Teaching Strategies

**Update: comments now open (sorry!)

I'd like to continue my series (see here and here) in response to Matt DeStefano's plea for more autobiography by discussing teaching. As usual, I only offer up my strategies as things that seem to have worked well for me. I don't pretend to know whether they will work for everyone, but still, they seem to me to be worth sharing. So, here goes:

1. Try to get students to do philosophy in the classroom as much as possible.

In my experience, this one is key to both student learning and satisfaction. Lecturing puts students to sleep. At most, they just sit there and your lecture goes in one ear and out the other. If you have to spend the entire class lecturing (e.g. you have an enormous class with hundreds of students), try to make the lecture as interactive as possible. I'll never forget how one of my professors in grad school, Houston Smit, used to ask the class questions during his lecture and walk up and down the aisles listening to student responses and asking for students to respond to others' answers. The class was huge, but it worked wonders. Students were engaged. Even if they didn't answer, they could see when others had ideas similar to their own, and see how well those ideas withstood philosophical scrutiny.

2. Don't "give them the answers"; press the case for every position as hard as you can, and help them come up with "the answers" themselves

I never assign "textbooks" in my classes -- only original sources -- because textbooks essentially tell students how other philosophers have thought about the views/theories covered in the course. It's my belief that exposing students to secondary commentary is counterproductive in a thousand different ways.  In brief, it prevents students from thinking critically for themselves. It's one thing to be told that utilitarianism seems to have a problem with justice; it's a much better thing to figure it out for oneself. It's one thing to be told that ethical relativism is absurd; it's another thing to see if the arguments are actually compelling (I, for one, think they're not!). Textbooks "shut students down", giving them the impression that philosophy is information to be absorbed (e.g. "here are the arguments, here are the objections") rather than a process of thinking philosophically for oneself. Almost nothing, I think, undermines the excitement (and point!) of doing philosophy more than presenting it to students in this way. Instead, I try to make the strongest case for every view we consider, and I merely challenge students to come up with and evaluate their own objections (almost always, standard objections are hit upon in the process!).

3. In smaller classes, group activities work wonders.

When I first arrived at the University of Tampa, I had a rough awakening. Instead of meeting for the usual three hours a week (which is standard everywhere else I've been), our classes meet for four hours a week. Since I teach exclusively on Tuesdays and Thursdays, this means that all three of my classes (I have a 3/3 load) meet twice a week for two hours apiece. You can only imagine how soul-crushing it is for everyone aboard in this setting -- where, more often than not, many students are non-majors and so rather disinterested -- to sit through two two-hour lectures a week, even if discussion occurs often. In order to make things more lively, I now have a semester-long group competition for bonus credit. I break students into groups of 2-4 and spend about 1/3 of every class period having groups answer 2-3 pre-planned questions on the reading and/or material I just lectured on. The students are required to write out their group's answers, which we then discuss as a class. When I first started this practice, I was afraid students would think I'm being lazy, having them do work rather than lecture for them. But I was wrong. My student evaluations have been markedly better ever since I instituted the practice, and it leads to great class conversations.

4. Daily reading-response assignments work wonders

If you can do it (i.e. if you have small classes), asking students to (A) summarize an idea/argument from their reading and then (B) motivate a philosophical question or worry about it, also works wonders. In my experience, one of the most common experiences philosophy instructors have is their students coming to class completely unprepared, clearly not having completed or thought about the daily reading. In addition to the daily group assignments I have, I find that the daily reading responses I require effectively resolve this problem. Students find very quickly that if they don't read the assignment and think about it a bit, they'll get a failing grade on these assignments. This in turn gives them incentive to actually complete the reading. As in (2), when I started this practice, I was afraid that students would react negatively, and complain about having too much work. Much to my surprise, students regularly make explicitly appreciative comments in my evaluations on how their reading responses helped them to understand the material.

5. Prepare lectures as the semester goes on, not before the semester -- and don't just repeat the same lectures from semester from semester.

I've heard, at least anecdotally, that some people try to get their lectures completed before the semester even starts, and, if they've taught the course before, just use lectures that they've prepped in the past. Neither of these practices have worked well for me. I find that my mind isn't fresh with the material, and the lectures come off as "canned." Instead, I always prepare my lectures the day before I give them, and I always revise them substantially from semester to semester. This admittedly takes a lot of work -- yet I find it not only makes for better lectures (in that I'm continually pressing myself to understand the material better); I also find, surprisingly enough, that it seems to make me a better researcher. Why? Well, and this is probably one of the most surprising things I've learned about myself, I tend to come up with research ideas (ideas I've gone on to publish!) through prepping lectures.  I came up with the idea for this paper by prepping for my course on human rights, the idea for this paper by trying to come up with an intuitive way to understand Kant's moral/practical philosophy for my intro to ethics course, and the idea for this paper on free will when prepping for my intro class. Prepping, even for undergraduate courses, can make you rethink your own preconceptions about material and even return you to doing research in areas that you might not ordinarily do research in (I literally had no interest at all in the problem of free will prior to teaching it in my intro classes).

6. Don't treat students like disengaged little children. Challenge them to work harder; they will appreciate it...as long as you give them ample opportunity to succeed.

