The watchword for today is "student-centered teaching". Well, it is more than a word, it is a phrase, but it refers to a new approach to teaching, and I am very intrigued. I couldn't stop thinking about it as I drove home tonight.
Last week I was evaluated in one of my classes. It was a nerve-wracking experience, despite the fact that I had been given notice several weeks before and had prepared accordingly. I have been observed at least a dozen times during my short career, and have also observed and commented on the methodology employed by others. The person who is observed is always nervous. In this case, my evaluator was a much-maligned tenured professor who I had never met before, but who had been portrayed as an individual with a sadistic streak by other colleagues and by students.
She wasn't quite as she had been presented. It may have been that she behaves differently with colleagues, but it may also be that her methodology isn't sufficienty appreciated by her students, and they have taken to focusing on her personality as a convenient target to express their dissatisfaction.
While teaching that day I had another out-of-body experience. I remember trying desperately to maintain focus and not reveal how nervous I was, seeking as I did to maintain an aura of competence. My class responded very well, as they have been doing during the past academic term. They sat at attention, they offered their comments when invited to do so, and they responded to my humor even when I decided to break from my script and incorporate a more spontaneous activity. Periodically I would look to my left to where she was seated, in the front seat next to the door. She had a comforting expression and tried to participate from time to time with innocuous remarks. It gave me confidence.
At one point I made a grevious error when talking about two renowned Dutch artists of completely seperate periods. It was with embarassment that I acknowledge my mistake, as became evident when one of my students noticed the error. It did make me feel uncomfortable over the weekend as I chided myself for this rather elementary mistake, but the fact is, when your mind is working at a feverish pace, there are bound to be mistakes. My colleague admite as much today during our conference. At this point I will make sure to situate both Rembrandt and Van Gogh in their proper centuries.
As mentioned before, today was the day for my debriefing, so to speak. I went to the office of my evaluator and we talked about the report she had written. By and large, it was positive, with only the occasional insertion of terminology that seemed somewhat questionable to me for the connotations that were associated with certain words. One of these involved having my methodology labeled as "traditional". No one wants to be labeled as such, because we like to think of ourselves as situated perpetually on the vanguard of our professions. The other involved the term "teacher-centered".
If my activities and methodology were to be labeled as such, then this can't help but bring up the obverse, which is "student-centered". Thus, I found it natural to ask that she give me her conception of "student-centered" teaching, a term that I had encountered over ten years ago and that seems to be popular in my profession. She looked uncomfortable and gave me a response that was halting at first, but then gradually a received a fascinating peek into another world.
Once again, the term is not new. It is common for academics to laud this approach, but I doubt seriously if the majority really knows what it entails, much less carries it out. Like "proactive" and "reciprocity", these are terms that have been coopted to share in a certain mystique of relevance and insightfulness. If one conducts an internet search, one will find many, many links and references to it, but as far as it having been discussed when I was completing my student training, this was not the case. Ours was a practicum whereby we learned on the go, focusing more on the practical rather than the theoretical. This was an approach that was much criticized by some students during my period at that university.
After all these years I still plan out my lessons in detail, and take my lesson plan to my class every day. I collect them afterwards and, although I have been tempted to reuse these plans when I teach my courses again, I never do so. I carry my script and proceed with my lesson as if it were a theatrical work. The fact that I have a text indicates, however, that I am utilizing a "teacher-centered" approach because I plan out meticulously the items and activities I plan to discuss and incorporate, rather than letting the students do so.
And so, Prof. D. (the person who had observed my course) told me about another professor who adhered to the alternative approach. It turns out that the teacher is reduced in his or her role to that of a facilitator, one who receedes into the background as the students are guided to undertake their own presentation of the material. Yes, the students have presentations, and they are left to carry out their own research and present their findings, with the teaching affirming or commenting as appropriate. I was fascinated by this because this is the approach that is common in graduate seminars, but hardly seemed appropriate for undergraduates. I am still somewhat skeptical, but my colleague insisted that she had seen it working well in another class taught by someone else. Not wishing to miss this opportunity to expand my repertoire, her comments helped to stimulate curiosity on my part.
The thing is, I am still somewhat skeptical, because I see this phrase bandied about commonly on the "Statements of Teaching Philosophy" that academics are routinely asked to produce when they are seeking jobs, but it never seemed as if the people who used this term really knew what it meant. People just know it as a methodology to which some prestige accrues, and they wished to partake of this prestige by earnestly affirming that they utilize a "student-centered" approach. It was plainly evident that the obverse, the "teacher-centered" approach, was linked to the past and, as such, was anathema. Who knows what those teachers actually put in place when they are teaching because, when observing them, I certainly haven't seen anything like the methodology that was described by my colleague.
Perhaps I should observe this other teacher. It may be that I have been sold a bill of goods, but if indeed this other teacher has successfully implemented this approach, I would like to learn it. It behooves me to always be ready to incorporate new approaches. I am too young to be labeled as a traditionalist, and even if I were not to take age into account, any educator needs to be open to further evolutions in pedagogy.
If a modern teacher is a facilitator, it will entail undertaking significant changes. I have to say that if I am to take a back seat, I may well find it exciting.
No comments:
Post a Comment