As the semester progresses, the weaker spots in my teaching and in student comprehensive become visible. The class discussion this morning revealed the steepness of our learning curves. While I have come to a comfortable acceptance of the discomfort associated with learning curves, students tend to fear those curves as possible barriers to getting good grades. This creates an interesting tension.
I have a teaching philosophy which has only become stronger over the years, particularly as it relates to doctoral student education. The philosophy centers on challenging ourselves to think about things (phenomena, problems, solutions, theories) from different perspectives and using different lens for the purpose of finding new questions and alternative ways to frame the problems we wish to solve. In challenging ourselves to become more conceptually nibble, uncertainty enters the picture. Learning to live with uncertainty includes not having a handy, bubble sheet "right" answer. My responsibility as a teacher includes fostering independent thinking and supporting the students through the uncertainty of that.
Curves becomes an appropriate analogy, especially curvy roads and mountains. Being on a mountain road involves the hidden faith that the road continues around the curve, that the going up and the going down have a purposes, and that the curves cumulatively take you from place A to place B. I prefer this interpretation of learning curves, rather than the x/y plot showing a steep slope. For me learning curves are more about distance, angles, and perseverance. Doctoral students have a path that involves distance between what was formerly assumed and what have since been learned and questioned. The path involves angles, an acquired ability to view life from almost 360 degrees, and to appreciate the views from that width. The path definitely involves perseverance, as in determination to do finish the grey cell exercises and and to go beyond the comfort of long straight roads.
As the professor, I am on that path with the students. Experiencing their questioning faith. Getting sore feet walking the distance. Getting a sore neck from looking over my shoulder for that new angle. Getting worn out grey cells from the impromptu examples and answers to their wonderfully challenging questions. My teaching philosophy is that the teacher and the student, for a short while, share the same path and get stronger together.
Showing posts with label Curriculum. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Curriculum. Show all posts
06 February 2015
18 February 2011
Are Professors Really like Chefs?
One of the school-wide faculty governance committees that I sit on has more students attending than faculty. Student input and insights are good to have. But, this committee is the curriculum committee. The committee that reviews new courses, reviews new and revised degree program proposals, makes suggestions for improving curriculum and reviewing the evaluation of courses. Given this list of responsibilities, having so many students has always seemed out of balance to me. But, when I bring it up, no, we need student involvement. Sure, but this is a FACULTY governance committee.
At the last meeting, the last agenda item was "course evaluations." Things got weird. The students started telling horror stories about this course and that course and how the current course evaluation forms don't permit them to describe the problems. Okay, we can fix the form. Then, the conversation turned to students wanting to know which courses are good. They want to see each others evaluations of a course. Here, I started to get queasy. I've seen how a class of student can gang up on a professor and turn the evaluations really sour. This experience and possibility wasn't holding any sway with this group of students.
Next a student said that he thought there ought to be transparency in the course evaluations. Okay. There ought to be 360 degree feedback. I see a huge problem with this because faculty, especially tenured faculty, have no vested interest beyond the non-existent cost of living raise and ego to do good teaching. This went over the heads of the students. He went on to say that if he is going to a resturant he wants to see how others have rated the chef and the service.
What?! Comparing faculty teaching and choosing classes to choosing a restaurant! Needless to say, I went ballistic.These millennial students have such a profoundly different world view. From his point of view, he was buying my service. Never mind that the portion of my salary that actually comes from tuition is probably somewhere between 0% and 10%. I don't call that buying my service.
It's a hard sell. They want to be entertained. I suspect they also want to feel like they are getting their money's worth. But, how can they really know if that's the case? What criteria do they have as a guide? They have grown up relying on the opinions of others as a frame of reference for their own assessments. How can they have enough knowledge of a topic before and while taking a course to know if they are receiving the right information? They can't; they can only know that the professor is funny and smart and makes them feel good about their work.
I dread the continuation of this agenda item. I dread the distance between the generations. I dread the gap in understanding the context of teaching and of learning. I dread the lack of a one best path to make us all happy. I dread the continuation of this agenda item.
At the last meeting, the last agenda item was "course evaluations." Things got weird. The students started telling horror stories about this course and that course and how the current course evaluation forms don't permit them to describe the problems. Okay, we can fix the form. Then, the conversation turned to students wanting to know which courses are good. They want to see each others evaluations of a course. Here, I started to get queasy. I've seen how a class of student can gang up on a professor and turn the evaluations really sour. This experience and possibility wasn't holding any sway with this group of students.
