Collaborative Research Model

First Time Teaching

Teaching FAQ's

Effective Assessment

Inclusive Classrooms

Large Class Teaching

Library and Links

Beginnings

Resource Exchange

Campus Spotlight

GTF Teaching Award

Faculty Showcase Podcasts

Search TEP site

Thinking is the Greatest Pleasure

Louise Bishop, adjunct assistant professor, English, Clark Honors College, received the 1993 Ersted teaching award. This year we decided to expand our website and offer a component called "Spotlight on Good Teaching." These interviews will be part of that new webpage. To this end, Sarah Eriksen, TEP's graduate teaching fellow, interviewed Louise last fall to uncover some of the secrets of her success.

How do you motivate undergraduates to read and prepare for your class?
I'm of two minds on this issue. On the one hand, I encourage a "need to know" by pointing out the importance of what a literature class provides. All my classes strive to explain the power of literary study. We work towards understanding that texts poems, plays, letters, diaries affect us profoundly; that these texts didn't spring forth unaffected by social historical and political concerns; and that our success as citizens depends on the critique we bring to reading the texts that surround us. We are made of language, down to our most cherished assumptions about ourselves, and to live in ignorance of our imaginative framework can and does lead to disaster. Thinking about how texts work how imagery comes to "mean," why a text would be replicated, who's making and remaking our stories alerts students to their own literary assumptions and their dependence on imaginative paradigms of the past. Their ability to analyze the texts that surround them will follow them for their entire lives. And I want students to know that their contribution to the process counts.

On the other hand, I think the consumer model of education, where students are customers and professors, employees a model that encourages a kind of "serve me" attitude on the part of students neglects the ages-old truth of teaching, whether the teacher is rabbi, swami, professor, or maitre: our desire to learn comes from ourselves, and the engendering of that desire rests with the student.

To what degree are your lessons planned, and to what degree are they spontaneous?
For each class, I have one "big idea," such as (in a Shakespeare class) the way Hamlet's individual instability is mirrored in Denmark's political instability. I also have a number of subthemes: in the Hamlet example, I have three ways to look at the instability reflecting Elizabethan politics, challenging generic contraints, fabricating individuality and an opinion about how the idea of instability provides a way to look at the whole play.

After setting up the "big idea," I lob the ball into the students' court, and let class discussion prompt where further investigation serves the class. I'll usually try to turn discussion back to the "big idea," seeing how it's playing out in these other ways, providing a kind of superstructure to the class's activities. I do have some clue where discussion will head in courses I've taught previously, and those three subthemes usually make it to the floor. But there's always room for a different tack in assessing a play as complex as "Hamlet."

Why is discussion valuable in undergraduate courses? What are its limitations?
Discussion makes for peer testing of ideas. I don't cotton to the model that I'm simply pouring information into my students' heads and, as I mentioned above, I also think students must motivate themselves. Discussion provides the arena for more than "pouring" to go on, and for motivation to pay off in a tangible way, making opinion and evidence very real for the student. College education should excite students about the life of the mind, should help them discover that "thinking is the greatest pleasure" (Goethe), while they must also learn to express themselves effectivly in writing. Discussion isn't everything, but it does authorize students' voices. The twin concerns of trying to keep a few voices from dominating discussion and getting just about everyone to participate are the greatest challenges, I think.

What, about your teaching style, seems to work well for your students?
First, I think the seriousness with which I treat the subject of literature makes an impression. I think that my respect for students' opinions, making the classroom an open forum, also inspires constructive thought. I think that the importance I place on writing both the time spent in solitary composition and the time spent in peer review serves students well both now and in their futures. And I think having a good sense of humor makes a difference.

How would your students describe you?
Well, I think they'd describe me as energetic, committed, intelligent, approachable, occasionally daring, and at all times rigorous, but fair. And as someone with a sense of humor!

What new abilities or kinds of knowledge do you want your students to take away from your class?
I want students to be more alert readers, no matter what it is they're reading. Being alert to nuance, subtlety, paradox, evidence—their success in any number of arenas depends on their sensitivity to the effect and power of written discourse. I also want them to know how much effort goes into good writing, and how writing reflects thinking and reflects them. I'd also want them to have felt the joy of thinking historically about literature, and to bring that joy to their continued reading.

What kinds of technology do you enjoy using in your teaching? What are the limitations of technology in teaching?
An e-mail conversation with a student provides another "teaching moment," a kind of private tutelage, that is easy to miss in larger classes. I also like e-mail lists, providing a quick way to correspond with an entire class. I've been experimenting with Motet conference sites, but until computer access is easy for everyone, technology will separate the haves from the have-nots, and class will suffer from class distinctions.

As a woman, do you have a special role to play in mentoring and encouraging other women in academia?
I think it's vital for women to mentor women, to inspire our women students in what is still in many ways a male preserve. The way discourse strategies are gendered in the classroom--argument is masculine, support feminine—discourages the kind of experimentation and freedom that powerful thinking needs. To nurture the next generation of feminist scholars, we need to reiterate continually how vital feminism is to the success of scholarly and humane enterprises.

How do you think your perspective as a feminist scholar influences your teaching?
I think feminism, as a dynamic process, encourages me to keep up with current scholarship, and that's a great help in the classroom. I'm alert to the way classroom culture authorizes masculine, rather than feminine, voices, and I try to avoid the subtle trap of letting the classroom become an arena for male voices. I use feminist critique in my own textual evaluations, and encourage student projects that explore feminist literary criticism. As a feminist I'm also looking for ways to sponsor collaboration and cooperation in the classroom.

Frankly, in this day and age with people like Rush Limbaugh on the radio, I think it's important to use the word "feminism" as often as possible in order to meet head-on the anger conservative forces use to stifle the necessary critique of sexism. By using the word I can demystify it and also engage students in what is an intellectually invigorating and immensely productive field of intellectual inquiry.

Student comment on Louise Bishop
I would describe Professor Bishop as enthusiastic and dedicated. She has a boundless supply of postive energy dedicated to her field. My favorite part of her teaching is that she takes time to understand her students as people. Each class is an in depth discussion where we add to our own learning experience. She listens to what we have to say and takes time to reflect upon our ideas.

Lizard 44 Winter 98