(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 5)

by Rai Farrelly

Welcome back from the dark side! That's what I'll say when I greet instructors and faculty members who - at some point - fell down the slippery slope of hardcore assessment only to one glorious day question their practices and the mismatch between their assessments and learning objectives - leading them to reflect, read, question and then return to the brighter side of the assessment paradigm.

What exactly shapes the dark and bright sides of this paradigm, you might ask. Well, traditional approaches to assessment not only place far too much emphasis on the grade, they also extract the students from the entire process. Assessment essentially becomes something that happens to the students rather than something with which they engage. Much like the traditional lecture, which has been in place for decades, evaluation practices have been passed down, inherited and accepted as the 'way it should be done.'

Consider this article about how students learn, which states that the word lecture comes from the Latin word meaning 'to read'. There was a great need to lecture back when books weren't readily published. Now, we need not read (talk) to them about our content areas - we can let them read and explore outside of class and then co-construct knowledge around the content, dive in through discussions and activities in class. We'll be on hand to support, facilitate and inspire!

Now let's think about assessment ... and we'll do so through a little anecdote. I recently consulted with a graduate student who is about to teach her own class for the first time. She's had experiences as a teaching assistant, so she's led the occasional lesson and graded many a paper. Now she gets to design her own course and is excited about choosing materials, deciding which topics to include and developing a sense of how to explore the content with her students. 

During our consultation, I asked her what assessments she has in place for the course. Her response: "Two exams and three quizzes." [Insert dramatic pause] Or is it only me that needs the dramatic pause because I know what course she's teaching ... see if you can guess based on her response to my follow-up question. "So, let's take a step back. What are the learning outcomes you have set for this course? What is it that you want them to be able to do by the end of this course?" She lists a few simple, measurable outcomes: 1) to track the life of a seed in the ground until it comes fully into being and produces food; 2) to articulate the policies that impact how, when and where food is grown, and; 3) to describe the relationship of food cultivation to the larger web of life. (I'm kind of paraphrasing, but you get the idea.) It's a class on organic gardening and I struggled to understand the link between her objectives and her assessments. When asked why those would be her measures, she replied: "Because that's how it's always been done."

What alternatives could we implement in this class? I'm sure you can suggest many, but here are a few options I offered: have students keep a journal of their gardens' successes and failures (include relevant content, provide a rubric, set the bar high for quality work), develop group projects that tackle policies relevant to organic gardening in legislature, have students develop strategic plans for local nonprofit community gardens, stage end of semester debates around 'hot topics', have students write a paper on the challenges they faced when developing their compost, etc.

Knowing that this course meets a science requirement for all undergrads, there is the feeling that the assessments should be more rigorous. That's fine. Just create clear, high standards criteria for each assignment. Require students to incorporate key terms, evidence-based argumentation, organizational thinking, problem-solving skills, etc. Alternative assessment does not by its nature imply 'easy assessment'.

When we reconsider how we assess and make sure that our assessments actually measure the learning outcomes we have set forth for our students, we find a balance in our instruction that is often missing when class sessions are hands on and assessments are multiple choice (for example).

With relation to sharing the power (and thereby reducing anxiety) there are many ways to involve students in the assessment process. Barbara Gross Davis (2009) has a wealth of great ideas in her text Tools for Teaching (see Unit VIII - Testing and Grading). She suggests alternative assessments and tweaks on the old favorites. For example, for those courses that just have to implement exams, why not leave space for students to justify their multiple choice answers. How about letting students buy additional information on certain questions (with points, not money - i.e., they lose 3 points of total available, but they get the formula to calculate degrees of freedom). Allow them to bring crib sheets, provide an extra credit question or even let them write one final question in on a blank and answer it for points. Give practice exams and review sessions and maybe even let them redo an exam. Give them a chance to show what they know!

The reality is that if we are married to grades and students are weighed down by the pressure and anxiety about grades, we live on the dark side where students tend to cheat more, they equate their ability with their grades, and they become 'grade grubbers' - begging us at key stages in the semester for more points (Weimer, 2002).

