(Em)Power in the Classroom Series (Part 6)

by Rai Farrelly, PhD

 

I don't consider myself to be 'one lacking voice' by any means, but sometimes I can't seem to find it. The ideas will be swirling around somewhere - in my mind or my heart or coming to life in my emotions, but without voice they just swirl, which makes things a bit muddy. Recently, I've been finding my voice in the words of others - and it makes me happy!

I'm not new to teaching in an institution of higher education. In fact, thanks to the power sharing of my early mentors in the academy, I've been teaching classes for over a decade - dating back to my years as a green Masters student. However, it wasn't until this past semester with the class that I've been writing about in this blog series - (Em)Power in the Classroom - that I have actually 'negotiated curriculum' in this way. But it was always in me!

In this negotiated class, the final power sharing act was the grading. At the beginning of the class, we decided on a qualitative grading scale, relying on carefully crafted rubrics with clearly defined criteria that would guide them. Even though we set the grading policy together and it was going to be difficult to get less than an A given the opportunities for multiple drafts and revisions with peer and instructor feedback, they still asked the usual questions toward the end of the semester: Am I in good standing? Do you think I'll get an A? Is there anything else I could do to make sure I have an A? I assured them that if they were slated to receive a grade they wouldn't be happy with, I would be in touch and we would negotiate a plan to help them reach their goal, even if that meant assigning an 'I' (Incomplete) which they would have a year to remedy. You could see the shoulders relax as I said it. I still had a couple of students visit me to make sure they were on track for the A they so desired. We worked together, made some revisions here and there and embarked on our summer vacations worry-free (with relation to this class, at least).

I didn't always operate this way.

Previously, I taught from syllabi that I inherited and I taught with a style that I emulated. I put into practice what I thought to be the 'better' elements of my own learning experiences, supplemented with new techniques and strategies gleaned from my second language teacher education classes. Having taught many English as a Second Language courses followed by teacher education courses for teachers of English language learners, I acquired a large toolbox from which to draw when working away in the classroom. The inklings of 'Atlas Shrugged' - not the book, but the literal shrugging of the world on my shoulders - were also in me, planted by early readings about The Atlas Complex, the teacher as transmitter of knowledge, as 'sage on the stage', the students as empty vessels waiting to be filled - the 'banking method' of education. These were all concepts I was encouraged to discard as I adopted more student-centered approaches where the teacher is the facilitator, the architect, the gardener - cultivating opportunity for rich student experiences and deep learning.

I always viewed myself as a facilitator. I crafted beautiful lessons that promoted student-centered instruction (or so I thought). There was an abundance of collaborative learning opportunities and formative assessment. I was rarely the 'sage on the stage' talking at them, but rather I engaged them in discussions and projects and presentations. Didn't I?

To whatever extent my instruction embodied a student-centered approach, I had to admit at some point - I was still in charge. I was still the one with all the power. I determined the topics before meeting my students. I chose the assignments before knowing how they learned. I crafted a syllabus that read like a contract with policies that were handed down to me by my Department. I assessed them with numbers and percentages that confused even me at grading time.

And then it happened. What many of you have known for years - I discovered Power Sharing in the Classroom. I discovered in reverse chronological order the works of educators who said with their words what had been burning in me ... perhaps since I was a learner planted in a uniform, in a classroom, in a row, at a desk in front of a nun. As I read Stephen Brookfield, MaryEllen Weimer, bell hooks, Susan Hyde, Ira Shor, Garth Boomer, Norma Gonzalez, Nancy Lester, John Dewey, Paolo Freire and many others, I found that they were saying exactly what I was feeling.

I sat with When Students Have Power by Ira Shor and wanted to read every sentence aloud to my colleague. "On the first day, if I had enacted traditional rhetoric as a unilateral authority, I would have begun by narrating the syllabus ("reading the riot act") and by lecturing on the course material (the pre-emptive didactic presentation)" (p. 30). Yes! Exactly, Ira!

bell hooks was like music to my ears as I turned the pages of Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. "It is rare that any professor, no matter how eloquent a lecturer, can generate through his or her actions enough excitement to create an exciting classroom. Excitement is generated through collective effort" (p. 8). Absolutely, bell!

Bringing the critical lens to reflective practice in Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher, Stephen Brookfield had me nodding out loud in my chair. "When we practice critically, we regard curricula as constructed and tentative, as framed by human agency and therefore capable of being dismantled and reframed by teachers and students" (p. 40). Amen, Stephen!

I literally couldn't have said any of that better myself (yet). I'm a young faculty with my Dr. title newly awarded and my voice is growing stronger by the day. As I continue to 'find my voice', I will also find ways to 'make a noise' so that I can continue to promote Power Sharing in the Classroom.


Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New York: Routledge.

Shor, I. (1996). When Students Have Power: Negotiating Authority in a Critical Pedagogy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.


