to make eye contact when being spoken to. The goal of chapter 13 is for teachers to understand these differences and think about ways their teaching and their expectations can be adjusted in order to more accurately assess good academic performance by all students.

The radical version of learner-centered teaching is probably never going to be adapted universally. It's like socialism or capitalism or libertarianism, in that while the theory might sound very appealing, in practice it just doesn't work because human beings aren't all as rational as we're made out to be in the theories. But it would be very exciting to see LCT implemented incrementally at the university level. First-year students could be given a little power--perhaps to choose assignments, things like that. Fourth-year students could be allowed to weigh in on textbook choices, content coverage, due dates, and more.

Would students ever be able to learn without teachers? Perhaps, but should they want to? I've always thought learning was, in some ways at least, a collaborative process, and some of that collaboration happens between students and teachers. Teachers and other students also provide external motivations, a little of which most of us need. It's like exercise. Most of us do it with a buddy because it's too easy to blow off otherwise. But I also agree that too much of learning today is like military basic training. Students learn or are punished.

Which aspects of LCT would I incorporate into my own teaching?

Graduate teaching assistants don’t have much power to begin with, so how much power we can share with our students is probably minimal. COMM 110, the introductory public speaking course, is regimented from start to finish by the communication department. The department seems to feel that COMM 110 students can’t even decide how many note cards they can have in their hands when they give a speech, let alone decide which assignments they can do or what deadlines they set. The reasons for this are surely to make things easier for the inexperienced TA’s, but this doesn’t alleviate the power gap.

A few weeks ago I learned that in the spring 2010 semester, I would get to teach COMM 112, the introductory mass media course, on my own. At first I thought I would have a lot of freedom to improve the course, but I later was told that I must synchronize my version of the course with the online version of the course, which is taught by someone else. That makes sense, I thought, but then when I saw that the woman who teaches the online version of the course has a Ph.D. after her name, I began to suspect that the true purpose of the synchronization was to make sure that the Ph.D., not the first-year M.S. seeker, was designing the course. (That also makes sense.)

But theoretically, at least, there are several things I’d like to incorporate into my own teaching. One modest suggestion I intend to implement comes from Teaching Tips. Based on the idea that students will work harder on activities they believe have value and in which they can succeed, I will spend time talking about why a deep understanding of the role of mass media in our lives is so important, and how their familiarity with mass media will help them do well in the class.
Teaching Tips also strongly urges teachers to adopt a criterion-referenced approach to grading, which I will certainly do. I will also make course requirements and assignment point values explicit in the syllabus.

Because the COMM 112 class next semester will be very large (about 130 students), I will try to get students engaged socially with each other, which chapter 12 encourages. I liked the idea of having students discuss questions in pairs or small groups. If students feel more comfortable with each other, it seems to me they’ll feel less uncomfortable about speaking up in class.
Chapter 13 urges teachers to understand their students’ cultures in order to increase student motivation and avoid miscommunication and misunderstandings in the classroom. I feel I am already a very culturally sensitive teacher. After all, most of my teaching experience is outside the United States. I am very familiar with many of the “non-Western” student communication issues that Teaching Tips describes in chapter 13. I’ll never forget, for example, one beginning English class I had in Taiwan in which not one of my students would speak. I’m not exaggerating. The class was two nights a week for three months. Not one of them would answer a question, repeat words and phrases with me (despite my instructing them, in English and Chinese, to do so), or participate in dialogues. It was painful for me. But written exams I gave them throughout the course showed they were steadily improving (in reading and writing, at least).

My COMM 112 class next semester will be very large, so it won’t be easy to get to know my students well. But if I see students who are not looking at me, who appear hesitant or unwilling to speak in class, or who do not conform to my expectations of what a “good” student does, I will be mindful of possible cultural reasons. If I have students who are struggling due to cultural reasons, I feel I have enough background to be able to approach a student tactfully and empathetically, and offer to help. After all, I’ve experienced culture shock several times.

Turning at the Weimer chapter, I found much that I could embrace. I don’t think I’d want to spend days having students develop course policies, but I might like to try offering a menu of choices. For example, students could vote to choose from a list of options that would complete a class participation policy and a late assignment policy. The choices would all have to be palatable to me, I suppose, but there would also have to be pros and cons to each choice for students that they would feel that deciding was worth the effort.

I also think that my class next semester will lend itself to giving students choices of assignments and even due dates, to some extent. The course is supposed to have a group assignment, I’m told, so while I can’t change the nature of the assignment, I can offer students greater freedom to decide what kind of group assignment they want to do. For example, students could dissect a media impact study or talk about the possible future adaptations and innovations of mass media.

I really liked the idea for test review days, as well, in which students are asked ahead of time to write out what material or issues they want to review. It makes the teacher appear very responsive and lets the teacher know what areas students think are important.

Which aspects of LCT would be difficult or even unwise to incorporate into my own teaching?

