<--Research & Writing || Contents pages for: Personal Statement | Portfolio || Service & Institutional Development-->
II. TEACHING AND ADVISING
(9/01)
II.A Wide Scope of My Teaching and its Active, Ongoing Development
One strength of my teaching lies in my willingness, in response to
programmatic needs, to take on courses outside my specialty or without previous
models and to learn from the experience of doing so. This learning is evident
in the evolution of: the textual materials of my courses (syllabi, course
packets, handouts, etc.); the course mechanics (use of email and websites,
records kept to track each student's development, required conferences with
students, etc.); and the teaching/learning interactions I establish.[13] My learning is also evident in the
opportunities I have taken to get training and experience in experiential and
problem-based learning, facilitation of group process, and leading faculty
development workshops. Finally, my learning from teaching is evident in
original contributions I have made to wider discussions about conceptual and
pedagogical issues that have arisen.[14]
As a UMB professor I have taught eight different graduate courses: two in my
specialty of science-STS (science in its social context); another two
concerning computers and learning/education; and four required CCT courses.
For seven of these I developed entirely new syllabi and in the other one (the
co-taught "Critical Thinking" course, CCT601, Sp 99) I introduced many
innovations. Two of the required CCT courses I have taught each year, giving
me a chance to revise them in response to feedback and reflection, but the
remaining courses I have taught once or for one year only. I have also
originated and co-ordinated three special topics courses through Continuing
Education to build up the CCT concentrations in science and in workplace and
organizational change.
My Practitioner's Portfolio includes the syllabi and evaluations for each
course and a section reviewing the initial goals, outcomes and changes made or
planned. (This portfolio also addresses the request in my 4th. year review for
"more extensive documentation of [my] teaching effectiveness.") In the
sections that follow I include some general remarks on my teaching and advising
as active and multifaceted processes, involving experimentation with and
refinement of new tools and involving constant monitoring and steps to improve
my practices. Many of the comments I make are further illustrated in the
exhibits included in the Portfolio.
II.B The Philosophy of Teaching Critical Thinking I Brought to UMB
First, let me set the scene with an extract from a pre-UMB statement of
my teaching philosophy:
In a sense subscribed to by all teachers, critical thinking means that students
are bright and engaged, ask questions, and think about the course materials
until they understand well established knowledge and competing approaches.
This becomes more significant when students develop their own processes of
active inquiry, which they can employ in new situations, beyond the bounds of
our particular classes, indeed, beyond their time as students. My sense of
critical thinking is, however, more specific; it depends on inquiry being
informed by a strong sense of how things could be otherwise. I want students
to see that they understand things better when they have placed established
facts, theories, and practices in tension with alternatives. Critical
thinking at this level should not depend on students rejecting conventional
accounts, but they do have to move through uncertainty. Their knowledge is, at
least for a time, destabilized; what has been established cannot be taken for
granted. Students can no longer expect that if they just wait long enough the
teacher will provide complete and tidy conclusions; instead they have to take a
great deal of responsibility for their own learning. Anxieties inevitably
arise for students when they have to respond to new situations knowing that the
teacher will not act as the final arbiter of their success. A high level of
critical thinking is possible when students explore such anxieties and gain the
confidence to face uncertainty and ambiguity.
There are few models for teaching critical thinking, especially about
science... Just as I expect of my students, I have experimented, taken risks,
and through experience am building up a set of tools that work for me.
Moreover, I have adapted these teaching tools to cope with the different ways
that students in each class respond when I invite them to address alternatives
and uncertainty, and when I require them to take more responsibility for
learning.[15]
II.C Teaching Critical Thinking about Science in its Social Context
As indicated in the sect. I on Research and Writing, I believe that
placing developments in science and technology in their social context can lead
to deeper, more complex understanding and more active inquiry in college
science education. I built two science-STS seminars concerning "Science in
society" (CCT611, Sp 99) and "Environment, Science, and Society" (CCT640, Sp
01) as well as my section of "New Directions in Science Education" (CCT697, Sum
00) on the two complementary features below. To some extent the same themes
informed "Thinking, Learning, and Computers" (CCT670, F98).
