Instructional Strategies, Journal 3

Believe it or not, on top of the full course load + one that I’m teaching this semester, I am still doing the Masters program. This semester’s course is called Instructional Strategies, and as with the first two courses, we have to prepare four journal entries.
The following is a response to Maryellen Weimer’s article ‘Focus on Learning,’ which we read for the course. I’m still not sure if I wholeheartedly object to Weimer, or if my reaction is really just a gut response to what I perceive as her condescending tone. You can read the article first and judge for yourself, if you are so inclined.

I remember sharing complaints with my classmates in Cegep and university about our professors, whom we knew had been hired based on their subject-related qualifications rather than any demonstrated skill as teachers. A friend who was a student member of the university English department council recalls more than one meeting in which professors complained about – and flat out refused to teach – introductory courses, preferring to devote their time to research, writing, and perhaps the occasional MA course. Even among my MA professors there were a few professors that we students eschewed, always with the disclaimer “well, s/he knows the material, but can’t teach his/her way out of a paper bag.”
I would like to believe that priorities are shifting, at least at the Cegep level. More and more of my colleagues are expressing curiosity about the Performa program; the notion of pedagogy has become a frequent topic of discussion; and new teachers are now hired with the understanding that formative evaluations are a matter of course. As a teacher who cares about teaching, and not at all about research or publishing, I am encouraged and happy to see these changes, and I hope that a climate of teaching excellence will prevail. If nothing else, such a climate will, I believe, help to save the Cegep system. If we as a collective can show that the college experience is unique and essential, perhaps we can survive to teach another day.
It was with all of these ideas in mind that I started reading Maryellen Weimer’s article ‘Focus on learning, transform teaching’ (2003). Through the first few paragraphs, I felt we had a connection; we understood each other. Granted, I felt that referring to the traditional, stereotypical professorial style as an “instructional approach” was perhaps a little generous, given that what Weimer is insinuating is that teachers of this ilk engage in no thought whatsoever about how to approach instruction. As it turns out, this reaction was a foreshadowing of my response to the article as a whole. Although there are many observations and recommendations with which I can identify, my overall impression of the text was that it was both condescending and pedantic, and in the end, seemed to suggest that if we all just taught like Weimer, the world would be a better, happier, brighter place.
Weimer is not the first to suggest that students need to assume more responsibility for their own learning; no doubt she will not be the last. I agree that students need to be responsible, and in fact, I believe one of the great purposes of the Cegep system is to teach students how to take that responsibility seriously before they get to the sink-or-swim university level. However, I also believe that we cannot simply hand over the responsibility and assume that we have done our jobs as “learner-centred” teachers. Students need to have not only the tools to deal with their new-found responsibility, but also the wisdom to recognize that they have new responsibilities. Our students come to us from a high-school environment in which teachers, parents, administrators, and a host of supporting players are on hand to keep students on track. In the Cegep environment, our students are given the opportunity to learn how to be responsible – a two-year transition period, preparing them for the rigors of higher learning, or a three-year transition period, preparing them for the realities of the workplace. In either case, we cannot rush the transition. Instead, we have to relinquish responsibility to our students – but first, we need to somehow let them know that’s what we’re doing.
Weimer’s Five Keys
All five of Weimer’s keys make sense to me; however, I find many of her examples of the problems and solutions problematic. Furthermore, I am not convinced that the five keys are really five separate concepts. There seemed to be a lot of repetitive discourse under the headings of ‘Balance of Power,’ ‘The Role of the Teacher,’ and ‘The Responsibility for Learning.’
Balance of Power: Weimer claims that the problem is that “faculty make too many decisions about learning” (50). She illustrates her point by asking us to consider who is responsible for determining course content, structure and assessment, and suggests that we can establish a balance of power by sharing “the decision-making with students.” My initial response to this idea was that I liked it; I have, in my own classes, asked for student input on assignment weighting, due dates, and similar issues. Weimer goes on to provide examples of the power balance in her own classroom: “in some cases [students] also decide how many and how much of a particular assignment they will complete” (50). How many? How much? I cannot fathom how this arrangement can work with the “marginal” students Weimer claims will most benefit (54), nor can I see how it is possible to provide meaningful assessment for individual members of the group if each individual is working according to a different schedule and workload. While it is important to teach students how to be responsible for their own learning, and it is important to recognize and accommodate a variety of learning styles, it is equally important to work within a common framework of course objectives and competencies.