We'll continue to explore assessment next time as I review my students' final portfolio and consider the impact on them of being assessed in this way. I'll also share with you my non-traditional approach to grading - including the negotiation part. 

 

Gross-Davis, B. (2009). Tools for Teaching – 2^nd Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Weimer, M. (2002) Learner Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice. San Francisco; Jossey-Bass.

(Em)Power in the Classroom Series (Part 3)

by Rai Farrelly

In this series, (Em)Power in the Classroom, we have so far considered what it might look like to share the power with students in the design of courses. In Part 1, I discussed how we worked together as a class - operating more as a learning community - to develop our class culture, our policies, our assignments, etc. I relinquished quite a bit of control in this process rather than adhering to a well-structured syllabus 'dictating' how the course will unfold. In Part 2, I presented our process for developing a grading system in the course - the result being a fairly fluid system that focuses more on successfully completing assignments to satisfy various criteria as measured by a simple qualitative likert scale, rather than striving for numbers and percentages equated with letter grades and based on unclear standards.

As we move forward, we are working with a syllabus that was co-created by all learners in the course, including me. Now, how do we explore the content of the course? Notice, I refrain from saying: How do we "cover" the content? Have you ever though about the use of "cover" in relation to course content? MaryEllen Weimer (2002) says it best in her chapter about the Function of Content:

Our strong content orientation is reflected in the metaphor used to describe the action we take with respect to content: we "cover" it. But what exactly does that metaphor mean? We "cover" content - like leaves cover the forest floor? Like a bedspread covers the bed? Is that the relationship that ought to exist between the teacher and content when the goal is learning?" (p. 46)

Many of us probably do think about 'covering' content - in the sense that we know what we want the students to explore during our courses and we strive to 'get through it all' within the semester. But when we view the content as something that we have to 'cover' or 'get through', we might incidentally blow right by the learning. What if we consider 'using' the content, 'exploring' the content, 'uncovering' the content? This is at the heart of learner-centered instruction - engaging students in exploring the content.

The teacher's role in this process is another point for consideration by many teacher educators, teachers and instructional designers. What is our role when we are trying to engage the students? To what extent are we involved in the learning process? Weimer uses several metaphors to characterize the role of the teacher in a learner-centered environment - coach, midwife, gardener, etc. She promotes stepping out of the spotlight and letting the students lead the learning. Another metaphor from my teacher education courses is that denoting an architect. The latter is the metaphor of my choosing for a reason that was made clear to me in class this past week when we had a little breakdown.

First, let me frame my approach for content exploration in this course. As this is a course on teaching in higher education, I do try to model the strategies and techniques that I wish my students to embrace and implement in their teaching careers in the future (although I'm not sure my approach and underlying goals are always transparent). In any case, I share the 'load' when uncovering content. For example, the students have been taking chunks of the readings from week to week. They take turns leading the class through the content using approaches that promote student engagement. From time to time, a student will present the content in a teacher-centered fashion with limited opportunity for student engagement. In these cases, we talk about alternatives to exploring the content. For the most part however, they have been rather creative as student-teachers - incorporating Think-Pair-Share activities, jigsaw activities, brainstorming sessions and other approaches that promote active learning.

This past week, the topic was the Role of the Teacher. A student took a creative approach, presenting the content in an entertaining fashion, putting a spin on the notion of teacher in the 'spotlight' by literally holding a flashlight above his head while talking about himself and his evolution as a coach and instructor. He used humor and he was blatantly presenting from a place of ego and teacher-centeredness. He was essentially modeling what not to do while having us talk about general principles about the role of the teacher. 

The breakdown I mention above, which reinforces my affinity for the architect metaphor, came during this student's follow-up activity. For him, it was an experiment to see if Weimer's 'all hands off' suggestion is actually realistic. He is skeptical about diminishing the role of the teacher entirely (as he should be) and he wanted to test it out. He gave us very rough instructions for the activity, which required that we get into groups and do the following: 1) reflect on our past, present and future 'teacher selves' (i.e., how we view ourselves as teachers in the past, present and how we hope to be as teachers in the future); 2) as a group decide what strategy we would use to share this information; 3) then execute the strategy. 