Next a student said that he thought there ought to be transparency in the course evaluations. Okay. There ought to be 360 degree feedback. I see a huge problem with this because faculty, especially tenured faculty, have no vested interest beyond the non-existent cost of living raise and ego to do good teaching. This went over the heads of the students. He went on to say that if he is going to a resturant he wants to see how others have rated the chef and the service.
What?! Comparing faculty teaching and choosing classes to choosing a restaurant! Needless to say, I went ballistic.These millennial students have such a profoundly different world view. From his point of view, he was buying my service. Never mind that the portion of my salary that actually comes from tuition is probably somewhere between 0% and 10%. I don't call that buying my service.
It's a hard sell. They want to be entertained. I suspect they also want to feel like they are getting their money's worth. But, how can they really know if that's the case? What criteria do they have as a guide? They have grown up relying on the opinions of others as a frame of reference for their own assessments. How can they have enough knowledge of a topic before and while taking a course to know if they are receiving the right information? They can't; they can only know that the professor is funny and smart and makes them feel good about their work.
I dread the continuation of this agenda item. I dread the distance between the generations. I dread the gap in understanding the context of teaching and of learning. I dread the lack of a one best path to make us all happy. I dread the continuation of this agenda item.
08 September 2010
Small committes, big effect
I thought that I had finished work for the day, having reached 9 hours at task. But, I stayed online with email open past the dinner hour. My mistake. Faculty often return for a post-perennial top-off-the day session of a little more work. So, I was in for another half hour of e-problem solving.
The issue was curriculum revision. Although we have not yet had the first meeting of this academic year, I am the default chair of the division curriculum committee. Default because I have served as the chair for the past several years. Default because no one else wants to add committee work to their late evening task list. Default because I tend to get things done.
In preparation for our first meeting of the academic year, I went through emails saved in my "curriculum" mailbox. I was searching for items for the agenda that I vaguely remembered being sent to me over the past couple of months. Our "satellite" and local online certificate programs each have a minor revision. Those got added to the agenda and documents posted online for the committee to see. Then I found the biggie. Biggie in the sense of not being clear cut, being somewhere between minor and not minor, involving an ardent emailer.
The particulars are not the issue. The issue is that none of the fussing, the paperwork, the ethereally supported consensus building gets seen or noticed until it shows up on a list of courses that are required for a degree. So very few ever ask why or how we come up with that list of courses. The list everyone notices and abides by. But no one really notices the committee, unless it is not meeting and getting work done or is holding up proposals that need to move along from division to school to campus curriculum committees.
It occurs to me that the work of this committee, the group of 3 or 4 or 5 of us that meet once a month, is oddly the very core of academia. Smart people trying to create, maintain, evolve a curriculum for an unpredictable future of individuals we do not yet know. It's worked in the past. We assume that what we create will work in the future. But, this seemingly obscure little committee actually determines the character of the degrees and certificates offered by our division. We, as a faculty self-governance committee, influence the reputation of the school and thus the school's financial health.
The issue was curriculum revision. Although we have not yet had the first meeting of this academic year, I am the default chair of the division curriculum committee. Default because I have served as the chair for the past several years. Default because no one else wants to add committee work to their late evening task list. Default because I tend to get things done.
In preparation for our first meeting of the academic year, I went through emails saved in my "curriculum" mailbox. I was searching for items for the agenda that I vaguely remembered being sent to me over the past couple of months. Our "satellite" and local online certificate programs each have a minor revision. Those got added to the agenda and documents posted online for the committee to see. Then I found the biggie. Biggie in the sense of not being clear cut, being somewhere between minor and not minor, involving an ardent emailer.
The particulars are not the issue. The issue is that none of the fussing, the paperwork, the ethereally supported consensus building gets seen or noticed until it shows up on a list of courses that are required for a degree. So very few ever ask why or how we come up with that list of courses. The list everyone notices and abides by. But no one really notices the committee, unless it is not meeting and getting work done or is holding up proposals that need to move along from division to school to campus curriculum committees.
