Vol. 17 No.7 Newsletter, Faculty Center for Excellence in Teaching at Western Kentucky University

Upcoming FaCET Seminars

Graduate Teaching Assistants Issues Seminar

Date: Thursday Aug. 24
Time: 2:45-3:45 pm
Location: TBA

A special session for GTA’s on problems they may encounter in the classroom, and recommended ways to deal with them.

Teaching Portfolios Seminar

Presenter: Sally Kuhlenschmidt, FaCET/Psychology
Date: Wednesday Sept. 13
Time: 3:00-4:15 pm
Location:TBA

Come discuss how to create a teaching portfolio for personal development, promotion/tenure and
evaluations.

For more information or to register for seminars, contact FaCET at 5-6508 or facet@wku.edu.Book

Staff Changes

Senior Faculty Associate Kenneth Kuehn, Geography and Geology, will be returning full-time to his department this year. After three years with FaCET, Ken’s ready humor, good nature and steadfast contributions to the department will be missed.

Whitney Whitney Mattingly, a junior majoring in Journalism, with minors in English writing and American Humanics, has joined us as Student Worker. From Holy Cross, Ky., Whitney loves to write, read, work out, watch movies, play soccer, and hang out with her friends. She is also a member of Omega Phi Alpha service sorority.

Sally Kuhlenschmidt turned over the responsibility of coordinating the American Democracy Project (ADP) to Doug McElroy, Biology Professor.

Book Review

Freedman, Diana and Stoddard Holmes, Martha, Eds., The Teacher’s Body: Embodiment, Authority, and Identity in the Academy (2003).

Review by: Carrie Pritchard, FaCET Advisory Board/Psychology.

This collection of 18 essays seeks to explore potential challenges and outcomes when teacher’s bodies become salient aspects of their professional identities. The premise established in the forward is that even when teachers have the luxury of remaining silent about their bodies— because their bodies fit cultural norms and rouse only the typical kinds of interest or disinterest in students—teachers’ experiences as people with bodies affect classroom dynamics. How teachers feel about their bodies and how their bodies “feel” are part of the classroom experience. As such, there is no such thing as the bodiless teacher: sex matters, race matters, disability and illness matter.
The first-hand accounts present a variety of experiences that make teacher’s bodies less ignorable to students, and to teachers themselves, and the ways in which these experiences affected teaching and learning. Two authors discuss their concerns about losing the respect of their colleagues and their students as they strive to remain productive and work despite incredible loss of stamina during chronic and acute illnesses. They ask compelling questions, such as “How will my authority in the classroom be affected if I am unable to stand during the class period? How will colleagues view this apparent “weakness?” Ultimately several of the authors grapple with the important question of whether one’s identity as a productive faculty member can accommodate illness, disability, or even just “difference.” Throughout the essays we learn what the resolution of these apparently diverse characteristics can look and feel like and how, if at all, the resolution affects teaching and learning in the classroom.
A common thread throughout the essays is the necessity of answering the question of when it is appropriate and pedagogically sound, if ever, to bring discussion of the teacher’s body into the classroom and how such a discussion should be approached. One author shares his feelings about being a teacher with dwarfism and its accompanying lower body deformities. It has been his experience that his body has not been relevant subject matter in the classroom, even though his students cannot help but notice that his body is “different.” Another teacher discusses how she thoughtfully shares her experiences with individual students who, in their writing, have shared deeply personal, and deeply painful experiences, and thus, validates those students’ feelings and their choices to write about such emotionally powerful subjects.
Other essays focus on the ways that integrating discussion of teachers’ experiences “in their bodies” has enhanced their teaching. One author suggests that a potential mechanism for the positive impact of disclosure of the personal is that such discussion brings current experience into the classroom. It seems plausible that disclosure aids “teaching in the moment” which may create meaning for abstract concepts in ways that other discussion cannot.
One author, a survivor of rape, found that her personal experience became her students’ pathway into a deeper understanding of their own propensity to “blame the victim” during a discussion about rape. The disembodied question of who is responsible for rape had left many students feeling justified in their belief that victims share responsibility for their assaults. In disclosing her own experiences, the teacher and her relationship to her students, personalized the issue, and many students revised their prior belief.
A few authors discuss their concerns about potential negative consequences of sharing experiences: that teachers may look like “crusaders” for a cause rather than ‘objective” vessels of knowledge, or that they could lose authority. Still, most focus on the ways that sharing personal experience about obvious and non-obvious aspects of one’s bodily experiences (and this is probably true for experience in general) exerts a positive influence on the class and one’s own teaching. Most authors share that, in dealing with their own experiences of their bodies, including disability or illness, teachers began to make better pedagogical choices, choices that would have been unnecessary and gone unexplored if not for the pressure exerted by bodily experiences of fatigue, pain, and disability.
Although the book focuses on questions of sharing experiences related to less traditional teacher’s bodies, including gay and lesbian, pregnant, ill, and disabled, it raises questions of interest to all teachers. It seems likely that most teachers, at some time, must make decisions about whether their experiences—some of which could easily remain unknown to their students—might, if carefully and strategically included in classroom discussion or in response to student writings—enhance student understanding in a way that impersonal discussion cannot. I am reminded of the deeply empathetic and engaged interactions that have occurred in my classrooms after disclosing my son’s autism during discussions of child and adolescent learning and development. This disclosure allowed my students to ask questions that could not be explored except with first-hand experience. And in doing so, they seemed to gain insight and a plan for engaging with sensitivity when they themselves interact with students with autism in their own classrooms.
Though the premise and the individual accounts are compelling, some of the essays are somewhat esoteric. Still, reading a sample of essays provides valuable opportunity for considering the variety of ways of being that teachers bring to the classroom, and how those affect the teaching and learning that occurs there. The essays are especially helpful to teachers who wish to develop answers to the following pedagogical questions: “How does my teaching, in this body, differ from teaching in a body that is less conspicuous?” “Can my immediate experiences enhance learning in my classroom? If disclosing my experiences could enhance student learning, how can this be accomplished without loss of credibility or authority? The book can also help those who live with physical conditions that could affect how they shape their identities as both persons will illness and members of academia.

