How to Get From Here to There: Linking our Educational Aspirations to Our Classroom Behaviors

Presenter: Ken Jones

I’d like to start by asking you to do a little work.  Pick one course that you are teaching this semester, and jot down the top three or four things you hope your students get out of the course.      

Now, I’d like you to do a little more work.  Please take a couple minutes to write your own description of an ideal liberal arts college graduate.  What are the attributes you would love to see them have after four years

Here’s an example, from our own Coordinate Mission Statement:

If you would prefer something a little shorter, here’s one from Lion Gardiner that I like:

“Graduates should be able to think critically, solve complex problems, act in a principled manner, be dependable, read, write, and speak effectively, have respect for others, be able to adapt to change, and engage in life-long learning.”                                                           

Now, look at the Gardiner, the Mission Statement, or your own set of characteristics of an ideal liberal arts graduate.  Compare those to your goals for your own course.  How much overlap is there?  Is there anything in your goals for a particular course that are going to lead to the broader results we hope for?

Let me push this a little further.  Many of us put a “goals of the course statement” on our syllabus, but we also know that many of our students skip right over that section and head for the “what do I have to do” portion.   How much connection is there between those segments?   If an insightful colleague looked at your daily assignments and your evaluation materials, would she be able to come up with a pretty accurate guess about your stated overall goals?

Now, my example may be a little unfair because daily assignments are such small building blocks that they may not be capable of revealing a larger purpose, but my guess is that for many of us, there is some disconnect between the nitty-gritty details and our ideal course goals.   And naturally, there is an even bigger gap between daily practice and our image of a liberal arts graduate.

I don’t know about you, but the problem for me is that I usually get so focused on the concrete building blocks  (do I cover this, when, how much) that I completely forget to think about whether or not they are in line with the larger results I am hoping to produce in students. 

The ideal, then, is to figure out our overall objectives, and then develop everything in light of them.  We need to make it so when we carefully look at the syllabus and the assignments and what we have planned for each day in the classroom, we can see explicit connections between what we are doing with our students and the kind of people we want them to become.

Let’s say, for example, that I decided that my goal in my introductory US History course was to get my students to know some fundamental information about US history such as when various presidents served, the major accomplishments of their administrations, and major events that occurred during their terms in office.

Now if that was my goal, then I should assign readings that focused on who did what and when.  In other words, I should use a text that stressed the basics.  I would need to devote class time to expanding on and clarifying that information, and perhaps asking them questions to see if they remembered the material. Similarly, I could both re-enforce the message and assess their learning with multiple choice tests that asked them to link various presidents with various events.

Now, how would my approach in that same class change if I decided that I still wanted them to know this basic information, but that I also wanted to develop critical thinking, writing and speaking skills, respect for others, and preparation for life-long learning? 

Rather than pre-processed readings done individually, I could have them work in groups to find and assess the information.  If done properly, this would stimulate critical thinking, cooperation/respect for others, and develop the skills necessary for life long learning.  Instead of me doing most of the expounding in class, I could promote their communication skills by having groups explain what they had learned, and then I could push the critical thinking skills with a few questions that forced them to use the knowledge base to make comparative judgments.  Finally, the both writing skills and critical thinking could be honed by essays or papers to assess their ability to use the knowledge base as evidence in an argument.

Here’s a more schematic way to think about what I am suggesting.

(And by the way, you don’t need to be in the Humanities to do this.  People in all sorts of areas are doing variations.  For example, problem based learning works along the same lines. The key is getting students to work from what they know to new understanding facilitated through their peers and you, rather than simply telling them what they need to know for the test.) 

So, if we want to produce graduates that have the larger attributes we cherish, the first thing we need to do is to think about the larger picture as we plan our courses.  While not all of these can be done equally in all disciplines, most of us can incorporate many of them if we just think about it. 

OK, the need to think about the connections is a pretty obvious first step, but since I’m getting paid big bucks here, perhaps I should attempt to earn my money by pointing out a few other things that the research literature suggests would give us a better chance of bringing our grand aspirations to fruition.  I’ll limit myself to comments in four categories.

