The Philosophers' Cocoon

Retaining late-semester student engagement

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, Josh writes:

My apologies if this has been covered before, but I'm starting my first teaching job this year and noticed that my classes seemed to suffer from intense mid- and late-semester fatigue. That is, during the first 7 weeks or so of the term, I would get (e.g.) multiple unprompted questions, consistent student-led "back-and-forths," etc. After that, however, class momentum really began to slow down (with some exceptional days sprinkled here and there, of course). I get that this is part of university life, but I wonder if folks out there have been impressed by this phenomenon enough to factor it into their pedagogical approaches (and, if so, how?). I teach a 3-3 here--all different courses--and this fatigue was painfully evident in all of them.

This is an interesting query. I will be honest: I really haven't encountered this issue before. In my case, I've noticed that student interest seems to wane a bit at the tail end of the semester--maybe the last two or three weeks (about the time I begin to feel run down from the semester too!). Anyway, my strategy for addressing this has increasingly been to have end-of-the-term final presentations, where students have to apply theories (of ethics, law, just war theory, justice, etc.) to outside, original areas of research (e.g. ethical problems not discussed in the course, Supreme Court cases in philosophy of law, etc.). I find this works like a charm, as students often present on unexpected, fascinating, and important issues--ones that other students are interested in, want to discuss, and so on. However, this doesn't address Josh's specific question, which seems be more about the second half of the semester more generally--and final presentations aren't always doable (in very large courses) or everyone's cup of tea. So unfortunately, I guess I'm not the best person to answer Josh's query. 

Do any of you have any helpful tips for Josh? Also, here's a question for Josh (which might help me better understand his situation): what is your general teaching style like--specifically, what do you typically do in the classroom on a day to day basis? 

Unconventional teaching ideas that work: Mindfulness meditation in the philosophy classroom (by Sara Protasi)

Guest post by Sara Protasi (Puget Sound)

My use of meditation in teaching philosophy has gradually grown out of my own, alas still too sporadic and inconsistent, personal practice. I became acquainted with mindfulness meditation through both yoga and psychological therapy, and through a workshop that I attended as a graduate student.

When I started teaching a class on human nature, in 2015, I introduced the students to meditation through two readings. One is a difficult, but in my view rewarding, scholarly article about the role of sati (mindfulness) in classical Buddhism (Bhikkhu Bodhi 2011). The other is a short paper presenting some studies on the (positive) changes in the brain brought about by a consistent meditation practice (Davidson, R. J., & Lutz, A. 2008)

It was natural for me to start the class discussing these readings with a short meditation exercise. Students liked it, and one group of students in particular asked me for repeated sessions throughout the semester. That inspired me to incorporate meditation in the class more regularly.

Can ‘throw-up, then clean-up' work for history?

In an email message, a reader writes:

I was revisiting one of your posts on writing where you advocate a "throw it all up!" method. While I often find myself intrigued by this suggestion, I find it hard to carry through with respect to writing papers in the history of philosophy. The reason I find my history papers go slower than, say, things I have written in ethics or aesthetics, is that careful explanation of the text gets in the way. If I start the day with the goal of getting down X's thoughts about Y, I need to find some good quotes where these thoughts are conveyed, and I need to spend time explaining the passages so as not to drift too far away from the text. If I sit down and say, "I'm writing 3-5 pages today about X on Y, and I'll just find the quotes that support my view later," I find this only prolongs things. I don't think writing history papers necessarily has to go slower, but I am wondering if it might. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts about this, and those of others as well. It can be hard to throw it all up on the page if you are also digging for good quotes, and wishing to explain those quotes effectively. To remedy this, sometimes I spend a whole day just gathering quotes, and then I keep them in a separate word document and take them as I need them. But even when I do that, I find that it slows things down. Maybe throw up is not for me.

Good question! As I mentioned a while back, I found the "throw up, then clean up" method to be a real game-changer...

