COURSES
For each course taught in 1998-99 I include a cover page that reviews:
the original objectives for the course (which should be read together with
the description and goals stated in the syllabi);
challenges encountered and my responses;
and future plans.
This is preceded by a link to the syllabus. Not included in the webversion are the summaries of the GCOE evaluations, and
originals of written course evaluations I designed.*
For future new courses, there is a statement of objectives and a draft
syllabus.
* I ask students to compose short summary statements, and when they have
done so these are included. I have not summarized the written evaluations for
this portfolio, but have instead incorporated many of their comments into the
review of challenges and responses and future plans.
1. Thinking, Learning and Computers (CCT670)
(syllabus)
Initial Goals
My goal was to create a course about computers and education for both CCT and
M.Ed. students. (I thought, mistakenly, that this would be the only computers
and education course.) For the first six classes I designed activities to
acquaint students with a number of specific computer-based tools, and at the
same time to lead into critical thinking about these tools. On that basis, the
second half of the course would examine interpretations of and debates about
social and educational transformations that involve computers. The different
class activities were intended to provide models for adaptation to classes and
other settings. In addition to their projects, students also prepared
briefings on selected topics for each other, which is one way they can address
the explosion of information made possible by computers (see syllabus from Fall
1998).
This course was established by a former CCT director who believed that research
on computers and artificial intelligence provided insight about processes of
human cognition, thinking and intelligence, and thus about learning. I do not
share that belief, and attempted to provide the conceptual and socio-historical
background to support a critical position on computers as models for thinking
and learning.
Challenges and Responses
I learned quickly that the M.Ed. students thought the course would
provide direct instruction about use of computers and software in their
classrooms. Some withdrew; those who stayed still wanted more hands on time on
computer-based tools than I had planned. Most students needed more warm-up
than I gave them to appreciate "critical and creative thinking," the
expectations of reflection pieces, the rationale for the unconventional
assessment system, and the value of revising and resubmitting in repsonse to my
comments. Nevertheless, M.Ed. students proved able to choose a classroom
oriented project or a more critical paper as it suited their interests.
A turning point in the course was a mid-semester class in which I was away at a
conference. The students brought in movies cued to a scene highlighting
changing social attitudes about computers and had to interpret their scenes to
the other students, something I had modeled the previous week. Having to take
full responsibility for their own learning had a positive impact on students'
engagement in the remaining classes, something they acknowledged in the
historical scan during the final class (see exhibit 3.D.iii). Unfortunately,
activities during the final class to take stock of the course left insufficient
time for most students to complete either the GCOE evaluation or the one I had
prepared. Follow-up requests yielded more returns, but the number of
evaluations received was too low to be representative.
Future Plans
My plans for future offerings of this course are to:
--maintain the hybrid CCT-education nature of the course, and to direct the
more pragmatic or anxious M.Ed. students to the other courses;
--rearrange and adjust the early classes so the course begins with the students
experiencing computer use from the position of students, not teachers. The aim
here would be to make non-CCT students comfortable by establishing a basis in
the concrete before moving on to critical thinking about computer-based tools
and, later, to interpretations and wider debates about computers in society;
--address the emerging challenge of using the World Wide Web well, in
particular for distance education, by starting with a hands-on class related to
this topic;
--maintain the CCT emphasis on critical reflection, but with streamlined
requirements, instructions, and assessment system;
--require conferences with me early in the course for students to express their
concerns and for me to establish dialogue needed to support students'
development as critical thinkers;
--encourage M.Ed. students to undertake course projects on their specific
educational interests;
--continue to collect clippings on developments in computers and organize them
in a binder to stimulate students thinking about their projects and my own
thinking about possible changes in the course;
--provide handouts on class activities to facilitate their adaptation into
students' lesson plans (a practice already begun by the end of the fall 1998
semester);
--rework the two most difficult classes (on dynamical systems and heterogeneous
construction); and
--time the final class so evaluations are submitted before students leave on
the last day.
2. Practicum [Processes of Research and Engagement] (CCT698)
(syllabus)
Initial Goals
This course is based on a research course I taught several times in
which undergraduate students investigated issues that concerned them about the
social impact of science or about the environment--issues they wanted to know
more about, or advocate a change. CCT students would instead focus on current
social or educational issues, but, as in the previous course, they would be
guided through different stages of research and action--from defining a
manageable project to communicating their findings and plans for further work.