DVD REVIEW

Herreid, Clyde Freeman, The Use of Case Studies and Group Discussion in Science Education, University of Buffalo, State University of New York.

Reviewer: Dr. Crista Briggs, Assistant Professor, Department of Nursing

You might be thinking, “I don’t teach science, so reading this review will not benefit me,” but actually, the DVD and article about the use of case studies and group discussion can, in my opinion, be beneficial to any faculty member, regardless of discipline.
This 26-minute video was easily viewed on a desktop computer and provided important insights into engaging students in the classroom through active learning methods, rather than passive learning that occurs through lecture.
Dr. Herreid describes case studies as “stories with an educational message.” He begins by recommending advanced preparation prior to the classroom experience. This involves assigning required readings pertinent to the issue(s) that will be discussed in the next class meeting. When students have a basic working knowledge of the subject, they are better able to critically think and speak thoughtfully about a case. One way I personally encourage reading of the content in the textbook prior to my “Fundamentals of Nursing” course is by having a 10-item, knowledge level quiz prior to each class. This quiz is posted on Blackboard for a specified number of days before class and students have 10 minutes to complete the multiple choice, true/false, fill in the blank, and ordering items. I choose to allow students to use their textbooks, but due to the length of the chapters, inform students that they must read first, in order to even know where in the chapter to validate their answers. The scores automatically transfer to the Blackboard grade book once the quizzes have been completed.
Dr. Herreid emphasizes that good case studies contain people a student can relate to and care about, as well as a controversy or dilemma to encourage group discussion. As the class begins, students sit in small circular groups of 3-4 and briefly discuss basic components of the reading. This prepares them for the larger group discussion that will occur next. In preparation for the large group that involves all members of the class, students move their chairs into a large “U-shape” which fosters open discussion. According to Herreid, this seating arrangement allows students to see all other members of the group, so the focal point is on the discussion of ideas, rather than the teacher (as when chairs are in neat rows all facing the front of the classroom).
First of all, the faculty member facilitating the discussion sets the scene for the case and moves into the “well-thought-out” opening question. This first question should be simple, just to get students talking. It is thought that a difficult question presented at the beginning of class will only cause students to bury their heads, avoid eye contact, and pull away from further interaction. The opening question given in this video is, “Who were the primary players in the case?” Writing answers provided by students on the board in the front of the classroom lets them know they have been heard and validates their answers. It is important to call on as many people as possible. Herreid does this by requiring students to wear nametags until he memorizes everyone’s name. Calling students by name and looking them in the eye portrays a sense of true concern for their learning and their success as a student. It is important to control the discussion and keep it on course by using body language. For example, when a non-related discussion breaks out between two students, Dr. Herreid moves close to these students and points his finger in their direction to get their attention, without ever wavering from the conversation going on with students on the other side of the room. Teachers are encouraged to restate key points and write them on the board to clarify and validate views. To facilitate debate and “thinking outside the box,” Herreid uses phrases such as, “You think it’s reasonable, but Sarah disagrees….” and “John, do you buy into this argument?” When a student makes a point that needs further explanation, he responds by saying, “Okay, tell me about that.”
Structuring the discussion is important to keep it from veering from the major learning objectives that have been previously identified by the faculty member. It is often necessary to “pull them back in” to the major issues of concern, instead of allowing the conversations to go off course. Dr. Herreid says his movement within and around the “U” seating arrangement is not random. Moving close to the student who is speaking encourages teacher-student conversation; whereas, moving outside the “U” encourages students to freely discuss or “hash out” issues without the involvement of the teacher. Moving back away from the students gives them power and encourages more controlled controversy.
Lastly, Herreid explains two schools of thought on closure or “finishing the case.” Some believe it is best to leave the discussion open, without summarizing or asking students to take a stance. The belief here is that when case studies are left open, without resolve, people tend to linger on the discussion longer, which encourages continued consideration outside the walls of the classroom. Others think it is more satisfying to end with some kind of conclusion. In the video, Herreid ends the class requiring students to vote, by show of hands, and commit to a decision. He chooses not to disclose his personal opinions to students by participating in the vote because he doesn’t want students to think his beliefs are “truth.”
As Western Kentucky University strives to improve student engagement by encouraging educational practices outlined in The National Survey of Student Engagement, it is my belief that the use of case studies with group discussion is one excellent method faculty could use to fulfill the following NSSE benchmarks:
· Supportive Campus Environment
· Enriching Educational Experiences
· Level of Academic Challenge
· Student Faculty Interaction
· Active and Collaborative Learning