Unconventional teaching ideas that work: Skill-focused teaching through a philosophical service project (by Nathan Nobis)

Guest post by Nathan Nobis, Morehouse College, Atlanta, GA USA

I teach an "Introduction to Philosophical Ethics" course in an interactive, discussion-based and skills-focused manner. The core skills involve trying to figure out whether a reason given in support of some conclusion on a moral issue is a good one or not. We start with common arguments, things that ordinary people often say, and then move onto arguments that philosophers focus on. Here's my simplification of what we do:

I try to provide a minimal set of concepts to do what we do, with a one-page handout "Philosophical Ethics: Almost Everything You Need to Know" and a video on formulating arguments in logically valid form, typically as syllogisms. We practice these skills on a variety of contemporary moral issues, mostly in the order presented by Rachels' Elements of Moral Philosophy book.

Their final assignment involves students sharing their moral reasoning skills with an audience of people not in our class. Students have to show this audience how to rationally evaluate moral arguments, using examples they provide, and then teach the audience some basic skills at doing this, involving arguments that the audience provides. I call this "philosophical community service."

Here is the assignment:

Philosophical Service Project

For this assignment, you will perform some "philosophical community service." The service you will provide is demonstrating to the community how to think critically about moral issues using the logical methods we've practiced in this class. So, you will model thinking in systematic ways about moral issues, engage some arguments from your audience and help them evaluate these arguments.

Here's what to do:

Candidates and SC-members with similar interests

In our ongoing job-market discussion thread, Cleverly Disguised Mule writes:

I have a job market question/issue that I suspect others have encountered as well. How should one approach an application--in particular, the cover letter--for a school that has people working on issues *very, very close* to one's own research?

So suppose I'm applying to an ethics job at Cocoon University and I work on, e.g., naturalism in meta-ethics. But Professor X at Cocoon U who works on that same topic. My hunch is that this makes me less desirable to that department; but maybe not. Given that I'm applying either way, what should I do to make myself look more desirable? Do I emphasize my interest in future collaborations/discussions with Professor X? (How presumptuous of me to assume that Professor X wants to collaborate with anyone! Plus, doesn't this risk emphasizing my overlap with what their department already does?) Or do I try to illustrate the way my project is different from Prof X's? (This might involve going far into the weeds in a cover letter, which might turn off other committee members.) Or do I emphasize my other projects and interests? (This might make me look less serious about my naturalism project, which might look odd to some readers.)

I'm guessing the best approach lies somewhere in between these, but I'm not really sure how to navigate what seems to me to be a possible minefield. If anyone has any specific ideas, I'd be very grateful.

This is a great query, as my own experience (having served on several search committees) is that it is minefield. Allow me to explain why, and then share a few thoughts on perhaps the best way for job-candidates to proceed.

New paper on morality and polarization

Moral and political polarization is a popular (and important) issue these days, for obvious reasons: it is increasing dramatically, making it ever-more-difficult for people on different moral and political sides to get along and cooperate. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong has suggested that learning to argue better can help.

In this new paper, I argue the problem of polarization and solution to it may both be much deeper: polarization is probably caused by how philosophers and laypeople commonly think about morality itself--and changing how we think about morality may be an important step toward a better, less polarized future. Here's the paper's abstract:

This article argues that philosophers and laypeople commonly conceptualize moral truths or justified moral beliefs as discoverable through intuition, argument, or some other purely cognitive or affective process. It then contends that three empirically well-supported theories all predict that this ‘Discovery Model’ of morality plays a substantial role in causing social polarization. The same three theories are then used to argue that an alternative ‘Negotiation Model’ of morality—according to which moral truths are not discovered but instead created by actively negotiating compromises—promises to reduce polarization by fostering a progressive willingness to ‘work across the aisle’ to settle moral issues cooperatively. This article then examines potential methods for normatively evaluating polarization, arguing there are prima facie reasons to favor the Negotiation Model over the Discovery Model based on their hypothesized effects on polarization. Finally, I outline avenues for further empirical and philosophical research. 

Tips for an upper-division night course in Modern?

In the comments section of our "how can we help you?" thread, Anon writes:

I have a question about a specific course I am teaching this semester and would really like some feedback and advice. I have been assigned to teach Modern Philosophy, which is fine, but it got scheduled as a night class, which really throws me off. I REALLY prefer the MWF routine and this really takes me out of my comfort zone.