The classes would run as workshops, in which students are introduced to and
then practice using tools for research, writing, communicating, and supporting
the work of others. To keep students moving along in their research, there
would be many small writing assignments on their projects, with requests to
revise and resubmit in response to my comments.
The emphasis on process, not simply the production of the final paper/report,
makes room for confronting personal, psychological issues that usually arise
around defining one's own work and convincing others of its significance. The
course description, overview, assessment system, and expectations listed in the
Fall 1998 syllabus spell out my teaching/learning approach in this course.
On a practical level I had to condense the two 2 hour sessions from the earlier
course into one 2.5 hour session.
Challenges and Responses
This has been my most challenging course to date at U. Mass. Five of
the eleven students were very product-oriented, some of them because they were
simultaneously completing their capstone projects on the same topic under a
timetable that allowed little room for new exploration. Four of the five
viewed the assignments, tasks, and requests for revision as getting in the way
of doing what they knew how to do, completing a research paper. My use of
illustrations from previous classes did not help them see the value of new
steps along the way--these classes consisted of young undergraduates from elite
colleges, not adult learners like themselves. The four did not engage
productively in the workshop activities, assignments, or revision. Most
seriously, they avoided talking to me about the approach they were taking to
the assignments and the course in general.
Although the full picture became clear mostly only in retrospect, I did realize
during the semester that I needed to talk more with these students. However, I
found it difficult, given the busy-ness of their lives and mine starting a new
job, to make times when this could happen, or to follow up when appointments
were missed. I now include a requirement of at least two conferences in all my
courses, one of these early on before misunderstandings of course goals become
fixed in a student's head.
During the semester, I also responded to expressions of "confusion" about what
was expected in two ways:
i) producing a summary of the iterative, overlapping phases of "research and
engagement." (This has since evolved into a structure reflected explicitly in
the Fall 1999 syllabus and is reflected in the subtitle I have added to the
course.); and
ii) by structuring my weekly handouts so they began with a summary of
"Assignments due," "Tasks in preparation for class," "Other tasks," and
"Follow-up and feedback," and followed this by details about item. After the
semester, I digested my experiences and feedback and produced detailed "Notes
on Teaching/Learning Interactions," which I now include in the course packet
for all my courses. Including such material in the course packet also
accommodates to students who want details in advance of future assignments and
allows weekly handouts to be much simpler. I still need, of course, to draw
students attention in class to the numerous tasks and assignments ahead, and to
convey their rationale.
I do not, however, believe that the added written material would have "won
over" the four students who resisted or rejected what the course offered. In
addition to making more time to talk with students, I decided this fall to:
i) focus on producing the "dialogue around written work," as articulated in the
Notes. (My efforts to achieve this will be illuminated by peer observation and
reflection during this fall's faculty seminar on "Becoming a
teacher-researcher.");
ii) include in the course packet examples from the previous CCT course (not the
pre-UMass courses); and
iii) invite to the first class an alum from the previous course to be
interviewed by the new students. This appears to have been an effective
"innoculation" against students proceeding as they always have and focusing on
the end of semester deadline for submitting a report/paper. (I think I can
always expect product-orientation to be a default option for some CCT students,
many of whom have busy work lives and would not have chosen the CCT Program if
they were not so headstrong.) There are again two Practicum students
undertaking their capstone projects, but I worked with them through much of the
Practicum process during the summer. Their role in the Practicum classes, when
they can attend, will be to coach the others.
Fortunately, a number of students in the Fall of 1998 appreciated the course
process, experimented with the tools I was introducing, and made significant
progress. Even so, it was difficult to lead students beyond library research
and to pilot implementations of the classes or workshops many envisaged. In
the third class this fall, in order to model what is possible, I have scheduled
a demonstration by an alum of her curricular innovation.
Future Plans
In addition to the changes above already being implemented, I am working
(via advising, the CCT handbook, and notes to other advisers) to ensure that
CCT students take the Practicum before they undertake their capstone projects.
