Pedagogy roundtable, round 2

I'm glad to see that the idea of a pedagogy roundtable sparked so much interest. There have already been a couple of great responses: Meg at xoom answers theartofdistance's question about how to deal with those really big classes that are all too common these days, and in response to prefer not to say, Dr. Crazy at Reassigned Time talks about strategies for the literature classroom. These are both excellent posts - check them out!

ianqui asks about students who take your class really thinking that they're going to get something else, who decide that they don't like the topic of your class. This is a tough question. As a historian, I do get the luxury of often being able to tell cool stories (though I don't want students coming away from my classes thinking that history is ONLY cool stories), which helps to draw students in, but this doesn't work as well if you teach, say, organic chemistry or something. Ironically, I find that I am more likely to have history majors in my classes who don't like the topic than non-majors, because a non-major will take my class precisely because it does sound interesting, whereas there are majors who take my classes only to fulfill a major requirement.

I think ianqui's comment also connects to one that ADM raises: how to keep the students in your class? Both, I think, are about how to deal with students who don't always agree with, or even understand, our (the faculty's) goals in the classroom, and how to communicate those goals to students in a persuasive fashion. (ADM, I did mean to point out that I bet you won't have as much of a problem with attrition in a four-year college as in a community college - just a hunch.)

In a way, what this really gets at is the question of relevance, and how to make one's classes relevant to students, which is something I frequently find frustrating. There's a lot of discussion about how students get more engaged in their learning if they feel that it's connected to their lives, which I can understand and sympathize with. But as a historian I also have a problem with this, because I consider it my role in the classroom to get students to think outside of their own lives - to realize that their own lives and interests are NOT the only standard by which we should understand the past. What I really want them to understand is that people in the past THOUGHT DIFFERENTLY than they did, and therefore considered very different things relevant than we may do today. So I find this a difficult balance to strike, between connecting my course material to students' lives and getting students to realize that there were so, so many other ways to consider the world.

But this is moving away from the questions at hand. There are a couple of things that I would say to ianqui, all of which she's probably doing anyway - first, I'd try to emphasize the connections between the topic I'm teaching and the topic that students wanted to learn about (or thought they were going to learn about). If the problem is student assumptions (they come to class assuming that topic X means something it doesn't really mean), I'd probably start off the semester asking students to define X, and then go through explaining what X *really* means, so they know from the beginning what they're getting into.

Something else I always used to think, and have actually said to a class before, especially when I was teaching a lot of non-traditional students and a LOT of students who were only ever there to fulfill a requirement: students aren't required to like the material. They're required to do the work, and if they want a good grade they're required to do it well, but it's their prerogative not to like the material that I teach. I still feel this way, but it's a more productive attitude with non-trads who usually have very concrete, heartfelt reasons for being in school, and whom I've often found willing to do the work because they know that's what will earn them a good grade, and are mature enough to recognize that there are times in life when you just have to do stuff you don't necessarily enjoy very much. There are other students who simply turn off whenever presented with something they "don't like."

It might even be worth having a class discussion about why they don't like the topic? Although this depends partly on the size of the class, and if it's discussion-friendly to begin with.

As for the attrition - I'm torn, because to a certain extent, I figure such attrition is nature's way of dealing with students who really don't want to/shouldn't be in the classroom at that particular time in their lives. I'd probably rather see those students drop if they're not willing to be there than cope with them in the classroom.  Obviously, this isn't a helpful attitude! It would be interesting to know how ADM's attrition compares to the rest of the college - is this really unique to ADM, or is it part of the college culture/demographics? I don't think, though, that ADM should take the attrition as any kind of comment on her teaching, given the satisfaction level of the students who remain.

But in any case, I don't think I've given any particularly concrete answers here, nor do I mean to set myself up as any kind of expert who's going to dole out wisdom, responding to each of the comments  in turn. What I'd really like is to see everyone else weigh in. What about the rest of you out there? What would you say in response to ianqui and ADM? How do you reach students and make your subjects relevant to them, and cope with disinterest or out-and-out desertion?

Apologies for rambling - it's Friday night and I'm sleepy. More responses to the comments to come - I think some of the other questions raised can fruitfully be addressed together as well, and I'll work on introducing them over the next few days.

Comments

[ianqui]

Here's the problem. I co-teach an interdisciplinary class with a prof from another department. This class has been going on for a while--way before I got to XU--but by all accounts, it's always been disaster. The students from my department generally really like it, but the students from the other department detest it. They don't like my field, and although we try desperately to show the interdisciplinary link, they just don't see the point.