"Believe that you can change the world. Find your voice. Make a noise." -Katie Herzig, Make a Noise

(Em)Power in the Classroom Series (Part 4)

by Rai Farrelly

This past week Utah Valley University (UVU) in Orem, UT hosted the 4th Annual Conference on the Scholarship of Teaching and Engagement (SoTE) in Higher Education. I had the pleasure of presenting on my experiment with sharing the power in the class. My talk was entitled 'Sharing the Power: A Community of Learners from Day One'. Interestingly, the director of the UVU Faculty Center along with a student also presented on Sharing the Power in the classroom. Our two sessions, offered back to back, provided a great platform for discussing the opportunities and challenges present in sharing the power.

I shared with the audience some recent feedback I received from my students during an informal midterm qualitative feedback session. I asked them to reflect on the following and give me some input:

1. Was co-designing this course during days 1, 2 and 3 useful to you? Please explain.
2. What topics would you like to revisit for clarification purposes? (e.g., diversity, learning objectives, lesson planning, etc.)
3. What is still unclear and why? (e.g., time on topic, teaching approach, opportunities to reflect)
4. What forthcoming topics are most important/interesting to you at this point? (e.g., learning styles, learner-centered approaches, addressing resistance to learner-centered approaches, assessment, etc.)
5. Would you like to alter the schedule in any way to cover certain topics sooner/later?
6. Are there any topics not on the schedule that you'd like to bring to the class? (e.g., classroom civility, using technology, etc.)

Taking this approach to collecting and addressing midterm feedback continues the power sharing and the sense of this class as a community of learners who should be able to contribute to the design and direction of the course - even midstream. As you can imagine, I received quite a bit of feedback, much of which was very informed and insightful. These are all graduate students, post docs and professionals with needs and goals specific to their roles as teachers at the University. Here are some points from their responses related to sharing the power.

The first question was designed to give me a sense for future iterations of this class as to how useful the opportunity to co-design the course was. These are some of their comments:

1. Allowing us to assist with the planning of the course is empowering. It also increases our own accountability.
2. It gave us some ownership and allowed us to pick what we felt was important.
3. It helped me to see how students can be integrated in the course development process.
4. Making decisions on grading, objectives, etc. was useful.
5. It set the course in motion so that learning objectives became clear and attainable.
6. It brought forth the difficulty encountered with course design and allowed for practice experience with the thought process.
7. It was very helpful.
8. It was nice to be able to contribute to the design according to the class' needs (i.e., our needs).
9. Yes, we felt involved.

Of course, there were some constructive comments and some that just reflected a sense that the process wasn't useful.

1. It was useful for 1.5 days as it gave us a chance to see how it could be done. I thought it could have been shorter than 3 days.
2. Not very useful, but the process is good to experience how to discuss with students.
3. Yes and no. I can certainly see where application is helpful but now I sometimes feel rushed.
4. Not for me specifically. The original syllabus seemed to cover what I wanted to learn. I would have rather spent that time learning other material.
5. I think it dragged on a little too long. Maybe hash stuff out more quickly.

For me, all of these comments are so uplifting. I have learned from their feedback and have a great sense of changes I will make next semester. Clearly, I will need to expedite the process a little bit so we can move into the 'tofu' of the course (I'm a vegetarian!). But, I will conduct the course design in much the same way, relying on the situational factors (e.g., class size, students' needs, goals, expectations, backgrounds, etc.) to inform our course objectives, assessments and learning plan.

In addition to this course design feedback, all of their immediately relevant comments on course content (e.g., muddy points, topics of interest that are not on the agenda and areas that they are looking forward to, etc.) will inform how the last half of our semester plays out. I'm striving to model a course for them that will show how students can and should be part of the process throughout the semester. Hopefully, whether they can articulate exactly how right now or not, they will one day test out the power sharing in their future classes.

One important conversation point at the SoTE conference last week was the level to which you can share the power. From day one with my students, we have discussed our process in comparison with how it might unfold in different types of courses - such as those with over 100 undergraduates. Audience members at our sessions asked about how sharing power could be possible given this factor or that. We tried to stress, as I have with my students, that the question should not be 'To share power or not to share power' but rather, on a continuum of possible power sharing from little to extensive, how much can you afford to share. The answer will come in light of situational factors, not the least of which is a teacher's own comfort zone for power sharing. Consider what you are comfortable with first, then let your context inform the level to which you can involve the students in directing their learning.

I encourage you to take the leap! Dive in and test the waters. You might be pleasantly surprised by how much you enjoy the process. Just be prepared for an all inclusive learning experience. Remember to reflect often, revise as needed, change directions with the 'winds' of student feedback and your own intuitions. All the while, you can pat yourself on the back for stepping up and trying something that honors students' knowledge, experience, goals and expectations! 

(Em)Power in the Classroom Series (Part 2)

by Rai Farrelly

 

"While meeting everyone's needs sounds compassionate and student-centered, it is pedagogically unsound and psychologically demoralizing." (Brookfield, 1995, p. 21). 

Thank goodness!! From classes for undergraduate and graduate students to workshops for faculty, I have, from time to time, had the feeling that I didn't meet everyone's needs - as if it were possible; yet, I would still feel bad about it. That, I suppose, is in part  because my top strength (of 34 possible) as identified by a Strengths Finder test is Empathy! Oh boy. 