The Role of the Teacher: According to Weimer, the problem addressed here is that “classroom action still features teachers” (50). She then describes a series of presumably problematic teacher activities that, to me, are a perfect illustration of the concept of modelling. I think that what Weimer is aiming for in this section is a constructivist approach. In my own classroom, I often use a group teaching exercise to allow students to discuss a text. In small groups, with very occasional input from me, the students explore their own ideas about a short story, poem, essay or concept, and then teach the larger group. If this is the kind of learning environment Weimer is proposing, then I am all for it. Her example of teacher-supported student agency, however, strikes me as antithetical. She proposes that rather than review the course syllabus together, students read it silently, after which the teacher “might test knowledge… with a short, ungraded quiz” (51). It seems to me that this approach sets the wrong tone for the whole course, and rather than demonstrating to students that the teacher is their “coach,” the exercise shows students that they are on their own.
Responsibility for Learning: My biggest objection in this section is that I cannot see a difference between the examples she uses to illustrate the problem (for instance, that “quizzes encourage students to keep up with the reading”) and the example she uses to illustrate her solution (the homework overhead that is removed two minutes after class begins) (51-52). Yes, quizzes encourage students to keep up with the reading. How is that a problem? And how is it different from encouraging students to get to class on time by giving the homework in the first two minutes of class? In both cases, students are responsible for something, and suffer the consequences if they drop the ball. Presumably, completion of the homework is a course requirement which will directly or indirectly be rewarded, just as a quiz presumably rewards students who have done the reading. Weimer herself says that “students are motivated to get grades. Learner-centered teachers work to harness that motivation” (53).
Function of Content: Weimer claims that the problem is that “faculty make covering content their top priority” (52). I agree that often, college courses are survey courses, at the end of which students are supposed to have been exposed to a certain list of concepts. For some courses, such as Western Civ., this is a perennial problem. On the other hand, in courses such as Introduction to College English, I would argue that there is not enough emphasis on content, or at least on the consistency of the content from one instructor to the next. I believe that when a student successfully completes an ICE course, s/he should by definition be able to analyse and discuss literature, prepare and write a coherent, sophisticated essay, and read a text critically. These skills are not merely competencies to measure at the end of a semester, they are absolutely necessary for subsequent courses. When I teach a post-ICE course, I expect my students to have mastered these skills; yet every semester, there are some students in 102 or 103 classes whose language skills are sub-par. Weimer’s argument echoes this notion. She says, for instance, that “teachers should build their students’ knowledge base and develop their learning skills” (52).
The Purposes and Processes of Evaluation: I have actually already incorporated evaluation supplements such as peer and self-evaluations. As Weimer points out, these strategies mean fewer grade disputes, and give the students a deeper sense of involvement in their own learning.
Conclusions
Ultimately, I have to ask myself if it is possible to make Weimer happy. She says teachers “find educational research intellectually appealing, sometimes even convincing” in a tone that suggests that we are not easy to convince – that we perhaps read an article like hers are then write a four-page journal entry dismissing it, for instance – and then charges that even if we are convinced, we’re not likely to implement any real change in our day-to-day teaching (53). She goes on to say that those of us who do try new techniques do so instinctively, without careful consideration, and if we permanently adopt these new techniques, we do so based on emotion, rather than “a process of thoughtful analysis.”
Given the nature of this course, I think it’s safe to say that we’re not relying on gut instinct and emotion in creating and implementing new strategies. The fact that more and more of us are signing up for programs like Performa should prove that today’s teachers are anxious to revitalize and reinvent college teaching – and learning. Our institutions are, in supporting such programs, demonstrating administrative support for these new directions. Finally, our students’ successes – particularly at the university level, when compared to out-of-province classmates – proves that we are on the right track. Weimer has some good ideas, but I am not convinced that the pre-Weimer world was as bleak as she would have us believe, nor the post-Weimer utopia as bright.