| Students share thoughts on what makes great teaching BY SALLY ACHARYA What is great teaching? As with great art, many people feel they know it when they see it. But articulating what it means can be more difficult. A panel of honors students and faculty members spoke last week on “What Makes a Great Class?” Hosted by the University Honors Program and Center for Teaching Excellence, the panel proved popular with faculty. “I was just so heartened by the degree of interest among faculty,” said honors program director Michael Mass. Around 40 faculty members packed into the room to hear what students had to say. A great class, the students said, is one that balances discussions with lectures that expand on rather than reiterate information. “I can read the text whenever I want to,” said Emily Caponetti, Kogod. She added that she sometimes feels frustrated when other students don’t prepare for class, effectively forcing the professor to summarize instead of expanding on the readings. Discussions can enhance learning, but can feel like a waste of time when they ramble off into anecdotes and stray into side paths, the students said. “Something more needs to be happening than [what] I could get out of either doing the reading myself, or chatting with my smart buddies,” said Caroline Barrett ’07, who is majoring in political science, language, and area studies. Effective faculty create a flow between lecture and discussion, said Sean Almeida ’07, School of International Service, and guide the conversation so that it stays on target. Barrett said she appreciates it when faculty illuminate a topic by sharing their experience as scholars or practitioners in the field, since that provides “a good base of knowledge that I couldn’t just get by thinking about it myself.” The students and faculty mulled ways to encourage positive participation. One student liked a technique in which her professor invited shy students to share ideas in writing if they preferred not to raise their hands. Patrick Jackson, School of International Service, sometimes “played Snake,” a technique that involves going around the class and having each student add a comment after summarizing the previous one. He also permits students to instant message each other, as long as their side discussion is related to the class. On the other hand, there can be too much participation, if it all comes from the same student. Barrett’s housemates have a name for the opinionated student who dominates discussions: the “class ruiner.” One faculty member said he makes it clear on the first day that if a student is dominating a conversation, they’re not doing effective classroom participation. The consensus: a good discussion is not a free-for-all, but carefully guided so that many students participate and learning is enhanced. Barrett said that she appreciates faculty who devote time at the start of the semester explaining the workload and expectations. Even if it seems like a lot of work, “I’m like, ‘Great! I’m psyched! Let’s go!’” But if a heavy workload comes as a surprise, she said, she’ll tend to feel upset and frustrated. Clear expectations and a clear syllabus can make a difference in student attitude, she said. Also on the panel were faculty respondents Robert Johnson, School of Public Affairs, and Naomi Baron and Kiho Kim, College of Arts and Sciences. Many faculty members in the audience added their thoughts during the discussion. Both Mass and John Douglass, School of Communication and director of the Center for Teaching Excellence, expressed interest in exploring the topic further in additional sessions. |