I am also exploring the range of other research courses in the GCOE with a view
to allowing students to cross programs if another course matches their needs
better.
3. Critical Thinking (with A. Millman) (CCT601)
(syllabus)
Initial Goals
This is a required CCT course and is also taken by many M.Ed. and
doctoral students as an elective in critical and creative thinking. I had not
taught a course like this and expected this would be an opportunity for me to
learn from my co-teacher approaches to critical thinking established in
philosophy and, to a lesser extent, in psychology. I expected to insert only
one or two new classes based on my personal approach to critical thinking,
which is to place established facts, theories, and practices in tension with
alternatives so one can see how things could be otherwise. However, my
interest in students learning through activities, not only through discussion,
led me to invent activities for many of the classes, especially when I
discovered I was familiar from other contexts with the author or their themes.
Arthur Millman was willing to try out other changes I suggested for the course,
such the "revise and resubmit" assessment system, the manifesto assignment, the
critical incident questionnaires, thought-pieces extracted from students's
journal, and the "Notes on teaching/learning interactions" I had prepared after
teaching the fall courses.
As a result of our pre-semester discussions, we defined the following overall
goals, which had not been expressed in quite this way before. We wanted course
participants to:
1. appreciate and reflect on the range of views on critical thinking,
contrasts and tensions among those views, and the evolution of the field toward
increasing attention to the social context in which thinking takes place;
2. work new views, skills, and model lessons/group activities into practices
of thinking, learning, teaching critical thinking to others, and finding
support for change (see 3);
3. develop support to understand 1 and sustain 2 beyond this course,
especially the support that derives from having active conversants,
appreciative listeners, and dialoguing around written work.
Challenges and Responses
Early on some students raised their misgivings about working in small
groups--could they trust others; was this an exercise in "mutually shared
ignorance? Some students wanted the class to be smaller so they could have
more direct interaction with the professors and whole class discussions.
Cutting the class size was not an option and in "whole class discussions," of
which we had some, fewer voices are heard. Instead, I reviewed other people's
guidelines for small group discussions and developed ones for the course based
around four roles (facilitator, initiator, timer, and reporter). These roles
were not always well followed. In the future, we should model and give
explicit training at the start of the semester.
As the course developed, however, listening became a significant theme.
Classes 7, 8, 9 and 11, which introduced various approaches to listening, were
very popular. During this phase of the course students who had been quiet or
lacked confidence in their ability to think critically started to articulate
connections between critical thinking and their work as teachers and
professionals. On an intellectual level, it appeared that listening well
allows one better to tease out alternative views. Without alternatives in mind
there is little motivation to question the support for one own view, and to
follow critical thinking dictates to examine evidence, hidden assumptions and
logic.
Dialogue also became a recurrent theme of the course. Several times Arthur
Millman and I exposed and explored different perespectives through dialogue in
front of the class. Some students were disconcerted by our apparent
differences; others valued them. More generally, we noticed that some students
wanted us to provide clear definitions of and procedures for critical thinking
and for particular assignments and activities, while others were more
comfortable grappling with the tensions among different approaches. We
responded at times to anxieties by preparing mini-lectures and handouts, but we
also persisted in conducting activities and promoting journaling through which
students might develop their own working approaches to critical thinking. This
tension was most evident around the manifesto assignment, which asked for a
"synthesis of elements from the course selected and organized so as to inspire
and inform your efforts in extending critical thinking beyond the course." This
was a new assignment so we could not provide examples from previous classes. I
responded to students queries about the assignment by distributing my draft
manifesto (exhibit 2.C.i). Eventually, however, almost all the students had
become confident enough to compose their own, often quite personal, syntheses.
In future years, we will be able both to provide examples and to convince
students that they'll see how they want to compose their manifesto by the time
it is due at the end of the semester.
In the class on remodeling lesson plans, we reviewed the first class of the
course. This helped me to articulate the primary message of a story and
demonstration I had presented, namely, that the development of critical
thinking is like a journey. I went on to use this metaphor in a faculty
development workshop last June (exhibit 3.E.i), and would do so in future
offerings of this course. It corresponds well to the three goals we defined
for the course (see above) and would allow us to further develop the intra- and
inter-personal dimensions that have been insufficiently explored in critical
thinking texts and courses.
