Democracy in the Classroom

The UVU Review had an article titled “Classroom democracy doesn’t work” in the January 23, 2012 edition of the paper (volume LII, Issue 19). This article talks about how there are some professors who leave it up to the students to decide how the class is run. This can vary from the type of tests the students take, how many assignments, whether group projects are involved, to the exact material that is discussed. The article argues that professors should not do this in lower division courses, but that it is more acceptable in upper division.

I can understand this student standpoint, mainly because I have seen negative experiences with professors not giving enough direction. However, looking at creating a learner-centered teaching style, we can find an efficient way to encourage students to be more involved with their education. The following paragraphs discuss the benefits, and ways to incorporate learner-centered teaching into the classroom.

What are the benefits of learner-centered teaching? In my English class, we are discussing stakeholders. Who are the stakeholders in a class? The answer is easy, the professor and the students. This can be taken further; UVU is a stakeholder because their reputation is on the line. The community is a stakeholder because the students are the future professionals, which also affects the economy. But let’s focus down to the professor, students, and the atmosphere that is created. Weimer, author of Learner-Centered Teaching, discusses these three areas in more detail. First, Weimer says, “If students are engaged, involved, and connected with a course, they are motivated to work harder in that course” (31). Getting students involved can be difficult, especially in an introductory course that they don’t really want to be in. The student may not see the relevance as to why they need to take the given course. Allowing them to take part in the decision-making process assists them in a positive experience. In turn, this can help them see application to the real world. It then goes on to say, “Power sharing also benefits teachers. You no longer struggle with passive, uninterested, disconnected students” (31). The students become engaged in the class. They want to be involved and connected to what is taking place. It allows them to feel important to the process and allows for them to find their voice. Think for a moment on the best and worse teaching experiences you have had. Why was it the best or worst? My guess is that it has a lot to do with the student’s participation. Teaching can’t really happen if the students are not opening themselves up. When students are involved, the whole atmosphere of the classroom changes. “There is a much stronger sense that the class belongs to everyone. When something is ineffective, students are much more willing than in the past to help [the professor] fix it” (31). This all sounds great, right? The students feel more important to the professor, which gives them a better sense of respect towards them. They also feel respected and not looked down on. And, the professor feels productive due to a more engaged environment.

Finding this balance may be difficult at first. There are many ways to share the power with students. When choosing what types of decisions are shared with students, it is important to look at what the end purpose is. Usually the end purpose is students learning certain information, or gaining certain skills. The goal would then be to give students power that, no matter what their decision is, the end goal is still met. Weimer states, “Faculty still make key decisions about learning, but they no longer make all decisions and not always without student input” (28). An example is given about being in an introductory course and not allowing the students to choose what textbook is used. The students need more experience before making such large decisions. However, the professor may have a few textbooks that all fit the criteria and may discuss the options with the students. From there, the professor and students would discuss the options openly and decide on one together.

In one of my classes, we were going to be writing an exploratory/analysis paper. We were discussing the importance of building our writing skills to be able to take it with us into our careers. The choice was then given to us to stick with the original plan or switch to a memo format. This was a great way for us to practice a form of writing that would be used in our professional lives. The end result is still the same, we are learning to think critically, and the same amount of research is still being done.

The choice is yours to find what way works best for you to get the students involved. Many more resources can be found in making the decision. Be “that” teacher. “That” teacher where the students want to be in the class, they are excited to contribute. A difference can be made.

Resources:
Boyce, John-Ross. "Classroom Democracy Doesn't Work." UVU Review 23 Jan. 2012, volume LII ed., Opinions sec. Print.

Weimer, Maryellen. "The Balance of Power." Learner-Centered Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002. 23-45. Print.

Universities vs. Police Agencies

Professor David H. Bayley, of State University of New York at Albany, wrote an interesting article comparing Universities to Police Agencies. My first thought when hearing this was humorous. “Yeah, they are a lot alike! My professors are the police, and they are telling me what to do. I am in jail!” All joking aside, I jumped into the article and found some interesting points.

Bayley starts out describing how police organizations are not any worse than many other organizations today. To illustrate, he gives examples of how a University runs. Classes are given to educate and police investigate in the manner that desired outcomes are met. However, how much is being done to ensure the steps along the way are what would be considered the best? Police, along with professors, and anyone for that matter, have a hard time being criticized for how they do things. When being looked at, police, as well as universities, “prefer to be judged by what they do rather than what they achieve.” Blame is generally placed on the student, or the citizen, when the desired outcome is not met. However, how much focus is placed on getting the proper training? Yes, there are certain requirements to becoming a professor, but where is the training for teaching. Other than personal experiences of seeing others teach while you are going to school yourself, or teaching as a graduate student, there isn’t really a period of time that someone has to be trained in teaching. With all the comparisons done, let’s not focus on the people themselves, but the system in which they work.