If you're confused by those instructions, you're not alone. The entire class was confused. I actually knew what he was getting at, so I wanted to pipe up and provide more scaffolding - but I suppressed my inner charge-taker's voice. (I was in a group and participating as a student, as I do for all of their presentations.) As I observed the activity unfold, I noticed that no one knew what to do, no one was suggesting that we come together as a group and decide on our strategy and the student-teacher was staying very uninvolved - intentionally. Some groups started planning how they would present as a small group, so they were developing their presentations - just not with the whole class.

Finally, our student-teacher brought us back together to ask what we were going to do as a group to reveal our past, present and future teacher selves. A few students spoke up: "We don't really know what you want us to do." Others agreed. Some shared their ideas of an execution strategy that involved role-playing their three teacher selves. The student-teacher challenged them: "But you were supposed to plan that with the whole group."

So, where does the architect come in? This student reinforced for me the effectiveness of the teacher-as-architect metaphor. In this sense, the teacher is the person who carefully designs the lesson, who provides the scaffolding for the activities so that when the learners explore the content (the raw building material) it will be done so in a way that is planned and structured, yet open to a safe level of creative manipulation. 

This student-learner presented an activity that was entirely learner-centered (great!) and required the students to come together (awesome!) and not only take part in an activity but decide what the product of the activity would ultimately be (fabulous!). BUT - the breakdown came in this student-teacher's lack of scaffolding and design for the activity. There was no careful thought given to the delivery of instructions for the activity nor any check of student comprehension prior to setting us free to start the process. Furthermore, there was no on-going 'consultation from the architect' during the 'building' process. He set us free to figure things out without a blueprint.

As a result, this student-teacher concluded that limiting the role of the teacher and putting the responsibility for learning solely in the hands of the students is not realistic. Clearly, the level of 'limits' placed on the teacher and the level of 'responsibility' given to the students will vary depending on those key significant features that I touched on in Part 2 of this series. In other words, class size, student level, discipline and content will impact the extent to which the teacher can step out. But more importantly, any level of sharing power in a classroom requires careful planning and consideration prior to stepping foot in the classroom. Teachers have to craft the activities thoughtfully and ensure that instructions are clearly articulated and delivered. Teachers have to do comprehension checks prior to setting students free to work together. And perhaps most importantly, teachers have to monitor during the learning process and ensure that students are engaged and on task.

As I find myself saying time and again in my promotion of active learning in the classroom, it is much easier to slap together a PowerPoint presentation and 'cover' the content. Promoting true learner engagement requires additional preparation outside of class, but if lessons are crafted carefully and implemented thoughtfully, the benefits of sharing the responsibility for teaching and learning during class far outweigh the time required to make it happen! 

What I learned this week about sharing the power: I should ask students to submit a lesson plan describing how their session will unfold. Currently, I only have them send me the PowerPoint slides that they will use. Ensuring that they effectively use the content and engage the students will mitigate any possible frustration from classmates who could potentially view their 'lesson' or content delivery as a waste of class time (which was the case for one student during the above-mentioned student-teacher's lesson). 

Ah, teaching - ever the learning process for those of us who choose to reflect and evolve!

Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

~Rai Farrelly

(Em)Power in the Classroom Series (Part 1)

by Rai Farrelly

What would it look like if we arrived to class on Day One with merely a hint of a syllabus? Well, the folks in CTLE might jump all over us! Wait, I am the 'folks' in CTLE and yet, I arrived to my CTLE 6000 course with a hint of a syllabus this semester. Let's call it a ‘pedagogical experiment’ inspired by one of the core texts for the course: Learner-Centered Teaching by Maryellen Weimer (2002). The basic premise is that students take more responsibility for their learning and become self-regulated when they are actually given some control over their learning... what a concept!