Reciprocal animation: Close examination of conceptual developments
within the sciences can lead to questions about the social influences shaping
scientists' work or its application, which, in turn, can lead to new questions
and awareness of alternative approaches in those sciences. For example,
although developments in computers are often promoted in terms of social or
educational progress, historical and social analysis reveals the central role
of military and, more recently, corporate objectives in determining which
directions "progress" takes; and
Critical tensions: Theories and practices that have been accepted or
taken for granted can be better understood by placing them in tension with what
else could be, or could have been. For example, the "two islands" activity
described in sect. I.A contrasts dominant models of global environmental change
with those that emphasize the political and economic dynamics among unequal
social agents. I intend students to add such "critical tensions" and
heuristics to their own tool-box. I also introduce material that makes the
tension clear between these simple critical thinking themes and accounts of
"intersecting processes" that are more faithful to complexity of particular
situations.[16]
These courses extend my pre-UMB science-STS teaching so that students can
address the course material not only as an opportunity to learn the scientific
and interpretive content, but also as a source of pedagogical models for their
own future teaching and as a basis for discussions about educational practice
and philosophy. The content level still dominated in CCT611 and to some extent
in CCT670, so when I taught CCT640 two years later I included activities that
involved design of lesson plans and problem-based learning units and I
encouraged curriculum course projects, not only research papers. This change
was reasonably effective, but ironically the teachers in the course said they
would have been happy to focus on stirring up their thinking and to leave
lesson planning till later. Moreover, all the students in CCT640 expressed
interest in reading a more complete exposition of my science-STS framework. I
plan to continue the lesson design activities, but to make available for those
interested my publications related to these features of my teaching[17] and the manuscript of The Limits of
Ecology. Perhaps the appointment of Hannah Sevian to teach secondary
science education might allow me to focus on the content level and make
progress on the website and text described in sect. I.B.2.
II.D Leading Students from Critical Thinking to Taking Initiative
Traditionally critical thinking courses have emphasized scrutiny of
assumptions, sources of evidence, and reasoning. Without alternatives in mind,
however, scrutiny of one's own views or those of others proves difficult to
motivate or carry out. As a teacher I have an ample supply of alternative
views to include in readings and inject into discussions. Yet if students are
going to take critical thinking beyond the cases introduced by me and their
other teachers, they have to generate their own questions and explore issues
that they were not aware they faced. This conundrum led me to start my first
class teaching the Critical Thinking core course (CCT601, Sp 99) with a story
about our place in space, a story that begins with a student's "aha..."
experience and then turns the tables on myself.[18] I followed the story with a guided
freewriting exercise and discussion to bring to the surface students' own
insights about what allows people to see things in fresh ways. The factors
that emerged were diverse--"relaxed frame of mind," "annoyed with this
culture," "forgetting," "using a different vocabulary," and so on. This
activity has not produced a general strategy for inducing independent critical
thinking, but instead reinforces the challenge, shared by many areas of
education, of acknowledging and mobilizing the diversity inherent in any
group.
One aspect of the diversity among students is in their comfort with activities
through which they explore and construct their own understanding. If
students--especially adult learners who are returning to college after many
years away--are anxious about what is expected of them, or if they feel under
pressure to master a pre-defined set of skills, they might not have the
experience needed for constructivist learning to happen. Early on in the same
Critical Thinking course many students expressed dependency on my
co-instructor, Arthur Millman, and me: "Aren't small group discussions an
exercise in 'mutually shared ignorance'?" "Could the class be smaller?--we
want more direct interaction with you." "I was never taught this at college;
I'm not a critical thinking kind of person." Some asked for clear definitions
of and procedures for critical thinking and for particular assignments and
activities. This was most evident when they looked ahead to an end-of-semester
"manifesto" assignment I had invented, which asked for "a synthesis of elements
from the course selected and organized so as to inspire and inform your efforts
in extending critical thinking beyond the course." We responded to anxieties
with some mini-lectures, handouts, and a sample manifesto, but we also
persisted in conducting activities, promoting journaling, and assigning
thought-pieces through which students might develop their own working
approaches to critical thinking.
