Teaching To Learn

Macree’s blog - a semester of learning by teaching

[teachingtolearn]

Uncoverage: Covering “Less” and Learning More

In his article “Uncoverage,” Calder examines the problem of the introductory history survey, which traditionally relies heavily on lecture, textbook reading, and factual assessments. When the historical profession is really about critical thinking, revealing hidden truths, and connecting past to present to study structural problems, why is a fact-based approach commonly used? Calder presents the idea of a new signature pedagogy for history teachers, based on the principle of “uncoverage,” or uncovering and unpacking historical questions rather than focusing on facts, memorization, and “correct” answers. 

This article resonated with me because when I began taking history courses at the college level, I didn’t really understand what a professional historian did or what their job apart from teaching entailed. I didn’t understand that history demanded research, much like science, until I was being prodded to do my own. I wish I had had the opportunity to be in Dr. Calder’s class early on, I would be much more well equipped today. 

Calder’s survey course is set up like this: 4 classes on introduction to the study of history, then the course is set up in modules covering major problem areas during the chronological constraints of the course. For each module, he spends 3 class periods. Class 1 focuses on ‘visual inquiry’ (to help the students dip their toes in and want to know more - usually a film). Class 2 focuses on ‘critical inquiry’ (examining primary documents about the subject, then students write a short essay on a question of their choosing using those documents as evidence - essay required to attend class, enriching the ensuing discussion about the questions students chose). Class 3 focuses on ‘moral inquiry’ (students read what historians have written, examining two prominent secondary sources in lieu of a textbook, come to class for a quiz, then contrast the works of the two historians. What does all this mean for how the past shapes our ethics and relation to the world?). Wash rinse repeat. “The problem areas become a way for students and teachers to do history themselves - learning cognitive habits like questioning, connecting, sourcing, making inferences, considering alternate perspectives, and recognizing one’s limits to knowledge.” (7) Why does this work? “When students see their own arguments from the previous class cropping up in the work of professional historians, their self-confidence grows.” and they are able to do it again, but better every time. Calder values learning by experience. 

What remains to be said about Calder’s model for the introductory history survey is the question of whether the courseload would be too much for the average student seeking to complete their general education requirements. Although I like this model, I do think it would be too difficult. I went to a tiny liberal arts college and I think I never had a class size over 40 students during my 5 years there. Because of that, the curriculum allowed for a bit more demand than what you might find in a similar course here at UNCC. To be honest, I was actually hit with a bit of culture shock when I began my position as a TA here. I had never been in a classroom that big, let alone with that many students. I quickly realized just how much the class size detracts from what you’re able to do as a professor, and in turn, how much the students will learn. It would be impossible to implement Calder’s model as it is now at many large universities. However, I feel strongly that it is the best (at least so far) model. Maybe the one on one teacher/mentor style really is the only way to do education “right.”

[historybuffposts]

DEHUMANIZED: When Math and Science Rule the School

Today in class I had the opportunity to “teach” an article with the above title by Mark Slouka. It is biased and filled with imagery and provoking language. All of these things I have been taught to avoid by the history students of today. This is definitely in an attempt to make our writing more scientific, but that does not mean that this article did not hold truth within it. The basic idea is that the humanities are slowly being strangled out of existence as the US culture pushes for a production of workers rather than students. A lot can be said about this and I had many questions I wanted to ask my classmates that I did not get the chance to because of the time limit, but ultimately Slouka states that the humanities have hard-headed and un-budging base within them. There are people who refuse to be wiped away and thrown into a world of business and sciences. They create their own ecosystems around them and the fruits of their labor may not be immediately quantifiable, it does provoke thought and challenge the status quo over and over again.

I would like to post some of the questions I wanted to ask here and see what others believe about it. The top one is: Why is every crisis in the American Education system cast as an economic threat but never a civic threat? How can we describe a civic threat? All of the conversations I’ve had about issues in the education system talk about the detriment to funds and whether or not something is worth being kept on to save a budget. What is a civic threat and why is it never addressed? I believe that in the world of politics we are slowly beginning to address such a question by posing the statement “Stop asking if bills are bi-partisan and start asking if they helps people.” - Sarah Groh from Twitter

Perhaps this can be how we start addressing the detriment to the American Education system in terms of civic threats. Start asking what happens to the students of classes are taken away and maybe we can find a balance between the economic threat and a civic threat.