What can we take from this? I personally feel like professors have a lot to deal with. They need to be able to find a way that they are able to deliver their knowledge to the students. They have a lot of expertise, but maybe not the right type of training (no fault of their own) to be able to do that. This is where I can see that being engaged with the students can help. Getting proper feedback from the students can allow the professor to see weak, and even strong areas they have. This can free us all from “jail”. The Faculty Center has great tools with workshops available. Finding the time may be difficult, but the reward can be well worth it.

The reference, if you are interested in reading the article is:
Bayley, D.H. (1994). Police for the future. New York: Oxford University Press.

Understanding Student "Resistance"

A common faculty complaint is that students don't seem to want to become "engaged" in taking responsibility for their own learning or in going beyond the regurgitation/surface approach to learning. Sometimes, out of frustration, faculty focus mostly on those students who do seem internally motivated to learn, and merely go through the motions with those students that seem to approach learning in a surface manner. This can be seen as a great example of the Fundamental Attribution Error -- a well documented human cognitive bias. When we use the FAE, we tend to see a behavior -- student resistance to our stellar teaching methods -- and attribute that behavior to internal characteristics of the person, e.g. students are lazy (they don't want to work), students are irresponsible, etc. This helps us to not feel quite so frustrated and explains the behavior neatly. However, because the FAE is an ERROR, it is also an over-simplified and inaccurate understanding of student behavior. If we want to make progress in working with students and in helping them to actually become effective, lifelong learners, we need to go beyond the FAE and evaluate the environmental and social forces that are leading to their behavior.

Terry Doyle's new book gives some ideas of how to better understand student resistance to active teaching methods. One of his first points on why students are often unprepared to learn on their own is that students often do not do their assigned readings or other preparatory work because they believe that teachers will cover whatever material is important from those readings in class anyway -- to review ahead of time is just a waste of time. They do not understand the way the brain works, that building an original network of ideas makes it easier to understand later information and to integrate it with prior learning. Why don't they know how the brain works? Because we haven't explained it to them. There are many solutions to this particular problem, but any effective solution has to begin with explaining to students *why* what we ask them to do has learning value and to help them understand how their own brains work.

Doyle also notes that students don't tend to learn well on their own because they have had few opportunities to learn how to do this in their education so far. Their previous experience with "independent work" in high school generally has been highly structured and directed with surface outcomes attached to it (e.g. simple grade). These types of assignments, which they assume are the same as your assignments, do not challenge them to learn how to become truly independent and critical thinkers. We need to take the time in our courses, and in our curricula, to ensure that students develop the skills they need to actually become successful in active learning. Similarly, students often have never been taught how to read a text or journal article to extract information in a way that promotes memory and retention, how to take effective notes (rather than attempts at transcripts of a lecture), how to write true research papers, and especially how to work effectively with other students. Many faculty assume that students already have learned these skills earlier in their education or that they should have learned these skills. Such an attitude is a type of denial; it ignores the reality that students are often unprepared to learn effectively on their own when they show up in our classes, and keeps faculty from designing activities and strategies in their classroom to help our students learn to become independent lifelong learners. It is time for us to cope with OUR own resistance, see past the FAE, and reach out to students in ways that really make a difference.

Doyle, T. (2008). Helping Students Learn in a Learner-Centered Environment. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

A Helping Hand

Colleagues: Many of you know that we typically run 1-2 Learning Circles every semester. These are wonderful opportunities to share ideas with colleagues, to think evaluatively about our own teaching, and to learn things from other that help our students to learn. In fact, there is such a large and useful literature out there, that it is hard to narrow the list down for what to read. However, we have done our best! We have put up a poll on the left side of the blog and ask you for your input. Even if you are outside of UVU, feel free to tell us what you, as professionals and colleagues, would consider most useful. The other benefit of this process is that when you attend a Learning Circle regularly, you get to keep the book that is being discussed. It is a useful way to build your pedagogical library and lets you go back and use the book for references and to refresh your learning. Please give us your input! Here are some thumbnail sketches of the books we are looking at:

• Terry Doyle: a book about understanding student resistance to active learning and how to work with students
  
• Weimer: the classic book that lays out a coherent and integrated model of "Learner Centered Teaching" in a way that helps faculty to make practical use of it
• Tagg: a book that discusses the elements of the traditional Instructional Paradigm and the changes that need to occur if we are to move to a more effective Learning Paradigm
• Bransford et al: One of the best recent summaries of the science of the brain and how it relates to adult learning
• Brookfield: a book about the messiness of teaching and the core issues of the professor's relationship to students
  

The Personal and Learning Cost of Paradigms

I keep pondering the issue of the Instruction Paradigm versus the Learning Paradigm in Higher Education. In this vein, I was reading an article by Jane Tompkins, an English professor. She writes about her own movement away from the traditional teaching model in the classroom to a student-engaged model, but she made this change after a moment of personal epiphany, not because she was exposed to discussions about the Learning Paradigm. Tompkins describes, and discredits, the instruction or "knowledge transmission" model that has been heavily criticized. She states that few professors endorse such a model of teaching today. Then she notes, "But what we do have is something no less coercive, no less destructive of creativity and self-motivated learning", and she calls this the "performance model" (p.24).