Not all of Weimer’s suggestions seem so reasonable to me. I don’t necessarily object to them on principle, but on practical grounds. For example, how can teachers let students select the textbook for a class and ensure that the students’ selection is immediately available? Don’t college bookstores have to order textbooks several weeks in advance? And are students asked to read several textbooks before they choose or does the teacher give them Readers Digest versions? I could imagine that in a literature survey course, the teacher might give students some choices (e.g., “let’s choose 3 of Hemingway’s 5 most celebrated novels”). I can also imagine that someday, when electronic books are the norm, this could be done much more easily. But, for now, this wouldn’t work.

While I like the idea of involving students in decision making about course policies, the process Weimer describes is extremely time-consuming. In her text on the establishment of a participation policy, she describes what is at least a three-day process. To get students’ input on other policies and issues, she clearly must spend a lot of class time. When I read that in her entry-level public speaking course, students are required to give only one speech, I was surprised. How can a student’s speaking skills be evaluated on just one speech, I thought. But after reading further, I felt the answer must be that she just doesn’t have time for students to deliver more than one speech during the semester. They’re too busy selecting textbooks and weighing in on course policies!

Weimer would likely argue that so much time is needed, in part, because students in her classes are not accustomed to being offered these choices, so much time is wasted in resistance. While I’m sure that’s true, it still seems like a truly learner-centered teaching approach would greatly limit the amount of class time that could be devoted to content, but perhaps that’s the point.

I didn’t have any concerns about chapter 12 in Teaching Tips, but Chapter 13 generates some potential pitfalls. As I wrote earlier, chapter 13 urges teachers to understand their students’ cultures in order to increase student motivation and avoid miscommunication and misunderstandings in the classroom. One of the suggestions for doing that is for teachers to differentiate between students’ familial goals and their individual goals, as for many students (particularly in some cultures), these may diverge considerably. Differentiating familial and individual goals can be done by “inviting significant family or community persons to work with” the student (McKeachie et al, p. 164). The chapter tells the story of a professor who visited the home of a student in order to meet with the entire family.

This would be very difficult for many teachers to do, mostly because such interventions require huge amounts of time. As classrooms grow and teachers are given ever-increasing workloads, devoting such attention to struggling minority students is, perhaps, unrealistic. I can also imagine that in many instances, such attention might be unwelcome. Not only might the families resent the intrusion, but the students themselves may, too. I think intervening in this way could only happen if the teacher knew the student well and was invited by the student to intervene.

I think trying to apply some of the lessons of chapter 13 can also lead to stereotyping students. The US is so diverse that it’s often unclear what people’s origins are. For example, you might have a student with a Korean face and name, but whose family has been in the US so long that she is quite acculturated to the American white majority. Her lack of eye contact during lessons might be due to the fact that she’s working three jobs, doesn’t have enough time to complete pre-class reading assignments, and avoids eye contact because she doesn’t want to be called on. A professor who assumed she was not making eye contact for cultural reasons might assume she’s listening attentively and that all is fine.

I would urge teachers unfamiliar with minority and international students to rely on their university multicultural and international student services for help and advice. At NDSU, for example, the multicultural student office holds formal presentations about cultural differences and their effects on learning, and organizes lunches and other function where teachers can get to know minority students outside the classroom.

Blog Entry #6

This week’s readings in Teaching Tips and First Day to Final Grade talk about how teachers should cope with so-called “problem” students. Both books offer some helpful tips and, I think, draw useful distinctions between what teachers should do and should not do as they try to help students. Both books also remind teachers about maintaining professional distance from students, with First Day to Final Grade dispensing advice more appropriate for young graduate teaching assistants and Teaching Tips dispensing advice more appropriate for professional faculty members.

Problem students come in a variety. Teaching Tips describes types of problem students, such as “aggressive, challenging” students, “attention seekers,” and “the flatterer, disciple, con man (or woman).” First Day to Final Grade, on the other hand, describes students’ problems. I think Teaching Tips is more thorough in providing suggestions for dealing with some of these problems, but I prefer the way First Day to Final Grade frames the subject. By lumping problem students into categories, McKeatchie in Teaching Tips seems to view some students as problematic by nature, whereas Curzan and Damour in First Day to Final Grade view students as having some problematic behaviors. To me, it seems less intimidating (and less hopeless) to try and grapple with bad behaviors than with bad people.

As unlikely as it seems, given my years of teaching, I haven’t actually had to deal with that many problem students or student problems. As the director of a development media project in Africa for six years, I dealt with lots of problem employees and employee problems, but I just can’t recall having too much trouble with any of my students.

Actually, wait. When I was worked for Angola’s national oil company managing their training programs, I did deal with a number of problem students and student problems. I was not their teacher, though. But about 5% of the few hundred students I supported as they studied around the world had serious, chronic issues. There was the very sweet, bright Helizângera, who started developing paralyzing nodes around the upper part of her spine. Her paralysis caused her to miss so much school that she eventually had to leave the US and return to Angola. The good news is she was later cured in South Africa and completed her studies there. Then there was the angry, brooding Helder, who all his classes three semesters in a row and was kicked out of school. As a result, his student visa became invalid and he was forced to return to Angola. After he departed, I joined his landlord in checking out his apartment and we discovered he had micturated and defecated in the most inappropriate places. Anyway, back to the readings…

The Challenger

I agree with McKeatchie that dealing with students who like to challenge the teacher should be viewed as “teachable moments” and great opportunities for teachers to model constructive debate and discussion. He later mentions that new or insecure teachers might easily fall prey to “the flatterer,” but I think there is more danger of new or insecure teachers falling prey to the “challenger.” I see some of my younger TA colleagues at NDSU expressing real anger when they think they’re being challenged. Given their circumstances, I can understand why, but I actually rather enjoy being challenged, perhaps because I am a bit of a challenger myself. I think students should be encouraged to ask questions and provide answers, if they think they know more than the teacher does.