From mid-semester on, students who had been quiet or lacked confidence in their
critical-thinking abilities started to articulate connections with their work
as teachers and professionals. Although we had continued to reassure those who
worried about the manifesto assignment that they would have something to say,
we were surprised by how true that was. For example, the student who was not
the "critical thinking kind" began her manifesto with perceptive advice: "If
there is one basic rule to critical thinking that I, as a novice, have learned
it is DON'T BE AFRAID!" She continued: "Don't be afraid to ask
questions and test ideas, ponder and wonder... Don't be afraid to have
a voice and use it!... Don't be afraid to consider other
perspectives... Don't be afraid to utilize help..." She finished, "Above all,
approach life as an explorer looking to capture all the information possible
about the well known, little known and unknown and keep an open mind to what
you uncover."
In retrospect, the students' confidence had begun to rise during classes
involving various approaches to empathy and listening. This was an unusual
emphasis for a course on critical thinking, and derives in part from my
explorations in group process and facilitation. I suspect that listening well
helps students tease out alternative views, and, in turn, being listened to
well seems to help students access their intelligence--to bring to the surface,
reevaluate, and articulate things they already know in some sense. The
resulting knowledge is all the more powerful given that it is not externally
dictated. I look forward to opportunities for more systematic exploration of
the effects on critical thinking of listening and of being listened to.
After this course and other experiences during my first year teaching a diverse
array of prospective teachers, experienced teachers, and other working,
mature-age students in the CCT and other GCOE Programs, I started to speak of
my model of teaching as "developmental." By this I meant that I aim not for a
given final standard of work, but to guide and support each student to develop
or improve as much as they can during a semester given their current, usually
overburdened, circumstances.
A centerpiece of this developmental approach is what I call "dialogue around
written work." For each class I require a journal and set a variety of written
assignments, including steps towards a final project report. I make most of my
comments on a cover page in which I show students their voice has been heard,
reflect back to them where they were taking me, and make suggestions for how to
clarify and extend the impact on readers of what was written. Then I ask
students to revise and resubmit work--and I do so again if I judge that the
interaction can still yield significant learning. This system departs from
most students' expectations of "produce a product one time only and receive a
grade" and pushes students' buttons about exposing their work to others. I
have done several things to give this system a better chance of succeeding,
which include: streamlining the set of requirements and grading rubric in my
syllabi; including notes on "Teaching/Learning Interactions" in syllabi or as
part of a course packet; and requiring at least two student-teacher conferences
so concerns can be explored face-to-face before resistance sets in.
I also used the opportunity of a Fall 1999 faculty seminar to do teacher
research[19] on improving students'
experience of dialogue around written work in the not-so-accurately named
"Practicum" (CCT698)--in reality a course on "processes of research and
engagement" (which has become its subtitle). The surveys completed by students
and subsequent discussions produced a more general formulation of the challenge
facing students in taking themselves seriously as lifelong learners: "[you need
to] take initiative in building horizontal relationships, in negotiating
power/standards, in acknowledging that affect is involved in what you're doing
and not doing (and in how others respond to that), in clearing away
distractions from other sources (present & past) so you can be here now"
(from an email to students near the end of that semester). This formulation
has helped me articulate a clear set of product goals and another set of
process goals for the Practicum course and for the CCT experience as a whole.
The tensions among the different parts of the formulation are significant. For
example, "building horizontal relationships" is about reducing the emphasis on
the "vertical" one between professor and student, but "negotiating
power/standards" recognizes that students make assumptions, for example, that
my ultimate power over grades means that they should treat my comments on their
work as instructions. Keeping such tensions in mind has helped me to
anticipate students' running hot and cold in their work and to patiently
persist in supporting each student making the shift from dependent to
self-constructed or self-affirming learning. The time available or other
conditions are not always conducive to this shift, which I address in the next
section.
II.E Learning from Difficult Courses in a Thoughtful, Respectful, and
Professional Manner
In light of the previous section, I expect teaching every student to be
a challenge. Listening well, extended dialogue around written work, and a
developmental model imply, even in large classes, an individualized model of
teacher-student interaction. Students' expectations are often raised and not
easy to fulfill within the time constraints of UMB students' work schedules and
of my preparing new courses. I have learned how important it is to make time
for student contact immediately before and after classes and to take more risks
to address students who avoid dialogue around their work and my expectations.
This has sometimes proved difficult.