None of this is to say that STEM does not have its place and that people cannot be happy taking this course of action in their education. All it is trying to argue that the humanities create a space where conflict and humanization are rolled into one. The conflict that the humanities present to the world can create a better and more ethic society. As the STEM and technical fields increase, I do believe that the humanities should grow with them instead of being something that have people asking “well, what are you going to do with that?” In order to get to this point where the humanities and sciences are on the same footing in society some challenging of social norms and fighting are likely going to have to occur. That’s just my opinion though. I’d like to hear thoughts from others!

[islitstillcool]

This debate always makes me think of this comic.

You asked why it’s always framed as an economic issue and not a civic issue, and I think it’s because it is.

You can check out my latest post for my fuller feelings on this system, but have you ever read about what happened with Mussolini and Montessori education? He wanted to make it the official education system of Italy because Maria Montessori was Italian, and fascists are all “Grrr, national pride!” But then he realized, “Oh, crap. This system makes terrible fascists.” None of the teachers would cooperate, and Maria had to flee the country.

If you want a country of people who will be good little homo economicuses and will violently embrace the status quo, an education in the humanities is your worst nightmare. It flexes intellectual muscles that you don’t want people using.

So it is absolutely an economic threat for those in power. Bills that “help people” aren’t bills that let donors stay rich.

[teachingtolearn]

^^^^^ this

[faustonomy]

On critical thought.

William Cronon, in his piece “Only Connect…” discusses what it means to be a liberally educated person. What one gathers after reading this piece is that being a liberally educated person means more than just attending a four year university program and holding a degree. I’d like to situate this within the context of the continuously diminishing humanities that we are witnessing, at the very, least here in America. Cronon lists some characteristics that someone who is thoroughly liberally educated might have: such as, nurturing and empowering the people around them, being able to listen effectively and actually hear what someone else has to say without only preparing a refutation or counter-argument, and respecting rigor as a way of seeking truth. Of this list, what stuck out to me the most was the characteristic of being able to talk with anyone. To me, this means more than just talking to someone you meet on the street or a friend of a friend. This means the ability to talk to someone who has an entirely different life and cultural experience than you, this means someone who has entirely different linguistic patterns or philosophical and theological views than you. I think that this is where critical thinking comes into play most commonly for those who use critical thinking. What I mean by critical thinking, in this case of being able to talk to anyone, is being able to identify points of difference and points of commonality and  furthermore being able to actively engage those points of commonality without treading disrespectfully upon those points of difference. This is no easy task. And in my case has involved engaging with religious theory that has a scholastic orientation outside of the Western philosophical enterprise - theory I would not have come across had it not been for my being able to take humanities focused classes. Specifically, engaging this theory from a religious studies point of view, in my opinion, was particularly effective in cultivating critical thinking skills insofar that religious studies exposes the student to traditions where notions of truth and reality are constructed in ways that can be diametrically opposed to the ways we construct them here in the Western world.

[teachingtolearn]

I enjoyed reading your perspective and what you took from this piece. I found this piece to be particularly thought provoking and what stuck out most to me was the idea of living within the real world and also living within your own mind. A liberally educated person should be able to think critically about the world around them using the tools they’ve gained from experience within the contexts of their own mind. 

[historybuffposts]

DEHUMANIZED: When Math and Science Rule the School

Today in class I had the opportunity to “teach” an article with the above title by Mark Slouka. It is biased and filled with imagery and provoking language. All of these things I have been taught to avoid by the history students of today. This is definitely in an attempt to make our writing more scientific, but that does not mean that this article did not hold truth within it. The basic idea is that the humanities are slowly being strangled out of existence as the US culture pushes for a production of workers rather than students. A lot can be said about this and I had many questions I wanted to ask my classmates that I did not get the chance to because of the time limit, but ultimately Slouka states that the humanities have hard-headed and un-budging base within them. There are people who refuse to be wiped away and thrown into a world of business and sciences. They create their own ecosystems around them and the fruits of their labor may not be immediately quantifiable, it does provoke thought and challenge the status quo over and over again.