Several other items to address emerged during the course and from the course
evaluations. These are summarized in my "to do" list (exhibit 3.C.i).
Future Plans
Unfortunately, scheduling considerations may mean that I will not teach
this course again in the next few years. In the meantime, however, I am
collecting material material on current controversies to develop into critical
thinking activities and am looking for opportunities to synthesize and publish
something about the role of listening, dialogue, intra-personal reflection, and
the journey metaphor in fostering critical thinking.
4. Science-in-society [Seminar in Critical Thinking] (CCT611)
(syllabus)
Initial Goals
This seminar was based on case studies and activities from an
undergraduate "Biology and Society" course I had taught several times. My
goals were to adapt it to the CCT/GCOE setting, by leading students to
address the course material on a number of levels: as an opportunity to learn
the science and interpretive approaches; as models for your own teaching; and
as a basis for discussions about practices and philosophies of education,
construed broadly as a project of stimulating greater citizen involvement in
scientific debates.
To this end I was more explicit than I had been before about my conceptual and
pedagogical themes (see "Overview of course themes").
Challenges and Responses
The students' prior training in biology was varied and, with one
exception, not recent. As a consequence the class meetings operated mostly on
the first level. In any case, more than 2.5 hours per week would have been
needed and/or fewer topics, in order to make room for serious discussion of
teaching and educational philosophy.
Future Plans
Over the next few years I plan to prepare the cases for a book and
website. While doing so I expect to see ways to fashion classes that would fit
in the time available and to prepare reading material that brings students up
to steam in the relevant biology. As I develop new cases, e.g., one on
gestational programming (see exhibit 1.D), I will have to drop others. I
intend, however, the mix of cases to cover the four broad angles of
interpretation, namely, "scientists' historical location, economic and
political interests, use of language, and ideas about causality and
responsibility."
I also plan to emphasize the lesson plan option for students' projects, which
will, I expect, stimulate more discussion of teaching and educational
philosophy.
5. Issues in Educational Evaluation (CCT685)
(syllabus)
Initial Goals
Although I had experience in social research and statistics, evaluation
of educational change was a new area for me as a teacher. I designed the
course so that I learn as much as possible by leading students to digest the
texts for themselves and for each other, coaching the students in
mini-projects, and facilitating participatory planning and other group
processes. This last aspect would serve two functions: the syllabus could be
adjusted according to students' background and interests, and students would be
introduced to the larger endeavor of working with other people in implementing
and improving educational changes. In this spirit, I chose texts that
emphasized the relationship between evaluator and sponsor from the formulation
of questions onwards needed if outcomes are to be taken up in changes in
practice and policy.
The mini-projects were based on clippings and short articles I had collected
concerning evaluations undertaken or needed.
I decided not to schedule a sequence of classes on quantitative methods but to
encourage students to formulate questions based on the articles they were
reading and to coach them in securing statistical advice from skilled
practitioners.
Challenges and Responses
The first challenge was that many students thought the course would
focus on assessment of students and some of them took several weeks to
appreciate the actual topic--evaluation of educational changes. In response, I
have arranged for the course name to be changed to Evaluation of Educational
Change. I also had to help several students sort out what is going on in the
name of testing and standards. Different kinds of evaluation are routinely
conflated by teachers, administrators, and policy makers, namely, evaluation
of: students' knowledge; the new curricular frameworks as a means to improve
students' knowledge; the performance of teachers; the performance of schools;
and the performance of school districts. Students also needed to more time
than I had expected to get the hang of the "evaluation clock," which divides
evaluation into 12 questions (from "Why is evaluation needed?" to "What do
sponsors do differently as a result?") and emphasizes re-visiting earlier
questions in light of later ones. I modeled this to students, but have
identified a simpler case to use for future introductions.
