In my Shakespeare class this term, I'm trying a decentered, everyone-sit-in-a-circle, discussion based approach. This is relatively new to me, and I feel like it's important to try a new approach on occasion. Here's the thing, though: yesterday, one of my 'non-traditional' students, a smart woman who's in her third class with me, commented that I'm "not as effective sitting down." I'm inclined to take her opinion seriously, because she's very much a focused adult student. So now I'm in a bit of a bind: on the one hand, part of the class structure necessitates the sit in a circle approach. On the other hand, I sure don't want to have a boring class. Do I revert back to an approach with which I'm more comfortable, or do I work harder at making this approach pay off? I'm inclined to want the versatility to be able to do either teaching style well, but my pride says go with what I know works. I am, for better or worse, keeping my eye on reputation and evaluations.
Not sure what I'm going to do, really. Comments, those of you who know about such things?
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Gentle Sir Philip Sidney, thou knew'st what belong'd to a scholler; thou knew'st what pains, what toil, what travail conduct to perfection.
About Me
- Piers
- West Tennessee, United States
- "I am grown at length to see into the vanity of the world more than ever I did, and now I condemn myself for nothing so much as playing the dolt in print . . . . There is nothing that if a man list he may not wrest or pervert. I cannot forbid any to think villainously, Sed caveat emptor, let the interpreter beware; for none ever heard me make allegories of an idle text."
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(226)
-
▼
September
(17)
- English 111
- Excuse me while I climb out from under this rock
- Confession
- Long Faces
- Life With a Toddler, Vol. 15
- In the category of "Things Piers Fears" . . .
- In which Piers begins to fear his students
- Wise
- The Other Big News from the Soybean Festival
- Confession time!
- Soybean Festival Update 5
- Soybean Festival Update 4
- Soybean Festival Update 3
- Soybean Festival Update 2
- Sobering Reading for a Tuesday Morning
- Pedagogy challenge
- Life With a Toddler, Vol 13, part 2
-
▼
September
(17)
Followers
Books
10 comments:
In intro-level lit classes, I set everyone up in a circle and tend to move from spot to spot every 10-15 minutes while facilitating discussion. I do better standing than I do sitting, and, I think, do best while moving. I don't relocate quite so much in my Brit lit survey course for majors.
I think circles good for the same reasons you're trying 'em out, because they inspire conversations & disagreements among the students. Occasionally, I can just let go and watch them interact for a bit. Also encourages participation from a majority, drawing out some of those who like to hide in corners.
When I taught high school in the mid-90s, I arranged my students in a big "U" and moved through the center and around the edges. Only problem was, there was this one feisty girl who liked to accuse me of sticking my butt in her face whenever I stopped moving for a few seconds in her vicinity :)
No set-up is without its liabilities . . .
In intro-level lit classes, I set everyone up in a circle and tend to move from spot to spot every 10-15 minutes while facilitating discussion. I do better standing than I do sitting, and, I think, do best while moving. I don't relocate quite so much in my Brit lit survey course for majors.
I think circles good for the same reasons you're trying 'em out, because they inspire conversations & disagreements among the students. Occasionally, I can just let go and watch them interact for a bit. Also encourages participation from a majority, drawing out some of those who like to hide in corners.
When I taught high school in the mid-90s, I arranged my students in a big "U" and moved through the center and around the edges. Only problem was, there was this one feisty girl who liked to accuse me of sticking my butt in her face whenever I stopped moving for a few seconds in her vicinity :)
No set-up is without its liabilities . . .
For me, sitting in a circle is cute, but ineffective. I think my students find it the same way. How often have you had a class that sat that way that you actually found effective? I can count mine on no fingers.
I like the semi-circle: Desks or table in a U-shape. They can look at each other and the board without craning their necks. For my money, that's the best way to help them keep all ideas in mind as they talk.
And the U-shape lets me stand, even with the chairs in a semi-circle. I use frequent trips to the Whiteboard/blackboard as an excuse.
I wander during class conversation. I sit on the desk, or lean against a table. I lean against the whiteboard (use your elbows to prop your back away from the actual board, so as not to get filthy). By physically moving around, I create the sense that the conversation is itself fluid and dynamic. They are all seated, but I'm not trying to dominate them, so much as (and here I mean the physical expression to elicit the mental attitude) to go where they want the conversation to go.
It's a bit of a ruse, of course, because you know where things are eventually going to wind up. But there are reasons why things end up where they do, and wandering about as a class should help them get at those reasons as a group. That's what I mean by "uncovering" knowledge. To put it really stupidly, a U-shape is like a concave mirror, where the focal point isn't you or the board, but the ideas that are coming to a point somewhere in the middle of you all. That's knowledge you are together vivifying and/or creating.
Sitting in a circle, on the other hand, has this weird feel of stasis to it, such that any idea is a good one and there's no sense of clear direction or development. It's much more of a seminar-style approach, and it assumes that your students are at the point where they can take on a significant chunk of ownership of the class session. Still, though, I think it's a better configuration for reading groups or counseling practicums than for any formal instruction.
I'm having similar issues this semester. I'm trying the circle approach in my Am Lit Survey, but I suspect I'm not as effective sitting down, either. I've really appreciated the comments here.
I still want to get better at this sit-in-a-circle thing. While I agree that I haven't had great experiences in them, I have seen really good profs make it work quite well. So I'd like to continue to try my hand it.
I've decided to do part of the time in a circle and part of the time with me up and moving around, using multi-media and slight lecture to stimulate discussion during these moments. In order to make it seem sensible (rather than a change in tactics mid-semester), I told my students that we'll do different approaches because of the time the class meets (3:30 MW). It injects some energy into the discussion.