Curzan and Damour touch on this subject briefly in their section on problematic arguments. For whatever reason, students in their late teens and early twenties tend to have very strong opinions about things, but may not be able to support these opinions effectively with evidence. I agree that students’ faulty methods of argumentation, not the opinions, need to be the focus of teachers’ critique.

The Underprepared, the Unprepared and the Inattentive (a Sergio Leone film?)

Another problem student category McKeatchie talks about is the “underprepared” or “struggling” student. TA’s generally teach basic-level courses, so unless the university is admitting students unprepared for any post-secondary academic work, we are unlikely to face students who are totally underprepared for our courses. Students may find the course challenging and some may have certain traits that make our classes particularly difficult for them (e.g., a student may have high communication apprehension, which would make public speaking unpleasant), but there may not be much remediation that can be done in these instances. Nonetheless, I like the idea of making supplemental texts and materials available to students. These could be useful tools for the entire class, not just those who feel underprepared. I also liked the idea of creating a FAQ (frequently asked questions) document that could be provided to students. I’ll be teaching a mass media course next semester. Given the diversity at NDSU, I shouldn’t assume that all students have the same level of familiarity with the mass media. A FAQ and other tools could help address this.

The mass media course I’ll be teaching next semester normally has around 130 students in it. I assist the lecturer in this class this semester and I see lots of “inattentive students,” which make up another of McKeatchie’s categories. Almost without exception, these students sit in the back rows. I will not only try a seat rotation policy, as McKeatchie suggests, I will also ask students not to take a seat in a row unless all the seats in the row in front of it are filled. One additional benefit for me might be less straining of my voice. I don’t see why I should have to yell for 75 minutes just because some people like to sit as far from the teacher as physically possible and still be in the same room.

Inattentive students may also come to class unprepared. I agree with McKeatchie that students can prepare themselves better if they receive more guidance when assignments are made, instead of being told simply to “read the chapter” or “do the assignment.” I will try to give students questions to answer—not to answer formally or for a grade, but to guide their reading. Beyond that, I saw a great activity in Dr. Robert Littlefield’s Intercultural Communication course last week that is likely to motivate all students to come to class prepared. Students must first answer questions individually, then answer different questions in small groups. The small groups’ answers are then compared in class as a whole and differences are discussed and debated. Students’ individual question sets are graded, as are the group grades. So students are encouraged to do the readings in order to help themselves and their groups. Dr. Littlefield said there’s a lot of preparation required for these activities, so I doubt I’ll be able to do them every class session, as he does, but I intend to do this at least occasionally in my course next semester.

Taking Students at Their Word…

Living in Africa, I regularly encountered beggars on the street. To discourage me from giving, many of my African friends told me of elaborate deceptions that many “beggars” perpetrated in order to swindle people out of their money. I heard about little old ladies who drove luxury cars to their mansions after a long day of panhandling. While I’m sure that some of the beggars were probably capable of earning money in a more productive manner, I always gave because I felt I’d rather be swindled out of a few bucks than deny help to someone in desperate need. In other words, I agree with McKeatchie’s philosophy in dealing with students who have excuses/reasons for not getting work done, etc.

This is not to say that teachers should bend their rules and always give students extensions on assignments. But teachers should take students at their word in most situations. I thought the suggestion of discouraging procrastination by asking students to show progress on assignments was a good one. One of the COMM 110 teachers says students can’t sign up for speaking order until they show they’ve completed their outlines. Because students want to choose when they speak (they usually want to go last), they are incentivized to complete their outlines as early as possible.

“Why Must You Be Such an Angry Young, When Your Future Looks Quite Bright to Me?”

The last of McKeatchie’s problem student categories I’ll discuss is the “angry” student, the student who is openly hostile towards the teacher as an authority figure. I would probably try to ignore this student, which McKeatchie says is the most common strategy. However, if the hostility is disruptive to the class and the angry student is performing poorly, then the issue should be addressed.

Apart from listening to the student carefully and respectfully, McKeatchie offers three alternatives. Which alternative to pursue depends on why the student is angry. If the anger is due to disagreement over classroom material and opinions, then I think presenting the issue to the class could be helpful and could deliver what McKeatchie calls a “useful experience in thinking for everyone” (p. 185). But if the issues are more personal or over a grade, then I think the first alternative, which is to “state your position as calmly and rationally as you can, recognizing that not everyone will agree,” is the best (p. 185). Or, if you feel that the student may have a legitimate point, then the third alternative, which is to admit the possibility of error and that you will review and report back soon, is also appropriate.