First, we need to know what teaching strategies are most effective in stimulating student learning.  There are a variety of lists out there, but I believe the essential wisdom is still summed up best in Gamson and Chickering’s Seven Principles for Good Practice.  I talked about these in an LES session last fall.  A summary of that session, including the Seven Principles and some other lists, can be found on the LES home page (csbsju.edu/les).  Just click on “Past Events.”

Second, we need some knowledge of ourselves as teachers.  We need to think about what practices fit us as individuals.  Not all of us can do everything that might be desirable, so we need to think about what we can manage while remaining authentic.

Third, we need deep knowledge of our subject.  By that, I mean something more than the typical student comment that the prof is “knowledgeable.”   For me, the real key to teaching is to be able to take something that is easy for us and think of some new way to break it down/unwrap it/explain it so that someone who doesn’t share our thought patterns can grasp what we are trying to convey.  My argument is that we can’t do that successfully unless we are so at home with our material that we can twist it inside out and explain it in ways that are very different from the ways that we learned it. 

I came across an aphorism the other day that seems perfect for this.  I’m sure you know the old crack about “Those who can, do; those who can’t teach.”   Well, my new favorite twists that into “Those who can, do; those who understand, teach.”  (L.S. Shulman, “Those Who Understand,” Educational Researcher, 15, pp. 4-14)

Fourth and finally, if we are going to succeed with our students, the research literature also suggests that it is helpful if we have some real understanding of them.

The one key point I want to make here is this: they aren’t us; they aren’t even generally younger versions of us.  Since I, and I expect many of you, often forget this, chant it with me.  “They aren’t us.”

Ok, now that we have gotten that out of the way, let me develop the theme a little.

One comment I often hear is that today’s students are sub-par because they don’t have the skills or preparation our generation (whatever it is) had.  I don’t know about the objective reality on that, but before we run too far let me remind you of one critical fact.  We were the weird ones in high school.  We were the ones who loved learning and succeeded in the system.  If you judge your students against our non-normative experience and throw in a little selective memory, of course we are going to be disappointed in our current students.  It is not a fair comparison.

[Just as an aside, several studies have shown that teachers who try to figure out where their students are and work with that rather than bemoaning their abilities are not only happier in their work but are also seen by the students as better teachers.]

In addition to skills/preparation, there’s another fairly obvious but significant difference I should remind you of.  We’re where we are because we find history or physics or economics inherently fascinating.  Our students are generally in college because it is the culturally accepted and expected thing to do.  You graduate from high school, and if you have enough money, you go off to put in another four years in college.   In short, they generally do not share our intrinsic love of the subject.
           
Finally, as those of you who know something about theories of intellectual development understand, many of our students enter college looking at the world in a very dualistic fashion where there are clear and absolute “right” and “wrong” answers.  In this mode they tend to see the teacher as the expert who knows the “right” answer and whose job it is to provide it.  Learning, then, is the ability to memorize what the teacher has said -- the right answer or the truth – and to repeat it on a test.
           
Obviously, students who look at the world in this dualistic fashion are going to find it very frustrating if we start talking about different interpretations, point out complexities, and insist that they be able to provide reasons (other than that’s what the teacher said) for the answer they came up with.
          
If we respond to their resistance by labeling them as stupid or lazy, they clearly we aren’t going to be able to do much to help them learn.  On the other hand, if we know that their response is a function of their level of intellectual development (and that we can help them grow if we employ the appropriate strategies), then we have a much better chance of nudging them toward a more complex, mature, nuanced vision of the world.            
In short, if we understand who they are and how they think, we will have a much better chance of succeeding.

If we combine that understanding of our students with an understanding of ourselves as teachers and knowledge of productive pedagogical techniques, then we will be even more prepared.

And finally, to take us back to where we began, the other key step that will help us get from here to there is to consistently and explicitly ask ourselves if our daily practice is reflective of our larger goals for our students.

Key sources:
Robert Menges and Maryellen Weimer, Teaching on Solid Ground  (1996)
Alexander Astin, What Matters in College  (1993)
Lion Gardiner, “Why We Must Change,” Thought and Action, Fall 2000, p. 121-123