One of my desires in creating the CATAL blog was for it to serve as an avenue for discussion within our faculty. The post for today is one of those times when I seek comments about a question that I pose.
The question: Should we be talking about teaching failures? Maybe failure is too pejorative. Should we report on something that did not work so well in teaching?
No one is perfect and sooner or later something will go wrong in the classroom or on the practice site. There seem to be some, however, who will continue to do things the way that they have always been done because of the belief that they are working well (see How many academics does it take to change a light bulb?).
Why do some not try something different as part of their pedagogical practice? There certainly is risk with innovation. Maybe we always do what we have always done because academia is too much about competition and we don’t want to be seen differently from the person who never fails. Admitting that something did not work is hard. I suspect that part of it also is the general fear of failure we all have.
Failure is a common human experience. We shouldn’t consider it to be unusual or untoward. In fact, maybe we should plan for failure.
I think those who are the best teachers are the ones who are willing to take risks and open themselves up to sometimes fail. I agree with Dean Matthews who has said that we should not wait to do something different or innovative until we think that everything is in place. If we use this as a mechanism to guard against failure, then we may never do anything.
I believe that an advantage of discussing our failures in public is that we can get help and suggestions from others. Through these interactions, we should actually learn some things about ourselves and about our teaching. Additionally, struggling with talking about a teaching failure may help us to better understand the challenge for a student when we ask them to write or reflect on an experience, especially one that did not go so well for them.
Finally, opening ourselves up through public discussion of a failure may help us with our PR. How many times have you heard about the academic in the ivory tower who doesn’t seem human. Anything that helps us to look a little more human has got to be good. And isn’t the human experience what lies at the heart of the university?
I welcome your thoughts. Should we openly admit failure in teaching?
Friday, March 2, 2012
Friday, January 27, 2012
How many academics does it take to change a light bulb?
How many academics does it take to change a light bulb? Answer: Change!? I also heard someone say that they believe it is easier to change the course of history than to change a history course.
No one likes change. It never seems to be convenient to go through change. If one looks at education, however, many things are done the same as they may have been a hundred years ago (think lecture) even when we have had so many advances in technology. When in graduate school, I was told that the reason there was a requirement for all graduate students to take a non-credit, one-semester foreign language course was because “that is the way we have always done that.” Too often, I fear, this is the way academia works.
Take a look at the article entitled What You (Really) Need to Know written by Lawrence H. Summers in the January 20, 2012 Education section of The New York Times. Summers is the former president of Harvard University and a former Secretary of the Treasury. In the article, Summers wonders how university education might change in light of today’s world. He states:
I believe that we in COPHS are doing some of these things now. What are your thoughts on Summers’ suggestions? How could we incorporate his ideas to increase our commitment to helping our students in their careers and their ability to contribute to society?
No one likes change. It never seems to be convenient to go through change. If one looks at education, however, many things are done the same as they may have been a hundred years ago (think lecture) even when we have had so many advances in technology. When in graduate school, I was told that the reason there was a requirement for all graduate students to take a non-credit, one-semester foreign language course was because “that is the way we have always done that.” Too often, I fear, this is the way academia works.
Take a look at the article entitled What You (Really) Need to Know written by Lawrence H. Summers in the January 20, 2012 Education section of The New York Times. Summers is the former president of Harvard University and a former Secretary of the Treasury. In the article, Summers wonders how university education might change in light of today’s world. He states:
Nonetheless, it is interesting to speculate: Suppose the educational system is drastically altered to reflect the structure of society and what we now understand about how people learn. How will what universities teach be different? Here are some guesses and hopes.He outlines six possible transformations in the way people learn in the university.
- Focus will be more on how to process and use information and less about imparting it.
- Because of the knowledge explosion, tasks will be conducted with more collaboration.
- New technologies will significantly change the way knowledge is transmitted.
- Technology and collaborative experiences will be used to promote dynamic or active learning.
- It will be essential that the educational experience become more cosmopolitan; that students have international experiences and see examples from around the world.
- Much more emphasis will be placed on the analysis of data.
I believe that we in COPHS are doing some of these things now. What are your thoughts on Summers’ suggestions? How could we incorporate his ideas to increase our commitment to helping our students in their careers and their ability to contribute to society?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)