“Don’t’ Stand So Close to Me”

First Day to Final Grade this week advised TA’s on how to interact with students. Much of the text was not so useful for me, in large part because as an older TA and a parent, I’m just not thinking about trying to date my students or be their friend. So for me there was no question about where to hold office hours, for example, or where to meet with students. At least in the communication department, TA’s have offices and we should meet with our students there. If a bit more privacy is warranted, we could meet with students up in the conference room of the department office. Meeting in coffee shops or other settings simply has too much potential to create misunderstanding.

Curzan and Damour admit as much by saying the only con to meeting in the office is that it may establish a more formal relationship with students than the TA wishes to have. At NDSU, where TA’s are in charge of their own classrooms, I think a formal relationship is what must be had. And as the book says, the tone TA’s take with students can do a lot more to establish the relationship they’d like with students than the setting in which they meet with students. Again, for me, the tone should be formal, but also congenial.

The same applies to e-mail correspondence with students. Curzan and Damour offer a couple of different suggestions for responding to an e-mail from a student in which the student says he had a migraine headache that kept him out of class one day. I think the sample informal response is inappropriate, especially the “I hate to think of you teetering on the edge of stroke-dome :-)” line. The formal response could certainly have included some additional niceties. For example, an “I’m sorry to hear that you suffer from migraines” or something along those lines would have made the response more compassionate, but the “stroke-dome” line is too familiar. And like the authors state on the following page, e-mail correspondence is a permanent record of a conversation. Emoticons and other informal usages could be misconstrued by someone else, like a department head or supervisor, who reads the message later.

Several pages in First Day to Final Grade tackle the issue of teacher-student fraternization. I can certainly imagine that if I were 24 years old or so and I had attractive students just a few years younger than I in my classes, it could be difficult not to want to befriend or date them, despite the warnings offered by Curzan and Damour. Years ago, before I got married, I had a brief affair with a co-worker. I wasn’t her direct supervisor, but I was above her in the hierarchy. Then my boss went on vacation and left me in charge. Unfortunately, while my boss was away, my paramour got into some kind of fight with her supervisor and the issue was brought to me to resolve. I wound up siding with the supervisor, which (as you might imagine) infuriated my paramour. Our romance soured and the professional relationship was destroyed. It was such a painful, uncomfortable experience that I knew I would never again become romantically involved with someone I wasn’t supposed to. I only hope that this kind of warning is enough to discourage my fellow TA’s. Too often, sadly, people don’t learn from models; they must experience ruin firsthand.

Cheaters!

We’ve talked about cheating and plagiarism before, but this week we see advice and specific dialogue options TA’s can use with their students. The most useful advice was to make assignments that can’t be plagiarized. For my mass media class next semester, for example, I may ask my students to write something about a commercial they see on TV. I might also ask them to complete short writing assignments in class, which at least would give me a look at their “real” writing styles and skills.

“How Could You Do This to Me?”

The section on dealing with complaints about grades offers specific suggestions for how to respond to students who are unhappy about a grade. Moreover, the section underscores the need to have clear grading standards and to share these standards with students. Without clear grading standards, classes are like games the students don’t know the rules to. I have developed detailed rubrics for my speech class and I’ve reviewed the rubrics with my students. TA’s that don’t have these are likely to find themselves in indefensible positions if challenged by students over a bad grade.

This website offers many more suggestions for dealing with students’ grade complaints. It provides links to sites that can help teachers develop good rubrics and assignment sheets. This site, meanwhile, links to a Word document that details suggestions for dealing with angry students.

Blog Entry #5

Bostonian Henry Adams wrote, "Nothing in education is so astonishing as the amount of ignornance it accumulates in the form of inert facts." He was commenting on the style of American education in the 19th century, which placed undue emphasis on students' ability to memorize information. One hundred year later, critics of American education might very well argue that not much has changed.


This week's readings delve into what is arguably the most controversial aspect of formal education: assessment and grading. Last week we looked more at the question of how to assess students and determine their grades. Now we're talking about why we assess students, why we determine grades at all. These issues are really fundamental to teachers' development because they beg the question, what is the purpose of formal education.

The author of What the Best Teachers Do sees teachers split between those who see education almost as a punitive exercise, an ordeal oriented not to helping students learn, but to making students jump through hoops; and those who see education as a uniquely transformational process, one that turns proverbial punk teenagers into self-directed scholars who not only want to learn, but who love to learn. For his part, McKeatchie in Teaching Tips urges teachers to embrace the latter view, but is more realistic about its implementation.

In my entry this week, I'll lay out my own view, and discuss the ideas and suggestions from the readings that I intend to try out in my own classes.

I love the notion that formal education is a transformational process, and agree that it does transform people--most of the time modestly, sometimes extraordinarily. But do I agree with Henry Peter Brougham, who in 1828 called education the force that "makes a people easy to lead, but difficult to drive; easy to govern, but impossible to enslave"? No. And I think even a cursory review of 20th century history would back me up.

Americans, being an unfortunately anti-intellectual lot in general, often see education as a process that churns out productive workers. Others see education as the key to unlocking great wonders of human potential. I believe that education--writ large--should do both. And while responsibility for realizing this end result does rest in large measure with teachers, particularly in the early stages of formal education, I think more responsibility rests with students at the university level. As such, I think students, as they start progressing through the educational ranks, must be increasingly evaluated on aspects of performance.