I'm also having them pass around and holistically score each other's response papers before we start discussion. I'm hoping this will spark discussion, but on the first day of class it didn't. (After reading their response papers after the fact, I realized why--lots of summary, not a lot of response.)
Anyway, I've really appreciated this discussion and hope it keeps up.
Update: My students didn't even move their chairs into a circle today, and I was so gun-shy, I didn't try to make them. I was more comfortable, but I think I want to try Blakbuzzrd and Hermance's approach, and hybridize. Next class, I'll put them in the semicircle, do the journal-reading exercise (which worked really well today, BTW) seated, then rise to use the board and the video to help summarize what we're talking about.
Thanks for y'alls comments.
I think the Buzzrd incidentally brought up a key variable, which is the degree to which one relies on access to the black/whiteboard or a viewing screen. In my composition courses, where we refer to projected prompts, images, and instructions intermittently, a rough "U" shape composed of separate peer-review groups works best, but in a literature course where a key goal is universal, quality participation, a circle forces a degree of awareness and interaction that a "U" might not.
Also depends, of course, on whether the prof wants to assume more the position of facilitator or instructor on a given day.
Paul, I also wonder if it depends on the class being taught. For instance, I find that I have to do a pretty huge amount of cultural history in my literature classes, simply because the students are reading material that may as well be from another planet. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, or even Hamlet, speaks a language that they don't, and I think assumes knowledge that they don't have. I'll be honest: in my survey lit classes, I stand up and 'traditionally' teach, especially early on, because there's stuff they just have to be told.
But here's the catch: I always feel like I shouldn't be doing it that way--that the 'right' way is to sit in a circle and 'discuss.' I wonder why that is?
Well, for what it's worth, I'm struggling with this, too. I just came back from my American Literature survey course, when we were supposed to be discussing Winthrop and Rowlandson. I feel like it is part of my responsibility to teach them about these wacky Puritans because they really have odd notions of them. (We started class by talking about what they think of when they hear "Puritan" versus what they think of when they hear "Pilgrim.") I then went on to explain to them the real difference--which seems crucial when you're talking about Winthrop's City Upon a Hill. I think relaying this information helped them understand why the text was assigned, and I read certain sections in an emphatic voice to help bring out the rhetorical qualities. All of that is good. BUT, once I started my performance, quite unsurprisingly, most of the discussion d-i-e-d from then on out. They were content (at 4:30 in the afternoon) to sit there and let me play showman, which I did. And I loved it because those are some dramatic works, and the students deserve to have the drama unearthed, even if it takes me doing it.
But what I regret is that what I most wanted from them in that class session was to get their feet wet, or their hands dirty, or whatever metaphor you want to use. And I'm afraid I convinced them that that is not their job.
It depends on a couple of factors:
1. Where the course falls in the sequence of the curriculum. Earlier, foundational courses generally involve more data and knowledge acquisition and less robust critical thought. Later courses may emphasize the reverse.
2. Where the unit of the course falls in the sequence of course units. At the start of a course, again, you may spend more time setting the stage.
3. Where the class session falls in the sequence of sessions in a class unit. You have to prep folks for what comes next.
4. Learning styles of the student. Whether you are using the Visual-Auditory-Kinesthetic model, some version of Gardner's multiple intelligences, or something else, it's an observed phenomenon that some people learn better by listening. Lecturing isn't bad, despite the simplified criticisms leveled at it by so-called postmodern pedagogy experts.
5. Teaching style of the instructor. You lecture well? Indulge yourself, in moderation. As Piers pointed out, students notice when you are playing to your strengths. I suspect that in some cases, even those whose learning style doesn't match your teaching style will learn more from the atmosphere of inspiration you create than they will from your teaching in a new way badly.
6. Lastly and most importantly, what your measurable objectives are for the course/unit/session. The question I ask before any training/class is "How do I help these folks [achieve the objective/get it/get there/master the material]?" Sometimes that means I have to work in a less comfortable medium, but sometimes it's more efficient for my students' growth for me to play to my strengths.
7. Learning to develop new talents as a teacher is always good. But don't try to wing it. Find out how best to develop your talent, and do that. It isn't always throwing yourself into the deep end. You need to walk into the classroom with something more than "I need a decentralized approach. I hear that sitting in a circle helps accomplish that. I'll try it." Not that Piers did that, of course. ;-)
So what is driving you to adopt a new approach? And do you find it compelling, or just compulsory?
PS. I don't agree that a key goal in a lit class is to have everyone talk. In lit classes, I think the group development of ideas is more important than universal participation. My $0.02.
Excellent discussion, y'all; thanks for the input & sharing. I particularly like your idea, Buzzrd, of shaping the approach to match *student* -oriented goals, i.e., what do the students need to accomplish in this class? You must be pretty daaaang good at your job. ;-)
A basic difficulty with teaching Shakespeare, I've found, is that my goals for the students aren't necessarily realistic--to assume their command of what they are reading so that I can move to "higher-order" concerns is sometimes assuming too much.
Lecturing: ah, I remember fondly the grad school and undergrad classes where a person in front was lecturing or semi-lecturing with real knowledge and passion: Drs. Brown and Collins and Sansom at SU; Drs. Barbour, Stumpf, Gura at UNC. I enjoyed other classes too, of course, but I sure didn't feel shortchanged by good lecturers lecturing well. I tend not to trust my experience, though, because look at me--I'm an English professor, for goodness' sake.
Post a Comment