<--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:

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-->