Can you remember the last time you walked into a course and the instructor asked you ... about you? Well, yes, maybe you can. But in addition, can you remember the last time the instructor redesigned her nicely prepackaged course and actually integrated the information from the little 3x5 card about you into her course to target your learning goals and build upon your existing background knowledge and experiences? If you can, then please share those experiences with us because that would make us smile!

I, for one, actually can't remember a time in my many years as a student (undergraduate or graduate) that an instructor gave the students a voice in the course design. Sure, we could develop our own projects ultimately, but we had no say in when they were due, how they were submitted, what the grade weight would be, etc. When I began reading about such an approach, it seemed like an unrealizable notion. As an instructor, I had always been a bit of a control freak in my classes, with well-defined assignments, clearly set (and non-negotiable) due dates, a firm schedule of topics and policies to cover every possible behavior a student could bring to the classroom that might cause a wrinkle on my forehead (e.g., tardies, texting, chit chat, late work, plagiarism, etc.). And yet, here I was - intrigued by letting it all go and giving the students power (gasp!).

So, how does it all shake out? Well, only time will tell but it starts like this ...

The course in question is a course entitled ‘Teaching in Higher Education’ and the existing course overview read: 

This course centers on the discussion and practice of fundamental teaching methods. The aim is to equip individuals with the foundational pedagogical knowledge and skills to effectively fulfill their teaching mission in an institution of higher education.
 

That overview didn’t completely win me over … “equip individuals with the foundational pedagogical knowledge and skills…” Isn’t that being a little presumptuous of me? What if they have foundational pedagogical knowledge and skills in place? My teaching philosophy rang like a little alarm in my head and I knew I should come to class with an open mind, an incomplete syllabus and a student survey to find out what they already know and what they want to know. As I figured, the teaching experience and range of course expectations embodied by these students was vast! I now had a pulse on this class and a better sense of what they were bringing to the learning experience.

Knowing that this course focuses on teaching in higher education (and it's for graduate students), you can envision the potential ‘wiggle room’ I might have to initiate this pedagogical experiment. After all, the point of this course is to model effective teaching and if, in fact, Weimer is on to something then this might just be a great practice to share with future instructors and faculty of higher education. So, I started by adding a little addendum to the course overview which reads:

This course focuses on approaches to instruction that privilege student experience and background knowledge. It also highlights active learning strategies, addresses the balance of power in the classroom and explores the function of content.

We are only into week two of the semester, so this story will emerge throughout the semester and you will see, along with me, how it all unfolds.

So far, we have negotiated the following points as a class: 1) we are a cohesive learning community; 2) we work together democratically to make decisions in this course, and; 3) we honor the knowledge, skills and experiences that each brings to the community.

On day one we discussed the culture of the classroom that we wish to be part of this semester. We worked out the policies for this course related to attendance, punctuality, technology in the classroom (e.g., phones (texting!), laptops (Facebook!)), technology for learning (To CANVAS or not to CANVAS? that was the question … and the answer was ‘Yes’), food/drink in the classroom (situational factor: it’s a night class…) and more.

During our second class, we embarked on a course design mapping activity that helped us to shape the overarching ‘Big Ideas’ and scrutinize the specific course objectives. We mapped those to assessment measures (assignments) that I proposed – and surprisingly only one assignment was vetoed. We agreed upon the value of the other assignments for this course (e.g., teaching philosophy statement, syllabus construction, peer teaching observation, etc.). Finally, we began to brainstorm the learning plan for the course to generate discussion about how we will tackle course content (i.e., Will I lead the discussion of the readings each week or will they or … will we not even talk about them? What types of activities will best support them as they move toward providing evidence of understanding through the larger assessment assignments?).

This is uncharted territory for me and for them; yet, I think this class will rank “top five all-time best” classes I’ve ever taught … or maybe I just like that phrase from the movie High Fidelity starring John Cusack. Either way, stay tuned as I venture onward alongside the others in our learning community (aka: course).

Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

~Rai Farrelly