Unfortunately, it's the students from the other department who have the real problem, because they need the class to fill an advanced elective for a track, whereas our students don't have to take it at all (so the ones who do really like it). I'm not interested in tailoring the content of the course just for the students in the other department--I'd much rather drop it as an elective and let people take it who are really interested in it. But the people who created the course are wedded to it, and if I told them that it just isn't working, they'd rail against me.

I think the best thing for me to do is try not to teach it ever again.

[New Kid on the Hallway]

Oy. That is really tough. It's funny b/c it is like my situation with non-majors actually often being happier to be in my classes than majors (the majors have to take an early history class, and the folks who only ever want to learn about the modern US tend not to respond very well). And it does suck when you have to fit your teaching into a structure that's already in place and doesn't work well for you. (I think this is more of an issue for science-types b/c there are things you can identify, relatively clearly, that majors have to know, whereas history is much more flexible - we expect history majors all to have certain skills, but not necessarily the same body of knowledge.)

How does your co-teacher cope with this? I presume they're in the department of folks who hate the course?

[ADM]

Oy. ianqui, is this the course that also has depended so much on your co-teacher? one of the things I've noticed about the really successful interdisciplinary courses I've seen (I've never taught one -- at least not yet) is that the best ones start with faculty who have a particular vision for the course and who work well together. At one of the places I used to teach, the dynamic was so important for a colleague who had tenure that she refused to teach one extremely popular interdisciplinary course unless she taught it with one particular co-teacher, who happened to be an adjunct.
Maybe if the powers that be are so married to the course, there is someone in the other discipline you do work well with, and who would be ready to work with you on a total re-vamp? Maybe there could even be a discussion of release time?

[Laustic]

I, too, have encountered the deserter problem. As a measly TA, I teach a writing seminar course. Though each seminar, at least in my department, is designed by the TA, giving students dozens of choices, the ballot system that places students in these required classes often misfires. So the first few days of each semester I meet many disgruntled students who suspect that I have some power over the vagaries of the system. Anyway, to stave off mass exodus I tend to frontload my class with the catchy materials: Arthuriana and short, modern pieces. (This term I opened with a chapter from Gillian Rose's _Paradiso_ which was surprisingly productive.) I also don't assign grades to any of the earliest writing exercises to prevent the perception that I'm a vicious, bloodthirsty grader. In reality, I think I'm something of a pushover when it comes to grades, but anything in the B-range constitutes an imagined failure in these parts. (There are other reasons for not assigning grades, too, but those motives don't influence attrition.)

[Dr. Virago]

students aren't required to like the material. They're required to do the work, and if they want a good grade they're required to do it well, but it's their prerogative not to like the material that I teach.

Exactly. A speaker who's been visiting our campus twice a semester to talk about the role and use of the humanities and a liberal arts education said the very same thing. And he said it may shock us, but the content of what we teach and whether or not students remember it for a lifetime or like it ever is not the point. It's the work and learning how to do it that's the point. I found that really freeing, actually. Maybe we should even say this to students, let them know that even if they don't "like" it, they'll still get some value in the process.

[ianqui]

ADM: Yes, this is the course that I co-taught with that horrifying other prof last year. But, this year I'm co-teaching with someone I like, who I think is doing a great job. We mesh very well, and the students STILL don't like it. (In fact, on the mid-sem evals before the exam, hardly anyone said anything bad about us!)

Still, here's a further indication that this year's bunch is worse than usual, when even usual is pretty bad: Our midterm was made up of about 75% of the same questions from last year. And I know large chunks of it have been used before. Last year, the grades skewed low, but they weren't a total disaster and people didn't complain about the test. This year, the mean was a 64% and students are screaming about how unfair the test was and how we graded subjectively.

So now, of course, our final evaluations are going to be terrible. Because in this course, they always are.

[meg]

Yowza. I don't envy you one bit, ianqui.

In your shoes, my strategy would be to go meta -- make the reasons for the class, their dislike of it, etc. a central topic of discussion. It at least builds goodwill.

And then when that failed I would self-medicate. (JOKE, people!)

[Another Damned Medievalist]

Self-medication is a respected tradition in our profession, as long as it doesn't interfere with our work.

[Anastasia]

"It might even be worth having a class discussion about why they don't like the topic?"

I've had great success with this sort of thing.

I also tell them the first day that all grading is always subjective. After they pick their jaws up off the floor I tell them that doesn't mean it can't be fair. Nor does it mean it is necessarily going to be easy. If I run into a grading problem later, the subjectivity of the process is already on the table and we can discuss what they found unfair about it.