I base my view not so much on philosophical grounds, but on practical ones. Having been a student for many years, and a teacher for a few years, I don't see evidence that every student has an intrinsic desire to be the kind of learner we'd all love to see in our classrooms--the learner with limitless curiosity and the passion to engage wholeheartedly in every subject. If this intrinsic desire exists, it can probably only be nurtured in the earliest stages of life. By the time students are in university, they're as curious and as passionate as they're likely to get. As they get even older, emotional maturity may help them become more patient and focused, which should improve their ability to perform well in school. But, their levels of curiousity and passion for learning are unlikely to change significantly.
What the Best Teachers Do bemoans the fact that so many teachers seem too concerned with performance, and not concerned enough with learning. I believe that in order to realize a university education's dual purpose of graduating self-directed scholars who are also productive workers, teachers must emphasize learning but not totally relinquish necessary performance requirements.



In reality, performance-based aspects of grading are not merely about the teacher's convenience, as What the Best Teachers Do says, but about helping students learn to cope with the rules and norms of real life. Deadlines exist in various forms for all professions and even in the most liberal of classrooms, the end of the semester is still a deadline everyone must adhere to.


At the same time, teachers should reevaluate whether or not the rules and regulations of their classrooms have legitimate educational underpinnings. For example, a teacher may compel students to complete assignments in a particular order because successive assignments require students to apply certain concepts that are introduced in that order. Students may be asked to do assignments and readings at the same time so that the class can review and discuss what they're learning and doing as a group.


Rules and regulations that don’t have educational bases, however, may still be necessary. For example, science students may not have much or any flexibility about when they can access the lab, due to university safety procedures, as well as the unwieldy logistics of having to coordinate the schedules of dozens of science classes.


Rules and regulations that do not serve a compelling educational purpose and are not necessary by some other standard should be discarded or adjusted. In What the Best Teachers Do, we learned of a student who wanted to do a report on War and Peace but wound up not having enough time to complete the book before the report was due. The teacher could have adjusted her system in a couple of different ways. For example, she could have created a list of works her students could choose from, with the idea that all the works on the list are those that could reasonably be completed within the time frame of the assignment. Alternatively, she could have ranked various works in order of length and complexity and assigned deadlines to students based on the rankings so that longer, more complex works would be due later than shorter, less complex works.


This week’s readings also centered on tests and other tools of assessing student learning. I agree with the assertions that McKeatchie listed at the start of chapter 7 in Teaching Tips, particularly his urging that teachers use a variety of methods to assess learning. Larger classrooms and teachers’ fear of being overwhelmed by having to grade hundreds of exam papers has led to an overreliance on multiple choice and similarly objective question types. The problem with this, as I wrote last week, is that it’s extremely difficult to test higher level learning with these kinds of questions. Large classrooms also make it more difficult to assign other kinds of work. The result is that only low-level learning takes place. Teaching Tips reemphasized the limitation of these kinds of tests in assessing whether students have reached higher-level learning objectives.

Another argument raised by the readings this week concerns the meaning of grades. I agree that grades are ultimately a way to tell student how well they’re learning (and performing) and to tell teachers how well they’re teaching. But then we must ask what “learning” is. What the Best Teachers Do says, "Learning entails primarily intellectual and personal changes that people undergo as they develop new understandings and reasoning abilities" (p. 153). This is true, but how do teachers measure these intellectual and personal changes? Ultimately, all measures (i.e., grades) are based on the teachers' criteria of what is and is not important in the classroom. Even having students grade themselves or each other simply confuses them, as they try with varying degrees of success to divine what grade they think the teacher would give them.

Teachers could abandon grades altogether and turn the university experience into a sort of Montesori school for adults, but such a system wouldn't last long. Students themselves would soon demand grades, as well they should, in order to help them know whether or not they're learning, as well as to help know how well they are doing in comparison to others.


So grades must be based on how well students demonstrate meeting the course objectives. For example, one course objective in COMM 110 is for students to effectively and competently deliver a variety of speech types. Students’ grades for these speeches should tell students how well they match up against the definitions of “effective,” “competent,” and other criteria established in class. To be able to give grades that communicate this, though, teachers must be teaching to the objectives. If COMM 110 teachers spend all their class time reviewing the definitions of speaking terms from the textbook, and not showing what the application of these terms in speeches looks like, then the bad grades students would likely get in such a class would be as much a consequence of bad teaching as students’ leaerning.


An example of this unfortunate state is the COMM 112 class I assist in. Lessons consist almost entirely of lecture that are very “laundry list” in nature and focus mostly on the history of American media and, in some cases, the inner workings of media operations. The tests reflect this. The name of the course, though, is "Understanding Media and Social Change." The syllabus has no objectives, only a "course overview," but the name of the course implies that we should be helping students analyze the role that media have in our lives. The class is big—it has more than 130 students—and teaching that many people in a way that emphasizes analysis and other higher-level concepts is not easy. Even more challenging is trying to measure how well 130 students are developing analytical skills.