According to Brookfield (1995), being a critically reflective teacher is at the core of accepting that it's just not possible to meet everyone's needs - it is simply an assumption that we might carry around with us, but it is an assumption that we should shrug off - right along with our Atlas Complex.

Along with the long-held assumption that we should try to meet everyone's needs in the classroom is the assumption that we should have power in the classroom. Only, I'm sure that most would never articulate that assumption in such a way. Why would a teacher ever say out loud "I want to have power over my students." In fact, I would bet that most instructors who exude power over their students do so rather unknowingly. It might manifest in the design of a tightly wound syllabus riddled with policies, rules, grading criteria, explicitly outlined assignments, etc. It might appear in a delivery method for content that excludes the students from interacting with the material in a meaningful way (i.e., the traditional didactic lecture). It is likely subtle, but it's almost sure to exist. Why? Because it is one of the most commonly held assumptions in education - Father Knows Best? No, try Teacher Knows Best. But does she really?

In my experiment with sharing the power in the classroom this semester, I have found myself breathing easier. I am relying on my students - rather my fellow learning community members - to share in the co-construction of meaning related to our topic, which in this case is conveniently: teaching in higher education. I feel a sense of ease knowing that their knowledge is complimenting my knowledge and together we are teasing out the best approaches to teaching in higher education. Of course, my teaching experience and knowledge base serve as a guide when contextualizing comments, creating concrete examples or posing relevant thought-provoking questions. However, there is no indication that 'what I say goes' - I hope! My goal is that they take what we discuss in this class and assume a critically reflective stance about their teaching in relation to our discussions. They will test their own assumptions in their respective classes and allow their teaching philosophies to evolve against the backdrop of their experiences.

So, let's go back in time. In my last entry - I shared our experience with creating our classroom culture and exploring the assignments for this course. We agreed that the suggested assignments for the course were suitable to our overarching learning objectives for this class. As such, they will be required to write a teaching philosophy, complete a course design grid, an accompanying syllabus and one lesson plan for that course. This should all be relevant to them as they will each be teaching courses at the University in the coming semesters.

In addition, they will each be observed while teaching a class in their department. The exciting thing about this assignment is that most of them are not currently teaching, so this means that they must secure a teaching opportunity and collaborate with the lead instructor of that class to both meet that instructor's intended learning goals for that topic and also implement the lesson in such a way as to embrace the active learning approaches we discuss in our course. In addition to being observed by me, they will each observe one of their peers and a 'Master Teacher' (e.g., a recognized 'excellent' teacher at the U), providing feedback and analyzing that instructor's approach in relation to their individual teaching philosophies. 

The 'fun' part for the discussion on assignments came in Day Three of this course when we addressed the grading policy. How do you evaluate graduate students in a course entitled Teaching in Higher Education, which is designed to prepare them to be instructors on campus? Well, in this case - I let them tell me what seemed fair. I gave them some options to choose from and left the window open (for me to jump out) for them to design additional options. What do you think they did with this freedom? this power? I'll tell you what they didn't do. They didn't say, "Just give us all an A and call it good." No. In fact, at least one voice asked for the option of having scores divvied on a scale from A+ to F so that distinctions in quality of work could be honored. Rather than hash out the details of the discussion, I'll let you (with great trepidation and pride) read the final 'Grading' section of my syllabus - as constructed with the learners in this class.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GRADING

We will use rubrics for product-oriented assignments (i.e., observed teaching experience, course design grid, syllabus, lesson plan and teaching philosophy). Credit for peer and master teacher observations will be given with evidence of reflection on the observed class (i.e., completed observation feedback form, reflection on observed teaching in relation to one’s own teaching philosophy and participation in class discussions).

Rubrics are not numerical, but have qualitative likert scales (i.e., completely, mostly, partially, not at all). Assignments will be graded as high pass, pass or fail. Assignments that receive a ‘pass’ or ‘fail’ mark can be resubmitted to reach a higher standard (high pass or pass).

At the time of final grades, high pass is an A, pass is an A- and ‘fail’ will be negotiated in relation to the extent of the fail (i.e., reason for ‘fail’, number of ‘failed’ assignments, level of effort made to resubmit assignment, level of effort made to consult peers or instructor, and standard/quality of work in relation to peers).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm just as anxious as you to see how this works at the end of the semester! 

Now let me highlight one important point in our discussions around this approach to collaborative course design. The guiding consideration for sharing the power in the classroom is the set of situational factors that underscore your class (see p. 6 in this Self-Directed Guide to Designing Courses for Significant Learning by L. Dee Fink, PhD).  These situational factors help us make decisions about power sharing based on critical information related to who our students are, where we are teaching and what is expected of us as teachers. These situational factors include the values, expectations and assumptions of all involved. They ask us to consider big questions such as, "Can I let 150 Freshman decide how I grade them?" I think we all know the answer to that one. "Can the approach Rai is taking with her CTLE course work in my Physiology class?" Please, do let me know.

In my next entry, I'll elaborate on how we roll out each lesson and share the responsibility for delivering and exploring course content. Please, submit your questions, comments, shock and awe. We'd also love to hear about your experiences, successes and failed attempts with approaches you've tried in the classroom.   

Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 


~Rai Farrelly