I would like to post some of the questions I wanted to ask here and see what others believe about it. The top one is: Why is every crisis in the American Education system cast as an economic threat but never a civic threat? How can we describe a civic threat? All of the conversations I’ve had about issues in the education system talk about the detriment to funds and whether or not something is worth being kept on to save a budget. What is a civic threat and why is it never addressed? I believe that in the world of politics we are slowly beginning to address such a question by posing the statement “Stop asking if bills are bi-partisan and start asking if they helps people.” - Sarah Groh from Twitter

Perhaps this can be how we start addressing the detriment to the American Education system in terms of civic threats. Start asking what happens to the students of classes are taken away and maybe we can find a balance between the economic threat and a civic threat.

None of this is to say that STEM does not have its place and that people cannot be happy taking this course of action in their education. All it is trying to argue that the humanities create a space where conflict and humanization are rolled into one. The conflict that the humanities present to the world can create a better and more ethic society. As the STEM and technical fields increase, I do believe that the humanities should grow with them instead of being something that have people asking “well, what are you going to do with that?” In order to get to this point where the humanities and sciences are on the same footing in society some challenging of social norms and fighting are likely going to have to occur. That’s just my opinion though. I’d like to hear thoughts from others!

[teachingtolearn]

I agree, in my post I also thought about how there are always going to be people who need education in the humanities. There has to be balance within these programs in order to help the education system function at its best for everyone, so there can’t be focus on either STEM or the humanities, there needs to be equal support and funding for both in order to foster growth within the most potential amount of students. 

[teachingtolearn]

Are the Humanities Really Dead, or Just Dying?

There’s no doubt that the liberal arts have taken a backseat in recent years to make room for STEM programs in schools and universities. Math and science are being steadily impressed upon young students, even in the face of unsuccessful teaching methods as described in “A Mathematician’s Lament.” Careers in the STEM field are precious, as they lead to higher paying jobs and jobs that are almost always in high demand. 

What I find hard to understand about the imbalance between STEM and humanities within the structure of education, is why educators foster this imbalance. Monetary reasons rank high on the list, I’m certain, especially at the university level. However, even though STEM graduates contribute more back to universities as alumni, the liberal arts also produce revenue. If the focus lurches completely to STEM programs, then universities would be losing out on profit from a large number of students who would have been attracted to a strong liberal arts program. Vice versa, if the focus was completely on the humanities, then the university would be missing out on the enrollments of STEM students. Both programs need to be adequately structured and funded in order for a university to really be its best. Too much concentration in one area can result in missed opportunities for both students and educators. 

Many of the readings from last class expressed concern that the liberal arts are no longer needed, no longer practiced correctly, no longer important, no longer relevant in today’s techno-centric society. While these fears are true to some extent, I believe that hope is not lost. The only way we can restore balance to the education system is to continue improving it and foster balance and growth in all areas, rather than watch the humanities die and then grieve their absence. 

[teachingtolearn]

What is the Point of a Teacher?

I was quite intrigued by the article I read for class last week that asked a question I’d never really considered before: what is the point of a teacher? I get annoyed when I hear people say teachers are ‘nothing but glorified babysitters,’ but Barre’s op-ed really got my wheels turning. What is the point of a teacher? If humans can learn on their own, why do we assume a guide is necessary in formal education? I think Barre’s explanation of the two types of teachers answers the question well. 

The teacher-as-author and the teacher-as-tutor are two common types of educators, especially on the college campus. While Barre finds both models to be useful in some aspect, I disagree. I believe the teacher-as-tutor is the only true way to teach, particularly if the course is below the graduate level. The difference is that the teacher-as-author is an academic while the teacher-as-tutor is an instructor. There is certainly value in academics and their roles in the bubble of academia, but often the two roles are conflated when really, the academic is there to provide access to knowledge, rather than to make sure the student absorbs it.

As a graduate student, I see benefits to learning from academics. In our classes, most of the learning is self-facilitated and the professor is there to provide guidance and correction. At anything below the graduate level, however, the students expect and should receive an instructor. This person should be equipped to ensure students achieve growth and advancement, not just to provide access to knowledge.