COMM TA’s just stitched together the first exam for our COMM 110 (Fundamentals of Public Speaking) classes. I say "stitched together" because we were e-mailed the test bank of questions and invited to select which ones we wanted and in what order. Virtually all the questions tested students' knowledge of terms used in the public speaking textbook. This is not bad, assuming that knowledge of these terms is an objective of the course, but I’m not sure these tests should weigh as heavily as they do in the final grade. In COMM 110, students’ ability to actually deliver a variety of speeches is what we’re most concerned with, which is why every student must give five graded speeches.


So for next semester, when I will be solely responsible for COMM 112, I want to add focus more on the media’s impact on society and how the ever-evolving media might continue to influence society in the future. This semester the class does group projects, in which groups do research and present to the entire class their findings about a particular medium. Most of this research is on history and current status of the medium. I’d like to see if I can ask students to imagine how the medium might evolve. For example, what might the internet look like 20 years from now?

This semester the class is being asked to do a lot of daily writing, but the purpose seems only to make students attend class. The writings are never reviewed or used as a launch pad for discussion. Next semester I’d like to change this. Not all the writings will be graded, in an effort to reduce stress, as McKeatchie suggests.

Teaching Tips talked briefly about a revolutionary curriculum shift more than 20 years ago, launched by Alverno College. I wanted to see what kinds of tools I might find on their website. This site details this curriculum and has links to a number of assessment tools the college developed.

Blog Entry #4

In this week's entry, I'll be writing in response to chapter 11 of McKeachie's Teaching Tips and chapter 8 of Curzan's and Damour's First Day to Final Grade. The subject matter of these chapters is grading. I’ll also respond to chapter 10 in Teaching Tips, which is all about the issue of cheating.

Last week I wrote that First Day... is the more engaging of the two texts, but this week I feel the opposite. I found Teaching Tips to be much more thoughtful and thought-provoking in its discussion on grading. First Day... was a disappointment, as you'll see from my entry.

As the majority of the reading focused on grading, I'll write about that first.

Grading

Grading, measuring, and evaluating students is difficult work and, as Teaching Tips appears to recognize more than First Day..., controversial. To help me delve into the topic, I need to introduce readers to Dr. Fred O. Brooks, who wrote the book (well, a book) on the subject of grading. He taught my classroom evaluation and measurement course as an undergraduate teacher-in-training. Dr. Brooks' textbook is called Principles and Practices in Classroom Evaluation. Things that he and his textbook said have stuck with me since I took his course in 1993 and, in fact, I still have the book. My own views about grading were heavily influenced by Dr. Brooks.

Among Dr. Brooks' uncompromising stances towards classroom evaluation is that norm-based grading is never appropriate. His first argument against norm-based grading (or grading "on a curve") was that no classroom is varied or large enough for a teacher to reasonably expect it to conform to a universal "norm." He said that curves are statistically significant only when looking at very large populations of students. He argued, as McKeachie acknowledges as well, that instead teachers create a curve by comparing students within the class to each other, which is unreliable, especially if you happen to have a class attended by mostly gifted students or mostly ungifted ones.

His second argument against norm-based grading was that students ought to be awarded every chance to succeed and that random factors, such as the comparative brilliance or dimness of their classmates, ought to be eliminated as much as possible. He felt that too many teachers taught their classes as if they were "in the business of keeping secrets from [their] students." He believed teachers should make classes so inviting, "so clear, and so obvious to students that they can't help but learn." He recognized that this might be unrealistic, but even so, it is "a worthwhile goal." For Dr. Brooks, being inviting and obvious means telling students exactly what they’re expected to know and do. In other words, teachers should establish clear competencies that all students can (potentially) demonstrate.

In response to concerns about grade inflation, Dr. Brooks felt that teachers should want all their students to do very well. Isn't that why we teach? Moreover, isn’t that why we strive to be good teachers? Isn't a product of good teaching widespread student success? This is not to say that Dr. Brooks thought learning should not be challenging. On the contrary, he felt teachers should have high expectations and demand the best of students. But if, in turn, students gave their best (i.e., earned a high grade), should they not get a good grade? On this question, posed in this context, there was little disagreement in Dr. Brooks' class.

Rather, disagreement, or at least lack of total agreement, came when we began to talk about the details of applying the concepts we were learning to the actual construction of exams. To understand why, it must be clear that Dr. Brooks was a zealot for exam validity and reliability.

Validity, as Teaching Tips defines it, is whether or not the test (or any evaluated assignment, for that matter) measures what the teacher thinks it measures. As an example, let's look at a word problem on a math exam. The teacher's intent in this example is to see how well students can multiply. This word problem asks the students to convert knots to miles per hour. Unless knowledge of the relationship between knots and miles per hour was specifically part of the instruction prior to this exam, this question would be invalid in most classrooms, as all but naval academy cadets would be unlikely to know the ratio. To revalidate the question, the teacher could simply provide the information (1 knot = 1.1507794 statute miles per hour) in the question. The student would then be required and should be able to correctly perform the multiplication, which is what the teacher was trying to measure in the first place.