Second, I face a challenge in that a course like modern philosophy is a course I largely assume will be inhabited by philosophy majors, which it is to an extent, but because there are no prerequisites enforced, I have students who are taking a 300 level modern course as their first one. In some ways, I think this is unfair to me as the instructor and to the students.

So I guess I am asking two things:

1. How do you make a class like modern accessible that just due to the very nature of the content, will seem inaccessible to students have who never taken a class and then are being asked to dive into someone like Spinoza?

2. How do you make night classes work if you've never done one before and you feel like the students are dreading the time of the class?

I don't have experience running a course quite like this one--an upper-division course in the History of Philosophy--which I imagine has some unique challenges. However, I can offer a few quick suggestions based on my own experiences.

CFP - The Journal of Philosophy and Scripture

A reader (and friend) sent in the following CFP, which I think may of interest to philosophers of religion:

The Journal of Philosophy and Scripture is re-launching after an extended hiatus. Deadline for inclusion in the Summer 2019 issue is May 31, 2019. Submissions received after the deadline will be considered for future issues.

The journal has three primary aims:

1. 1. to encourage philosophical discussions of religion that attend to primary sacred texts from a wide variety of religious traditions
   2. to engage in a process of mutual reflection by means of which both philosophy and scripture may be more clearly illuminated
   3. to consider how philosophical and religious practices are informed and/or transformed by dialogue with each other

While we are especially interested in papers that engage directly with specific scriptural texts, we also welcome papers that deal more generally with the intersection of philosophy and religion.

Please see our website for submission guidelines and past issues.

http://www.journalofphilosophyandscripture.org

 

Making the most out of visiting-positions

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, 'VAP' writes:

I'm a new PhD and a VAP at a teaching-focused, undergraduate institution. I find teaching meaningful, but I also found myself over-worked and under-stimulated. My students are great! But they're undergraduates. How do other people deal with this experience, particularly long term? Of course, more teaching experience/more experience with a heavier teaching load will, I'm sure, help - but I'm not sure how significant that help will be.

This is a great query. I was in VAP at my current institution for 6 years before being hired tenure-track, and I faced roughly the situation described here. In fact, I still face something like this situation now that I'm tenured--as I'm still a member of a very small (four-person) department at a school where most of the philosophical discussion I engage in is with undergraduates.

So let me offer a few suggestions on the basis of my own experience. I don't pretend that my strategies will work for everyone. But I hope they at least get a good discussion started, and I am curious to hear how others have handled similar situations!

How to incentivize better author submissions?

In my past two entries in this series--as well as in other past discussions of peer-review--I have tended to focus on how editorial practices and reviewer behavior might be improved: to better ensure quicker and more reliable turnaround times, as well as better reviewer comments. However, it increasingly appears to me that this is to focus on only one part of the problem.

As David Velleman noted here--and others have noted as well (see below)--another central reason why peer-review has the problems is does is the behavior of authors. Journals are overrun with far too many submissions, many of which seem--to editors and reviewers--as though they should have never been submitted in the first place. This bogs down the entire system, making reviewers not only more difficult to find but also increasing their workload (as they have more papers to review). This in turn may be one significant cause of 'poor reviewer behavior', both in terms of long turnaround times and the quality of their reports. Indeed, there seems to be significant anecdotal evidence for this.

First, respondents to our poll on peer-review generally agreed with the idea that too many half-baked papers are sent out for review:

Skipping multiple classes/meetings for flyouts?

In the comments section of our newest "how can we help you?" thread, Anon raises an interesting question:

[W]hat if a TT faculty member has multiple interviews and cannot make very important meetings/events on campus one is expected to attend, and must cancel multiple classes for fly outs? I know there has been some discussion about how to handle missing a class here and there, etc., but what if using those strategies will *still* make the person look like the worst colleague ever, given how many times they will have to be used?

