Faculty/GTF Partnerships

Spring term's ALS609 seminar took GTFs from critical reflection to lesson-planning partnerships with faculty. This one-credit graduate seminar through the Teaching Effectiveness Program is usually co-constructed by the teacher and students. This term we focused on being critically reflective teachers. We read chapters from Stephen Brookfield's latest book On Becoming A Critically Reflective Teacher, and applied his suggestions to our own courses.

Most GTFs in this seminar were leading discussion groups. They were asked to step back from each class and analyze their teaching. If something wasn't working well, they were to figure out why, and then come up with alternative strategies to improve things. If something was working well -- again -- why? We hoped the analyzing and reflecting would lead to a collection of good teaching practices that beginning instructors could carry into their next classroom experience.

A few weeks into the reflection process, the GTFs said they were running out of things to say. The structure and format of their discussion groups were more or less the same each week, they had worked out most of the bugs, and things were going fairly well. What should they do now?

To expand this activity, students were asked to shift their focus to the professor for whom they were working, and then reflect critically on the class from both a teacher's and a student's point of view. Before they did this, they proposed the idea and received permission from their supervising instructors. In all cases, the instructors were happy to cooperate and interested in receiving the course feedback.

This is where the unexpected benefits came in. In doing a weekly analysis of the class for which they were GTFing, the students paid more attention to the course, looked carefully at and learned from the teaching strategies being used, and provided detailed feedback for their supervising instructors. This led in some cases to joint (GTF/Faculty) lesson-planning sessions.

The GTFs benefited in being able to practice observation and analysis of teaching practices. This led to paying more attention in all their classes to two things: what they were learning and how successfully they were learning based on their instructor's teaching. While they didn't do comprehensive write-ups for their other courses, they walked into each class with a new awareness that helped their own teaching development.

The supervising faculty benefited from the specific feedback on their teaching. Through these helpful insights, they created relationships of mutual respect and appreciation with their GTFs. The faculty members capitalized on the unique perspective their GTFs had -- seeing the classroom from the viewpoint of both a teacher and a student.

Excerpts of these critical reflections follow.

History 326: Africa
by Michael Pebworth, GTF

First Day:
After quickly introducing herself, Professor Fair and I passed out the course syllabus. Professor Fair then read the course description. Although the classroom is not conducive to discussion (it's a lecture hall with poor lighting and fixed seats), she stressed the importance of class discussion. She then had me introduce myself.

Rather than briefly summarizing the course or giving a long explanation of the course requirements (which are all spelled out in the syllabus), Professor Fair then asked the students to come up with images of Africa. As the students responded, she compiled suggestions on the blackboard. After a few minutes, the list included: hot, exotic, desert, famine, cheetahs, diverse, apartheid, tribes, ebola, art, and dance. Professor Fair then asked for images of African history: slavery, colonialism, dictatorship, repression, and war. She then asked students to compare the two lists and make generalizations about them. Several students argued that the lists were negative. Professor Fair asked the students to think about our perceptions of Africans as agents in the making of their own history and what the list might tell us about that. Several students replied, "Not much."

Judging by these lists, they said, just about the only thing Africans have been capable of is conflict. She then asked how these lists compared to other groups' histories. One student said that the emphasis on conflict indicated that African history is too often told by outsiders. Professor Fair agreed and pointed out that winners write history, and in the case of Africa, Europeans have held power. She used the lists as a foil in order to explain the course's focus on the agency of Africans in modern African history. She explained that agency -- how Africans maneuvered around European control, resisted colonialism, and created their own world -- would be a consistent course theme.

Professor Fair spent 20 minutes explaining the course's map quiz (a requirement for passing the class), and the course readings. Finally, she asked the students what they wanted to learn about modern African history. Students volunteered 15 topics, and Professor Fair said that most were already on the agenda. The class then adjourned.

Unlike most first days, this course demanded student participation. Students were asked to brainstorm, analyze, and argue -- all on the first day. Though a few may have been intimidated, it set a precedent: you are expected to think in this class.

Professor Fair presented herself as approachable. She asked who had been to Africa, then asked their names and where they had been. She also made it clear that discussion and keeping up in the readings were essential. Students had an assignment (start reading the text for background and prepare for a map quiz) and a strong introduction to the course's core theme.

One suggestion I have is that Professor Fair spend a few minutes talking about where she grew up, went to school, and -- most important -- why she studies African history. She could also briefly mention her travels and research in Africa, as several students indicated that they would like to go there some day. Otherwise, this is a first day that I will model mine after.