Time spent early on orienting students to the endeavor of evaluation led me to
eliminate the second mini-project on the politics of evaluation (what things
are subject to evaluations and what not, which evaluations are paid attention
to, etc.) and truncate this topic. The politics of evaluation is an important
issue, but CCT students, I have learned, are less interested in general
obstacles to innovation than they are in creating new educational approaches
and finding situations in which to try them out. At the same time, the
practitioners I invited to class emphasized the importance of collaboration and
patience in getting one's plans implemented, and students were very impressed
by these presentations. Indeed, it seems to me that the topic of evaluation is
best presented in terms of students becoming teacher-researchers or
practitioner-researchers. I began to consult with GCOE colleagues teaching
evaluation and action research to clarify whether to push this theme further in
CCT685, or whether to direct receptive students to action research courses
taught by other faculty. I plan to continue this consultation.
Some students were disconcerted for a while by the diversity of mini-project
topics and by the changes made to the syllabus as we went along, but from my
experience with this first class I believe I can in the future minimize
syllabus changes and anticipate potential sources of confusion. Some students
commented on the number of evaluation and group process tools I introduced and
suggested working with fewer in greater depth. At the same time, the final
projects indicated that students were trying out many of the tools in their
work even without extended training. I hope I can continue to introduce a
range of tools, because in the future at least some students will have done
other courses with me and so fewer of the tools will be new.
The method I used to acquaint students with the texts, namely, not lecturing
but having students prepare briefings for each other on the different chapters,
worked quite well. I realized, however, that it would be better to use a more
recent text and one with a focus on evaluation in educational contexts. I have
identified a strong candidate, Evaluation by Carol Weiss, but am still
reviewing possibilities.
Students raised fewer questions about quantitative methods than I had expected,
even when I assigned a quantitatively-oriented manuscript of a colleague and
had him come to class to discuss his work with the students. I have identified
among the clippings some cases that will allow me to convey when students need
to secure statistical advice from skilled practitioners.
Some students in this course (and also in CCT698 and CCT601) wanted a rubric
for A vs. A- vs. B+ grades and one student prepared an elaborate model. This
motivated me to prepare my own streamlined version and implement it my Fall
1999 courses.
Future Plans
I have mentioned some of my future plans in the preceding section. I
have a larger "to do" list stimulated by the formative and summative
evaluations of students in the course, and their participation in revising the
course as we went. My other major goals for the future are to:
--expand some of the clippings into well developed cases, especially in the
areas of science education;
--consult with other GCOE faculty with a view to differentiating the evaluation
and research courses we offer; and
--build on the mini-project of one student last spring to push for more
productive forms of course evaluation in GCOE.
6. CCT695, Synthesis seminar
(syllabus)
Initial Goals
The Synthesis seminar provides a structure within which students get
faculty and peer assistance and support in completing the written product of
the synthesis project or thesis by the deadline. Because of the small class
size and the progress students have already made over the summer, I am making
time during class for them to step back and review their work in light of the
"phases of research and engagement" that I introduce in the Practicum course
(CCT698; see 2. above). My goal is to show that reflection and dialogue is
valuable for clarification and more efficient writing, even when the product
deadline looms.
I also want to wean students from relying on their faculty readers to do
detailed copy-editing, a relationship between student and reader usually gets
in the way of dialogue around the content and overall organization of the
synthesis. I will provide encourage them to pay for assistance from some
outside party, skilled in manuscript-editing.
I am teaching this course this semester as an overload, and hope that my
experience will stand me in good stead in the spring when more students are
enrolled.
Challenges and Responses
The tension between product and process is evident at the outset. I
want the students to revise what they have written during the summer and
strengthen their exposition, but how far can I push this without their feeling
I do not support their work? My initial response is to avoid detailed comments
on the text, but to talk with them about what is distinctive in their projects
and reflect back to them in an organized form what they say and what I discern.
Eventually, however, I expect that their space for significant revision will
disappear and I will work more on their terms.
7. CCT645, Environment, Science, and Society [Seminar in Scientific
Thinking]
Initial Goals
This course has similar goals to CCT611 (see 4 above), but the emphasis
is on environmental rather than life sciences. I prepared a first draft of
this course before learning that I would be participating in a faculty seminar
instead of teaching the course. I realize that the syllabus needs to be pared
down and streamlined, in order to make room for serious discussion of teaching
and educational philosophy (see discussion in 4 above). In addition, the base
groups and problem-based learning aspects of the course require more planning
and preparation.