I honestly don't know what the answer is. Suppose one gets quite a few fly-outs, and it would require you to miss a fairly sizable number of classes and otherwise mandatory meetings? I was fortunate to never face this issue (despite having a fair number of on-campus visits), as I only had a two-day-per-week teaching schedule and pretty low administrative requirements while I was on the market as a VAP.

Volunteering as a philosopher?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, Asst Prof writes:

I would enjoy a post on "volunteering as a philosopher."

I am passionate about reducing climate change (for example), but I am not sure how to jump in and use my skills as a philosopher to advance this cause.

I could of course just volunteer "as a regular person", but I am curious if any philosophers have been able to link up with charitable or activist groups and use their skills as a philosopher specifically--kind of like a doctor or lawyer doing pro bono work.

If so, any stories or advice would be a helpful inspiration to me and maybe others!

This is a great query. In fact, it's one that I would afford to hear some good stories or advice about myself. My own experience 'volunteering as a philosopher' is pretty limited.

Tips for good teaching demos?

In our new "how can we help you?" thread, First time ABD writes:

I have had a few skype interviews now that have warned that if I were to get a fly out interview, I will have to do a teaching demonstration. So the more general question I have is, for those who have done a teaching demonstration, do you have any pragmatic tricks or tips to share, or experiences that you've learned from. For those on search committees, what exactly are you looking for in a teaching demonstration?

The more particular question I have is: I work hard, especially at the start of the year, in classes to structure my classes such that they will function optimally (for instance I make students sign up to email me reading responses the day before class which helps structure my lectures but also makes sure that I have 12/60 students ready to ask questions during the lecture). I feel like in a teaching demonstration, I'm being (unfairly?) parachuted down into a class where my structure is not there. Should I, as a part of my teaching demonstration, try to get the class structured, even just a little bit, to the specifications that I want? (I hope that second question made sense, it's a little vague)

This is a great query. I am curious to hear how people who have served on search-committees (or otherwise witnessed a teaching demo) respond. But here are a few quick thoughts of my own...

How can we help you? (January 2019 edition)

Now that it's a new year (happy new year everyone!), I thought now might be a good time for another 'how can we help you?' thread.

For those of you unfamiliar with this series, this is a chance for you to post openly or anonymously in the comments section below on anything you could use help with related to the profession. After you post your query in the comments section, I will then post new threads for readers to discuss your query.

Please feel free to ask questions on anything (within the Cocoon's mission) that you could use help with, including but not limited to:

• The job-market (applying for jobs, etc.)
• Graduate school
• Publishing
• Teaching
• Issues in the profession
• Work-life balance
• Personal struggles
• Etc.

Fire away - we're here to help!

How to incentivize better peer-review reports?

A while back, I ran and reported the results of an informal survey on what readers think works well and not so well in peer-review. Although the results should be taken with a grain of salt, a number of trends emerged. One was that a vast majority (93.67%) of respondents agreed that 'journal turnaround times are too long and inconsistent.' In a follow-up post, I presented a possible proposal for how to address that issue: a central editorial system (perhaps at Philpapers) for journal editors to use that would give each reviewer a reviewer score, based at least in part on how quickly the reviewer responds to review requests and gets their reviews in. Whenever an editor gets a new paper, the system would then present the editor with the best reviewer matches--the final wrinkle being that the system would be designed to match papers with reviewers whose overall reviewer score is similar to the author's reviewer score. In other words, the system would match authors who are slow reviewers with other slow-reviewers, and authors who are fast reviewers with other fast reviewers.

Although this is obviously a fanciful system, at least at the present time (given that there is no such central system), it seems to me one that might be technologically feasible and work to everyone's advantage: authors, reviewers, and editors (particularly editors, as such a system would vastly simplify their task in finding reviewers!). By matching authors with 'reviewers like them', the system would plausibly incentivize many people to be better, faster reviewers--as there would be some incentive to be a better reviewer (namely, the incentive of getting matched with better reviewers as an author!). I also wonder whether this system might address a second set of issues that respondents in our poll cared about: quality of referee reports. As you can see below, many respondents in our poll thought that too many reviewer reports are incompetently, biased or needlessly aggressive: