Blog Entry #2

This week’s readings were chapter 3 (Weekly Class Preparation), 4 (Running a Discussion), and 6 (Trusty Class Plans) in First Day to Final Grade. I found several aspects of this week’s readings useful, and I intend to incorporate them into my own teaching.

I enjoyed the discussion about facilitating student notes in chapter 3. College teaching often requires that the instructor speak slowly and occasionally pause to facilitate note taking. This is much different from a professional presentation (e.g., at a conference), where the audience tends to only take notes that relate to their own interests. In my own course, I intend to be aware of the audience and talk at a pace that allows for note taking and learning, even if it requires that I cover less material. For example, if students are furiously taking notes, I will talk slower and incorporate pauses between topics.

I also found the discussion about incorporating writing interesting (chapter 3). The authors state, “By writing, students move immediately from passively receiving information to actively synthesizing ideas and creating original arguments.” I strongly agree with this statement, and I intend to incorporate writing into my own course. For example, I will likely require a 5-7 page application-focused paper, as well as several in-class writing assignments.

In chapter 4, the authors suggest several types of effective and ineffective discussion questions. One type of ineffective question is a “talking down” question (e.g., who is the author?). In my own view, “talking down” questions could be equated with “very easy” questions (e.g., asking students to define a very simple concept). Although it may seem to be a minor point, I think the consequences of asking too many of these types of questions can be dramatic. For example, if students perceive the instructor as condescending, students may not volunteer to answer other questions. In my own teaching, I intend to incorporate few, if any, very easy questions. Rather, I will seek to ask questions that at least minimally challenge students.

I found the discussion about handling sensitive material in Chapter 4 interesting as well. In the example on page 56, the author’s state, “…we must remember that we are evaluating arguments, not the people who raise them.” This is something I have discussed with my advisor on many occasions. Both of us believe that it is the ideas that are important for the progression of the psychological sciences rather than the names associated with those ideas. Nonetheless, it is important to realize that both researchers and students identify with the ideas that they generated. Consequently, it may be difficult to critique an idea without the generator of that idea feeling slighted. One potential solution to this dilemma may include acknowledging the value of how the student arrived at the idea (e.g., “You are on the right track, but…”) before critiquing the end result.

Below are a couple links that relate to the readings for this week. The first link provides techniques for facilitating student participation, and the second link provides techniques for facilitating effective group activities in the classroom.

http://www.swinburne.edu.au/ltas/intro/teachingAdvice/documentation/Facilitating_Student_Participation.pdf

http://teaching.berkeley.edu/bgd/collaborative.html