April 09: The Age of Imperialism
Professor Fair placed a general outline on the overhead and then had the students who were ready take a map quiz. After the quiz, maps were collected. She announced that the course would have an optional discussion and gave its meeting time and place. She then placed two groups of two questions onto the overhead projector, and had students count off: if you were a "one," answer the questions under number one for the next class, the same for number two. She explained that discussion is worth 25 percent of the course grade, and that the students' written responses to the discussion questions were her way of keeping track of who is coming to class prepared for discussion.

She then lectured for 35 minutes. She asked students to turn to their neighbors and and discuss one of the documents in the course packet that was to have been read by that day's class. After getting a few responses from the students, she lectured for 20 minutes. As part of her discussion of African intellectual reactions to the scientific racism of Europeans, Professor Fair put onto the overhead and read aloud sections from John Africanus Horton's A Vindication of The African Race. She asked the students to write on their own -- but not to turn in -- a list of the specific ways Horton refuted Social Darwinism and scientific racism; after a couple of minutes she asked for volunteers. Five or six students responded, and she was pleased with what they had to say. After lecture, she asked students to help her define prejudice, racism, ethnocentrism\, and cultural racism.

This class was an interesting blend of lecture and student participation. Rather than just dump a huge load of information, Professor Fair asked students to think about different issues throughout the class period. First, students had to link a primary source (the General Act of the Berlin Conference, a European treaty that carved up Africa in 1885) with that day's material on European imperialism. Next, students had to analyze one African's response to European racism (another lecture topic). In other words, the students had to think about lecture in lecture and not just passively absorb a bunch of facts. Finally, students were expected to help the professor define some key words. Ultimately, she defined them, but not without student input.

ARH 206: History of Western Art
by Miriam Anton, GTF

Al's lectures tend to be very consistent. He opens with announcements relating to the course (events within the department that may be of interest and general administrative tasks, registration, etc.).

Al always spends a few minutes reviewing material from the previous lecture. He tends to highlight the most important terms and always touches on each of the images from the prior meeting. This is effective because it reorients students who may not have thought about the material in a few days, and it reinforces the more crucial concepts and artworks.

After his summary, Al begins the lecture, which is almost always in chronological order (the artworks), and he is careful to spell out any names, places, or titles that may be difficult.

He uses jokes occasionally, and always gets a positive response from the students. He sometimes directs these jokes at himself, which I think people enjoy -- it tends to relax the group.

At the end of the hour, he'll mention how the following lecture will begin. He always hangs around so students can approach him with questions. In general, he is very approachable, and I think this must impact his students.

Reflecting of Reflecting

by Miriam Anton

EDITOR'S NOTE: At the end of our seminar I asked GTFs to write about the value of critical reflection. I received these email comments from Miriam Anton, GTF, Art History.

I think it's easy for instructors to get caught up in themselves and their own performance, rather than looking closely at how effective or ineffective their approach is. Some concrete things I have incorporated are:

Re-phrasing questions
I struggled earlier this term with redundancy and have since found ways to ask the same question in a slightly different manner. We all speak different languages at times, and I've found that altering questions even slightly will produce a more varied and increased response from my students.

Identifying students
I have been able to address students by name in class, and have noticed a change not only in each of those students, but in the atmosphere of the room. I run into a lot of them on campus, always addressing them in some manner. This definitely spills over into the classroom, where we are more sympathetic toward each other and to what needs to be accomplished.

Another thing I've gained from this experience has been the ability to look critically at my instructors. We all notice when a teacher is exceptionally good or bad, recalling situations that have had either a positive or negative impact on us. It is the act of recall or reflecting upon what takes place day to day that has enabled me to "read" the styles and methods used by my instructors. Having forced myself to look at the way lectures are organized and information is conveyed has made a few things clear to me:

  1. There is no single formula or approach used that reaches all students. Certain instructors' lecturing styles can either benefit or confuse students. I view this in two ways: The students who are interested in the material for the sake of it (as opposed to being concerned with memorizing for an exam) can take it in, even in the web-like fashion an instructor might use in presenting topics which lead off in a number of directions. Those who are anxious about retaining information for an exam might disapprove of this lecture style because they need a clean timeline of facts instead.
  2. Another thing I've realized through reflecting on my instructors is what I hope to gain from them, not in terms of information, but in terms of their style and interaction with students. At the start of the term I thought of my GTF position as something very separate from my course load. I now draw from my instructors, picking and choosing certain qualities in order to incorporate these things into my own discussions.

Lizard 36 Spring 96

 

    Address questions or comments about TEP or this site to:
Georgeanne Cooper, Program Director, 64 PLC
Phone: 541-346-2177 Fax: 541-346-2184
© Copyright 2000-2006 Teaching Effectiveness Program, University of Oregon.
Last Modified: 01/11/08