Reliability is the quality of consistency. More precisely, reliable test items or assignments are those that would be graded the same by anyone at anytime. A multiple choice question asking "Pure water is best described by which of the following formulae?" should find "H2O" the response that any chemistry teacher year after year would agree is correct (disclaimer: despite owning a chemistry set as a child and taking chemistry classes in high school and college, I don't know that there isn't some other formula that better describes pure water, but I think you understand the point I'm making). On the other hand, an essay question asking students to "analyze the effects that racism plays in anti-Barack Obama protests," for example, is not so cut-and-dried, and would likely elicit a variety of critiques from the political science, sociology, or communication department teachers we can imagine might ask such a question. As you may have guessed, the reliability of a test question is dependent on the depth of the question’s objectivity or subjectivity.

Validity is something that most people can and do agree on when they talk about tests and test items. Reliability, on the other hand, is not seen by many as a crucial criterion of tests. But for Dr. Brooks, the two characteristics were equally essential. As a result, subjective test questions like the essay question I offered in the preceding paragraph, were considered dangerous, if not entirely inappropriate. Dr. Brooks, for one, certainly never used them. His exams consisted entirely of multiple choice, true-false, matching, and fill-in-the-blank items.

It's here that I'll reveal that Dr. Brooks had been a high school math teacher before he became an educator of educators. This is relevant because it seemed as the course went on that he believed multiple choice, true-false, and short completion items were all any teacher needed to measure whether students were learning. Now, he would probably argue that I'm overstating his position but, I wager, not by much. In Dr. Brooks' experience, he probably was able to evaluate his students' mastery of math concepts and applications through these kinds of test items. Correct answers to math questions are usually much more discernible and not as open to interpretation as, say, an answer to a typical essay question.

As an English and communication major, I was among several students who failed to see how us these questions would sufficiently capture students' learning in my disciplines, especially higher level learning (in terms of Bloom's taxonomy). Even for lower-level learning, such as knowledge and comprehension, there are limitations to how well certain test items can be used to measure success. To see this, we must distinguish questions that require students to recognize the correct answer from questions that require students to recall the correct answer.

Recognition requires what I call “lineup” knowledge. To recognize the correct answer, students need only to have seen or heard it enough times (perhaps only once in a class lecture) that it makes a connection in their minds when they see it on the exam. Victims of muggings are often unable to describe their attackers accurately from memory, but if the police presents to them four or five suspects in a lineup, the victim is much more likely to be able to pinpoint which of the suspects was the mugger.

Recall, on the other hand, requires deeper knowledge. To recall a correct answer, students need to be familiar enough with it that they can recreate it. To continue with the metaphor above, recall is like asking the mugging victim not only to describe the mugger to a police sketch artist, but to draw the mugger him- or herself.

In many disciplines, multiple choice questions require students only to recognize correct answers, not recall them. Let's look at this history question as an example:

Which naval battle of WWII is considered the turning point for the US in its war against Japan?
a) Coral Sea
b) Midway
c) Pearl Harbor
d) Sea of Japan

On the other hand, math and physics are just two disciplines that can use multiple choice questions with the expectation that students must still know how to perform certain operations, memorize certain formulae, etc. For example:

What is the value of 58 to the power of 3?
a) 195,112
b) 11,316,496
c) 3,364
d) 7.61577311

No one, not even savants, have "memory" of this kind of information. It must always be calculated, however fast some may be able to do it.

We could change the history question above from multiple choice to fill-in-the-blank format in order to make it more difficult and require students to know the material more deeply. Even so, this question is still only a knowledge-level item and would not be able to help the teacher know whether the student comprehends why the Battle of Midway was considered the turning point. To bring the matter home to my own teaching assignments this semester, can I evaluate students’ ability to apply good public speaking techniques and deliver quality speeches by having them take multiple choice exams? The answer is clearly “no,” as McKeachie writes and even Dr. Brooks acknowledges in his book. Students must be required to apply the speaking skills. Grading speeches, as we know, is an inherently subjective exercise.

While it’s clear that the use of subjective measures is very often appropriate and completely valid, I believe that reliability must not be sacrificed. In fact, reliability in grading is completely compatible with the grading philosophies of teachers who grade on a curve, since many who grade on a curve are concerned about what they perceive are deteriorating standards in education. Insisting on reliable measures is to insist that there are agreed-upon standards (of essay writing, public speaking, etc.) that all teachers more or less adhere to. Without insisting on reliable measures, exams and grades become little more than the personal opinions of the teachers who give them (see the section in Teaching Tips, “Can we trust grades?”).

To achieve this in a class like COMM 110, I think the Communication Department needs to collectively identify and define standards of good public speaking and then employ rubrics that illustrate these standards. I know that the classes currently employ what is being called a rubric, but it’s not a rubric. It’s a list of words like “attention getter” and “eye contact” with points assigned to them. An effective rubric clarifies what proper use of “eye contact” is and describes what different point values mean. For example*:

5 points = eye contact, interaction with aids, and physical gestures demonstrate the
speaker’s energy and interest, guiding the listener through the presentation.

3 points = eye contact, interaction with aids, and physical gestures are natural and fluid.

1 point = eye contact with the audience is lacking. Gestures are missing or awkward.
The speaker depends heavily on the written speech or notes.

*The complete version of this rubric can be accessed through the link found at the bottom of this entry. It comes from Tusculum College in Greenville, Tennessee.

