 |
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
Mediated Learning NewsletterVol. 6, Issue 1: September 2006, page 1What are you doing best?Johnny W. Lott,
In his book, What College Teachers Do Best, Ken Bain (2004) argues that the thing that teachers do best is not what they “do” but rather what they understand. He also implies that lesson plans and lecture notes matter less than the special way teachers comprehend the subject matter and value the way that students learn. Admittedly, he states that the best teachers know their subjects but even more, they know how to engage and challenge students to provoke impassioned responses. Bain further points out that the best teachers believe teaching matters and all students can learn. Using Bain’s thinking, there are four things that I would recommend each teacher consider as the semester starts: knowing subject matter, knowing how to engage and challenge students to elicit impassioned responses, knowing that teaching matters, and knowing that students can learn. Each is explained below. Knowing Subject Matter Knowing subject matter may possibly depend on what one means by “knowing” and in a sense all university faculty are presumed to “know” their subject matter. In a recent “Dialogue” in NEA Higher Education Advocate (2006), Wible argued that a Ph. D. program, the experience gained in it, and the research itself adds to the body of knowledge and skills that facilitate effective teaching. He further argued that those who endure this exercise are more likely to be passionate about their discipline and subject matter. Presumably the passion of the faculty member stimulates student interest and promotes student learning. Wible’s thoughts seem validated by studies in Tennessee with younger students in which teachers with more knowledge of subject matter tend to have students who achieve at higher levels (Sanders & Rivers, 1996). Knowing How to Engage and Challenge Students to Elicit Impassioned Responses Lola May, revered mathematics educator, often in the past has referred to “knowing your stuff [content knowledge], knowing what you’re stuffing [the students] and knowing how to stuff them [strategies of teaching].” Her colloquialism speaks to knowing how to engage and challenge students with content knowledge. It does not directly speak to the elicitation of impassioned responses from students. However, she always elicited impassioned responses both from the listeners and from her students. Somewhat akin to the report “Turning to the Evidence” in the Summer 2006 EDC Report Series, May focused on the potential of the students rather than on the correctness or incorrectness of their responses. She questioned them to determine if they could back up their claims with evidence from artifacts and to determine if they were more focused on the ideas than the artifacts themselves. To elicit impassioned responses, Dr. May would make outlandish claims to evoke responses from her students. She wanted them to have evidence to refute her claims. Isn’t this behavior exactly what we want in students at The University of Montana? For example, don’t we want them to make impassioned responses to the question of whether firefighters are doing an adequate job on the front? Whether their responses were based on mathematics and statistics, on social science issues and other hard evidence, or from a combination answer, we want their arguments to be reasoned and educated, and we want to provide them the knowledge base needed to prepare those responses. Knowing that teaching matters As members of academia, we take for granted that teaching matters, but consider for one moment whether or not in a different context it matters to you. For example, we all know that students entering The University of Montana have either a high school diploma or some equivalency of one. Now those students have been taught in school systems where teaching mattered in the minds of the teachers there. Consider whether or not you personally think that the teaching provided to students in their Pre-K—12 education mattered. If you have any questions about that system and whether or not that teaching mattered, consider whether or not others share your opinion that teaching matters in higher education. From my vantage point, teaching matters in both places, and there are lessons to be learned here at the university. First, our students do not come to us as empty slates that need to be filled. Rather we are challenged to find out what is on those slates and how we can fill in any gaps, expand the writing surface, and turn the slates into three-dimensional models of excellence. In higher education, you may be challenged to use every teaching strategy that you know, or can learn, to make this happen. Second, our students should not leave us as empty slates. We are already requiring some exit exams for graduation. Shouldn’t we be very careful with the exit exams from our courses to make sure that we are doing our jobs along the way so that the final exit exams from the university are not as traumatic as they are to some now? This is one of our teaching responsibilities. Knowing that Students Can Learn As classes begin this semester, we faculty need to consider our students. We know that there is no reason that they cannot learn. Freshmen in 2006 across the nation continued the trend of scoring approximately as well or higher than in the past on the ACT and the SAT. Test scores are but one indication of what students know when they come to campus. Another is higher grade point averages from high schools. We cannot simply attribute this to grade inflation; there are more students taking advanced placement courses and dual enrollment courses than at any point in time. Students not only can learn; they are learning before they reach our campus. Admittedly it has been noted that many freshmen have to take developmental classes when they enter campus. Perhaps we need to examine how we are determining that they need those developmental classes. And we may need to determine what those needed developmental classes are. High school curricula have changed considerably in the past 25 years. Is it the case that corresponding changes have been made at our level? If not, a study to determine the mesh between high schools and universities is overdue. Before we say that students can’t learn or know little when they arrive, perhaps it is time for a touch of reality. Have we changed our expectations to match the changes in population, the changes in curricula, and the changes brought about by the teaching of advanced courses in the high school? It is time to consider our understandings. Presumably that is what we do best.
|
||||||||||||