Tompkins admits that she has, essentially, been lying to herself for years, telling herself that she had been concerned with helping students understand Melville or deconstruction when, in fact, she has been concerned all along with demonstrating to students her intelligence, her knowledge as an expert, and how well she is prepared for class. In other words, she has been performing for students so that they will have a good opinion of her rather than actually being concerned with helping them learn. She theorizes that she, like many academics, developed this intuitive approach partly due to organizational structure but also due to her childhood. She notes that most professors were good "performers" at home and at school growing up, imitating adult behaviors in order to receive praise and feel good. She posits that this emotional trajectory, a fear of disapproval, continues into our careers and shapes our desires for both peer and student approbation and shapes teaching behaviors. She also acknowledges that a fear of pedagogy was a powerful socializing force in graduate school where she learned to look down on schools of education as the "lowest of the low", the place where only those who couldn't really cut it in Higher Education were able to find a position. This bias against pedagogy and teaching theory began to hamper her, and she slowly came to realize it. "In this respect, teaching was exactly like sex to me -- something you weren't supposed to talk about or focus on in any way but that you were supposed to be able to do properly when the time came" (p.25). She then describes how she began changing her courses to shift responsibility for presenting course content to students and how this dramatically changed the energy level in the classroom, invigorated her own teaching, and led to gains in student learning. She concludes by noting that "what we do in the classroom is our politics" and that if we are, in actuality, focused on performance, then we are leaving a similar legacy in the minds of our students.

I found this article thought provoking and useful. I know that in my own teaching, I had to overcome my own pleasure at telling stories that I believe communicated important truths, that I had to learn to give up the stage, the performance, in order to put students on the stage so they could learn their own truths. In working with other faculty, they have shared similar stories, so I believe that Tompkins is onto something important here. At the same time, and she acknowledges this, her own story also points out the very real nature of the Instruction Paradigm. Part of the desire for approval is driven, in academics, by fears regarding contract renewal and tenure; part of the approbation we seek from peers is practical and tied to these issues which are part and parcel of the Instruction Paradigm College. Assistant professors worry about student ratings and for good reason; tenure committees in the past have made decisions largely based on student input, partly because there is usually no clear definition of effective teaching or effective measurements of student learning outcomes because the institution is focused on delivering instruction. There is a very real, a very practical, cost that is personal to all of us as faculty, and to our students in terms of lost opportunities for learning. The solution is to shift our focus from ourselves, away from performance, and to focus on how to help students learn, and how to organize our institution to accomplish that mission.
-- Anton Tolman

Tompkins, J. (Aug, 1991). Teaching Like It Matters. Lingua Franca, pp.24 - 27.

Seeing the Invisible

It is an axiom of psychotherapy that the client cannot change something they are unaware of. If the client is not aware of their own motives, emotions, and thoughts, they have no clear "targets" that they can focus on to produce changes and improvements in their own lives. Put another way, the fish is unaware of the water because it surrounds them, has always been there, and is just a part of their environment, something they are unaware of.

Similarly, faculty are surrounded and immersed in what John Tagg (2003) calls an organizational paradigm -- the Instruction paradigm, to be precise. This paradigm has been around for a long time and has shaped the structure and function of our university and most universities and colleges across the country. We are so used to it that we think this is reality, instead of remembering that this structure, this way of thinking, was a deliberate artifact created by human beings. That means it can be changed. However, it is hard to change something when we are unaware of what it is or how it operates. Barr and Tagg (1995) and Tagg (2003) as well as others (e.g. Weimer, 2002) have described the impact of this Instruction Paradigm and how it pervades and shapes all aspects of how faculty work and how they interact with students. I will be writing more about this paradigm and the need to overthrow it in future blogs, but for now, let me give you a couple of examples taken from Tagg (2003).

1) The IP emerged when colleges were undergoing rapid growth and needed a national framework for transfer of credits and similar course design across the country. This led to the development of the standard credit = 1 hour of class time per week. Tagg then starts to describe the implications of this -- quoting Peter Ewell: "degree levels in this country have become almost exclusively defined in terms of the hours of classroom time required to complete them." Note that this definition has nothing to do with student learning; degrees are awarded mostly for sitting in a classroom and turning in assignments on time.
2) Although some faculty worry about UVU becoming a "corporate university", it has already happened and long ago. Tagg writes that colleges have come to be "factories for the production of full-time equivalent students, transcript-generating machines."
3) The core of the Instruction paradigm college is a view of teaching as the transmission of information from faculty to students. Biggs (1999) stated it this way: "Teaching rooms and media are specifically designed for one-way delivery. A teacher is the knowledgeable expert, the sage-on-the-stage, who expounds the information the students are to absorb and report back accurately, according to their ability, their motivation, even their ethnicity.....The curriculum is a list of content that, once expounded from the podium, have been 'covered'....The language is about what the teacher does, not what the student does...a quantitative way of thinking about learning and teaching."

If we are serious here at UVU about student engagement and student learning, then students, faculty, and administration all need to become more aware of the Instruction Paradigm so that we can see the invisible and work to counteract it.