Tuesday, May 6, 2008

Afternoon reflection blog

It was interesting to hear about other participants' teaching approaches and techniques in light of the article we read about writing as learning, not simply to demonstrate learning. I am interested in using some of the low stakes writing techniques, especially in my upper-level and seminar classes. In my prints class in the fall, I expect to use informal writing as a way to encourage student discussion, which is especially important in this class because I will be teaching it as a seminar (I had originally designed it to be a 300 level course). As a professor, I always feel very constrained by time and content, especially in the 100 level courses; I always want to make sure that I cover everything in order to give the student's adequate background when they proceed to upper-level classes. I think that in order to make the experience more interesting and meaningful to them, I need to lighten up a little on my drive to cover content and realize that listening to me lecture is not the only way of learning in the lower-level classes. My upper-level courses are already much more conversational; adding more writing will, I hope, facilitate this aspect. I would like to add, however, that there is still an important role for research papers in my classes. They are not wasted time, in my opinion. I recognize that having students turn them in at the end of the semester does little to foster good writing, but if they turn in drafts for the professors' feedback earlier in the semester, it will help them learn how to write and think better (although it does make more work for the professor!). Obviously this is not possible for large classes.

1 comment:

glmaranto said...

In large classes, you can cover content by asking teams of students to chart what needs to be covered. In effect, you ask them to figure out what the context is--but more importantly, why. So, for instance, if you give them an assignment that asks them to identify key trends in the history of Western art (modeling, perspective, representation of textures, "realistic" portrayals, etc.) you then say: Okay, you got all this from Wikipedia, but why are these elements important? Who decided that they were valuable? What do these visual strategies allow artists to express or viewers to glean? In other words, as Zach has talked with you about: how can such writing assignments help students understand what the important questions in art history are?