In two courses--the "Synthesis seminar" (CC695, F 99) and "Computers,
Technology and Education" (Ed610, Sp 01)--dissatisfaction was evident in the
student evaluations. During those courses I became aware that many students
were not engaging actively in the range of teaching/learning interactions laid
out in the syllabi. In particular, few were revising significantly in response
to comments and did not seem comfortable with my expectation of
self-constructed learning--learning new ways to learn--out of class. I discovered
that students had strong preconceptions that the syllabus would be tightly
focused, respectively, on copy-editing to produce a finished synthesis paper
and on hands on use of computers. I responded thoughtfully, respectfully, and
professionally to students' criticisms, made adjustments where possible during
the semester, initiated class discussions on the challenges of teaching such
courses, and spent considerable time planning the future syllabus. In both
cases, my reworking has not taken the safe path of conforming to the students'
preconceptions, but rather attempts to ease future students into my pedagogy
through more explicit scaffolding. The second offering of the Synthesis
seminar (CCT694, Sp 00) succeeded in engaging the students on more levels; time
will tell if I capture the hearts and minds of Teacher Ed. students in Ed610
this fall.
"Time" is relevant in several other ways. The first occasion I taught both
these "difficult" courses I took them on at short notice as additions to my
expected workload and without knowing that students had been advised to expect
something different from what I planned. Time did not permit me to reinvent
the syllabus in midstream, nor to chase up and check-in with enough of the
students who were only minimally addressing the course expectations. These
situations called for more communication and dialogue than usual and it was
most distressing to have competing responsibilities limit time needed for this.
In retrospect, I see that I had been fortunate in the course described in the
previous section that a semester was sufficient for students to shift their
position as learners--a semester is somewhat arbitrary length of time in this
respect. One student in the Computers in Education course, for example, was
adamant at first that she needed to learn to use a computer before she could
evaluate their use in education. Then, for family reasons, she had to take an
incomplete. With the extra time to develop her final project report, she came
to insist on a "health skepticism regarding the push and 'promises' of
technology" and on the need to emphasize "better teaching, rather than simply
'mastering technology'."
Even in courses that work well, it is important to take into account the "life
course" of students' learning. The early stages of my courses, including the
requirements and early assignments, seem to some students to be "ambiguous."
This characterization has led me to clarify my instructions in response to
specific questions and suggestions--sometimes elaborating, sometimes
streamlining--to re-order classes, and to redesign activities. Yet, I do not
assume that fine-tuning and being more explicit will completely eliminate
feelings of "ambiguity." Such feelings can be read as a way students made sense
of the early parts of the semester when they were less confident in their own
thinking. According to the developmental model, if I patiently encourage
students to reflect in their journals, submit thought-pieces, and revise in
response to comments, they usually weave together the strands and end up with a
stronger sense of making the course material their own. Evidence for this can
be seen, for example, when, during a "historical scan" at the end of "Thinking,
Learning, and Computers" (CCT670, F 98), students divided the course into two
phases and suggested the names "Big Bang" (for all the new issues that were
introduced in the first half) and "Realizations" (for ways that the issues came
together for them in the second half). (These two phases recall my
introductory picture of critical and creative thinking as involving more
experiences being had than can be integrated at first sight as well as the idea
in sect. I.A of knowledge-making as construction from heterogeneous
resources.)
I have an advantage over three years ago in teaching CCT students, namely, that
many have done previous courses with me, or at least have been advised by
fellow students or myself about the style of the course. To further help
students get into the swing of things, I sometimes invite alums of the course
back to be interviewed by the next class and I make syllabi, course
evaluations, and my portfolio available for perusal on the web. Despite
testimonials to the impact of my teaching, I still see it very much as a "work
in progress." Indeed, I model what I expect of my students, that is, to
experiment, take risks, adjust plans, and through experience and reflection
build up a set of tools that work for oneself. This does not play well to all
adult learners, especially when they are pragmatic about what they can and need
to accomplish in their limited time left after work and their other
responsibilities. I expect to have to continue to address the tension between,
on one hand, the CCT ideal of students taking initiative and becoming
reflective practitioners and, on the other hand, the risk of losing students
who come to class, or to the course as a whole, un(der)prepared to engage for
themselves and more comfortable when the important lessons are didactically
presented.
II.F Learning from Educators beyond CCT
The move of CCT into GCOE and my location there raised the challenge of
adjusting CCT courses to complement offerings in other the M.Ed. and doctoral
programs and meet the needs of students outside CCT, including
educationally-oriented students in Science departments. I mentioned above the
curriculum development strand of my science-STS courses (sect. II.C) and
efforts to support a wide range of students in critical thinking and in taking
initiative as learners (sect. II.D). I have also discussed with some
Leadership in Education faculty members the possibility of some doctoral
students joining the Practicum course to help them shape their research
projects, and I am taking preparatory steps for this same course to be offered
with a large distance or online learning component. The area of cross-program
linkage, however, that I have explored the most is in action- or
practitioner-research. Drawing from Lee Teitel's courses in the Ed. Admin.
program, the "Evaluation of Educational Change" (CCT685/693) now positions
evaluation not an end in itself, but as a tool of educational change--or, for
the non-educators in CCT, of organizational change. Students learn and
practice tools for facilitating groups and building constituencies for the
educational changes the students want to evaluate or propose.
My learning from others and the connections I have made in the action- or
practitioner-research direction have enabled me to bring into being the
long-planned concentration in CCT in the workplace (sect. III.C). It also
shaped my contribution this last year as a co-PI and instructor in a Eisenhower
Program course for math and science teachers (sect. I.B.3). This course
promoted inquiry and problem-solving about environmental issues, which gave me
a chance to work with teachers in my speciality science-STS area. However, it
turned out the most important role I could play was to facilitate the teachers'
professional development planning and teacher-research. This role gave me
space to be more of a student when it came to learning about the constellation
of factors that teachers face in classrooms and in school systems when they
consider changing their teaching. As mentioned earlier, I see the need for
longer-term and closer involvement with in-service teachers to influence and
support change in the areas I know best.
II.G Promoting Collegial Interaction Around Innovation in Teaching
Educational change is not only an issue in K-12 schools, but also in
higher education. Academics need, I have long believed, the same level of
sustained collegial give-and-take, collaboration, critique, and mentorship that
we value around research and writing. While at UMB I have put this belief into
practice in several ways: participating in a faculty seminar in 1999 and
leading workshops hosted by the Center for Improvement in Teaching; organizing
faculty development workshops and the Thinktank on fostering critical thinking
in which participants could connect theoretical, pedagogical, practical,
political, and personal aspects of their work; and making contributions towards
new models of documentation and evaluation of teaching.
In this last area my philosophy is that every process in an educational
institution can be a teaching/learning interaction, an opportunity for all
parties both to teach and to learn from each other. The forms of spoken and
written evaluations I use in my courses supplement the official "bubble"
sheets, taking wider goals and audiences into account, namely: to guide
instructors in continuing to develop the course; to guide future students in
choosing courses and knowing what to expect; and to allow current students to
take stock of how to get the most from courses and teachers in the future. In
the same spirit, I have prepared a Practitioner's Portfolio to accompany this
statement. I welcome dialogue around the Portfolio's different components with
the idea that this could help readers appreciate work in areas or directions
unfamiliar to them and could help my CCT and GCOE colleagues clarify and revise
their assessments, goals, and expectations. Whether or not dialogue and the
Portfolio can be fully integrated into a formal review at this time, I hope the
materials I am submitting contribute to the evolution of future reviews that
are genuine two-way teaching/learning processes.
Notes
[13] Practitioner's Portfolio, "Key
teaching/learning tools"
[14] "From 'dialogue around written work' to 'taking initiative'"
(report, /citreport.html); "Notes towards guidelines about specific situations
and specific ways in which specific technologies are of significant pedagogical
benefit"; "We know more" (work in progress)
[15] "Teaching Philosophy" (1995)
[16] "Distributed agency" (2001)
[17] "The social analysis of ecological change" (1995), "What can
agents do?" (1999), and publications listed in note 8.
[18] "We know more" (work in progress)
[19] "From 'dialogue around written work' to 'taking
initiative'"
<--Research & Writing || Contents pages for: Personal Statement | Portfolio || Service & Institutional Development-->