It occurs to me that the work of this committee, the group of 3 or 4 or 5 of us that meet once a month, is oddly the very core of academia. Smart people trying to create, maintain, evolve a curriculum for an unpredictable future of individuals we do not yet know. It's worked in the past. We assume that what we create will work in the future. But, this seemingly obscure little committee actually determines the character of the degrees and certificates offered by our division. We, as a faculty self-governance committee, influence the reputation of the school and thus the school's financial health.
19 April 2010
Meaningful Meetings
When faculty say they have meetings, most eyes glaze over out of fear of boredom. Their fears, my fears are only partially justified.
Three types of faculty exist: those who bring piles of other things to do and pretend to be multitasking, those who only bring a smart phone and are constantly looking in their lap, and those who bring nothing except a cup of coffee. Oh, the fourth type is those who don't show. I tend to be slightly like the first group, with a heavy dose of the third type.
The MCH (Maternal and Child Health) faculty met for 1.5 hours. We meet in a room with mid-20th century hospital green tiles that remain from when this building was a psych hospital. We use this room for all the department faculty meetings. We sit around one long table with the teleconference phone in the middle of the table, regardless of whether anyone calls in. Today, we were fairly focused and moved through the agenda, until we got taking about the characteristics of students and how best to help them learn. At this point, the meeting takes on a faint flavor of group therapy, sharing of horror stories and frustrations. But, in the end, our focus returns to "what can we do" to improve courses and curriculum.
We finished early so I did email. Thankfully nothing urgent. Then off to the next meeting.
The all SPH Faculty meeting is held in a decent room with the new meeting tables arranged in a very large square that does not accommodate everyone. Amazingly, the room was full for this meeting. The room is so large that a second TV screen is mounted on the wall in the middle of the room, so those in the back can see the presentations. The agenda included 45 minutes focused on implementing a intranet in the SPH. (We are so last century!)
This was followed by a lively discussion of revision of the MPH. Faculty ranged from engaged, defensive, and concerned, but most were moderately supportive. This discussion, while a bit tedious, was true faculty governance; The faculty making decisions about curricula, taking a leadership role in making things happen. The Dean listened, providing occasional reassurance that resources will be available for the revisions, whatever those might eventually be.
The dilemma was the same ~ how to best structure the courses and the curriculum so that the MPH graduates are ready for jobs and life long learning. It's not an easy dilemma to solve, and that's why we spend so much time focused on it. The world changes, our students change, we change (or not), and all that requires that we do the "same old" in a new way. The product must evolve.
Three types of faculty exist: those who bring piles of other things to do and pretend to be multitasking, those who only bring a smart phone and are constantly looking in their lap, and those who bring nothing except a cup of coffee. Oh, the fourth type is those who don't show. I tend to be slightly like the first group, with a heavy dose of the third type.
The MCH (Maternal and Child Health) faculty met for 1.5 hours. We meet in a room with mid-20th century hospital green tiles that remain from when this building was a psych hospital. We use this room for all the department faculty meetings. We sit around one long table with the teleconference phone in the middle of the table, regardless of whether anyone calls in. Today, we were fairly focused and moved through the agenda, until we got taking about the characteristics of students and how best to help them learn. At this point, the meeting takes on a faint flavor of group therapy, sharing of horror stories and frustrations. But, in the end, our focus returns to "what can we do" to improve courses and curriculum.
We finished early so I did email. Thankfully nothing urgent. Then off to the next meeting.
The all SPH Faculty meeting is held in a decent room with the new meeting tables arranged in a very large square that does not accommodate everyone. Amazingly, the room was full for this meeting. The room is so large that a second TV screen is mounted on the wall in the middle of the room, so those in the back can see the presentations. The agenda included 45 minutes focused on implementing a intranet in the SPH. (We are so last century!)
This was followed by a lively discussion of revision of the MPH. Faculty ranged from engaged, defensive, and concerned, but most were moderately supportive. This discussion, while a bit tedious, was true faculty governance; The faculty making decisions about curricula, taking a leadership role in making things happen. The Dean listened, providing occasional reassurance that resources will be available for the revisions, whatever those might eventually be.
The dilemma was the same ~ how to best structure the courses and the curriculum so that the MPH graduates are ready for jobs and life long learning. It's not an easy dilemma to solve, and that's why we spend so much time focused on it. The world changes, our students change, we change (or not), and all that requires that we do the "same old" in a new way. The product must evolve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)