Can such a rubric actually promote and enforce reliable standards across a few dozen instructors of public speaking? Yes, and I speak from personal experience. Every year Texan high school students take a standardized exam intended to measure their mastery of secondary education-level competencies. At least one essay question is part of this exam, which must be evaluated by human beings. When I lived in Texas, I was twice employed temporarily (along with about a hundred others) to grade these essays. To ensure that all the evaluators were assigning points reliably, detailed rubrics were provided and we spent close to a full day honing our evaluative instincts and skills to match the rubric. The training was over once all the evaluators were able to assign the same number of points to the same essays.

It appears that the department prefers instead to give instructors the flexibility to set their own standards and create their own rubrics. This would ordinarily not be much cause for alarm, if public speaking were being taught by experienced teachers. As it is, most public speaking instructors at NDSU (and many larger universities and colleges in the US) are people who’ve never taught before (a few are even new to the communication discipline). The risk here is not just that a lack of evaluative standards may lead to unreliable grading, but that some instructors may not even be capable of setting their own standards.

In this debate, there is a great difference between the two books we’ve read for this week. Teaching Tips coolly offers sensible reasons for employing both norm-based and competency-based grading, though McKeachie does say he believes norm-based grading “is educationally dysfunctional.” First Day…, on the other hand, simply provides a short section designed to help teaching assistants “[find their] grading curve” and seems to feel that getting into this debate is beyond its scope or, perhaps, graduate teaching assistants’ capabilities.

Cheating

Chapter 11 of Teaching Tips warned about students who are “performance oriented,” or working primarily for a grade, as opposed to students who seek learning for its own sake. I believe that most students have a healthy mix of the two orientations. McKeachie writes that students who tend to achieve the most in terms of learning have moderate grade motivation and high intrinsic motivation. Students who enjoy learning for its own sake, after all, probably tend to receive good grades. Such students would probably be disappointed on occasions when they don’t receive good grades, as well. I’ve always been someone who genuinely enjoys learning, but I also strive for and recognize the value of high grades. I don’t believe the two goals are mutually exclusive.

The issue of grade motivation is important because cheating, McKeachie says in chapter 10, is often committed because of students’ fixation on high grades at any cost. Statistics showing the prevalence of cheating are always a bit depressing, but it’s important that we be aware of how common cheating can be.

Next semester I will take over COMM 112 and teach it on my own. The class has around 130 students, so monitoring them during exams will not be easy. As such, I read McKeachie’s list of cheating methods with some alarm. Students now have so many more methods at their disposal, but the use of foot tapping and hand codes are particularly frightening because they can be almost impossible to detect. After all, plenty of students tap their feet or make other noises out of sheer anxiety. But in a multiple choice exam, such simple signals could be effectively used to cheat.

So far in COMM 112, we have employed using two different forms of the first exam in an effort to prevent cheating, but McKeatchie cited research showing that scrambling the order of items alone did not reduce cheating. So for the next test, I’ll suggest we also scramble the responses.

I like the idea of trying to prevent cheating before it starts. McKeatchie outlined an “honor system,” wherein classes are invited to vote on whether they’d like to adopt such a system. He says few classes actually vote unanimously to adopt an honor system, but he believes the discussion of academic dishonesty is itself useful. I doubt I’ll try that, but having students sign a pledge of academic integrity prior to each exam seems a good idea. Teachers could place the statement on the exam, so that writing their names on the exam is also signing the pledge. The downside to this approach, I suppose, is that it takes away the sense that students are signing it voluntarily. It’s sort of like having to agree to a computer application’s usage terms before it can be installed. But these kinds of approaches can be more effective and at least feel less draconian than the “Big Brother Is Watching You” style messages that appear in many of the syllabi I’ve seen at NDSU.

I thought McKeatchie made very good suggestions for handling suspected cheating, as well. He gave an example of behavior—seeing a student glance around—that may or may not be cheating. His suggestion of quietly insisting that the student change seats if the wandering looks continue was a good blend of subtlety with effectiveness. However, I wish McKeatchie had described what he would do if confronted with what is a clear indication of cheating, like finding a crib sheet or seeing students pass notes during an exam. Would he then also have sought to be as discreet?

In any event, I think I’d prefer the discreet route as much as possible. Students caught cheating will face plenty of severe consequences without having to be paraded in chains, as it were, before the whole class. On the other hand, the rest of the class knowing that the teacher is paying attention and will take swift, firm action against cheaters is important. McKeatchie rightly noted this, as well The Chinese say that sometimes you have to kill a chicken to frighten the monkeys. Of course, this only works if the monkeys see the chicken get killed, or at least hear about it. Knowing that a teacher will punish students for cheating can be an effective deterrent, at least in that class.

Some links to sample public speaking rubrics can be found below:

http://www.tusculum.edu/research/documents/PublicSpeakingCompetencyRubric.pdf

http://www.awrsd.org/oak/Academics/Rubrics/Public%20Speaking%20Rubric.htm

http://www.oaklandcc.edu/assessment/geassessment/outcomes/geoutcome_communicate_effectively_speaking/Public%20Speaking%20Rubric%20May%202009.pdf