 The "disengagement compact" that many instructors and college students evidently tacitly strike -- i.e. low standards for good evaluations -- seriously ticks me off. So does the common assertion (which I've heard come out of many mouths) that "students are lazy." I've found, to the contrary, that if I show faith in students, challenging them with high standards but ample opportunities to succeed (I permit unlimited paper rewrites), that a vast majority of students will "raise their game" in response to high standards, provided I give them clear directions and opportunities to improve. I believe my task as a teacher is not to "punish the stupid" with bad grades, but to try to bring out the best in all my students (both the bright and not-so-bright). I tell you this: you'd be pretty surprised how much a "not so bright" student can improve if you give them unlimited paper rewrites. They want to be better, if you give them a chance. Yes, it's a lot of work (grading paper rewrites sucks, to be sure), but it works. If you care about your students -- if you want them to enter the real world as capable adults -- then the extra work is worth it. Plus, students will give you awesome evaluations. Nothing, in my experience, makes a student happier than putting in hard work, seeing their own marked improvement, and getting a grade that reflects that hard work and improvement.

6. Bring your research into the classroom.

Seriously, it excites students. It helps them, once again, to see philosophy as something exciting to do, not merely study like a dead artifact.

Okay, guess that's all I have for now. Anyone else have strategies to share?

Comments

[Rob Gressis]

Hi Marcus,

Some questions:

First, you write that you require daily reading response-assignments. Can you give an example of such an assignment? Even better: can you give an example of a reading that you would assign that the reading response-assignment would be about?

Second, do you find that the daily reading response-assignments gets your students to read the material? I assume so; but do they *understand* it? Obviously, that question doesn't necessarily have a simple yes or no answer; but how much of it do they understand to your satisfaction? And how do you assess how much they understand it?

Third, you mentioned that you have students answer questions about your lectures. How do you do your lectures? Do you use PowerPoint? Any projection at all? Just a chalkboard or a whiteboard? Not even that? Do you have a sheet that students can consult that outlines the main points of your lecture as you're giving it? And regardless, do you post your lectures, or notes about your lectures, online?

That's a lot of questions! Sorry about that.

[David Morrow]

Thanks for sharing, Marcus. I have to disagree with #5 -- especially for junior faculty. There's always room for tweaks and improvement, of course, but I think that when you're on the tenure clock or racing to get things out before the next year's job market, having a "canned" course -- one for which the lectures were prepared in advance or are being reused from previous semesters -- is invaluable. In my own experience, I find that I can be much more productive, research-wise, when the courses are more or less fully prepared before the semester starts.

[Marcus Arvan]

Rob: basically, the students have the same assignment for everything they read. They are asked to (A) *briefly* summarize a philosophically important idea of their choosing from the reading, and then (B) *briefly* motivate a question or worry about it. I tell my students that I evaluate these assignments on several grounds: (1) is the idea they summarized actually important (rather than trivial?), (2) did they summarize it clearly and accurately, (3) is their question or worry about it clear, and (4) did they (briefly) provide any plausible motivation for it. I have them do all of this in *no* more than a half-page double-spaced (I emphasize being concise -- no wasted words).

Anyway, yes, I find that, *over time*, these assignments really get them to think about and better understand what they've read for the day. It's shocking to me how, at the beginning of my courses, they have no idea how to read this stuff, summarize it accurately at all, or motivate an objection (to a skeptical audience). The daily assignments get them to practice all of these things *daily* -- and so it's hard for them not to get better (especially since I'm pretty brutal on my grades -- and I give clear comments about what they did well, badly, etc.).

As to my lectures, yes, I use powerpoint. Sometimes I begin the class with a slide asking a question or two about the reading (e.g. "How did Philosopher argue for X?"), and then (perhaps) a question asking them to evaluate that argument. It's rare for groups to get all of the questions right, but it's a nice little competition, as we discuss the answers before I lecture. On days I do this, I often end my lecture with a slide asking questions about things I just lectured on (Example: "I just laid out Kant's argument X. (1) Motivate the best objection you can to X. (2) Explain how Kant might respond to your objection." Then we'll discuss their objections. Other times, instead of having them do a set of questions at the beginning of class and another set at the end, I'll sprinkle them out in the lecture.)

Finally, yes, I do post my lectures online. I've gone back and forth on the issue, but I've found there's no harm in my posting them. After all, my students can't just fall back on them, given the kind of work I expect from them.

David: That is a legitimate concern. It is nice to have a "canned" course or two. I didn't mean to advise entirely revamping lectures every semester, but rather, what you allude to: tweaking things here and there. How much time one can reasonably devote to teaching depends a great deal on one's situation (research job, etc.)

[Rob Gressis]

Hi Marcus,

Telling the students what they did wrong on each daily reading response sounds incredibly labor-intensive. About how much do you write explaining what they did wrong? Or do you do this orally?

Also, about how long are the reading assignments you give? 5 pages? 20 pages? Like, do you assign the Groundwork? To intro students? (I find that my 400-level students have massive trouble with the Groundwork; I don't assign primary texts to my intro students.)

[Rob Gressis]

Oh, and I forgot to say: thanks!

[Rob Gressis]

Perhaps it would help if I told you where all these questions are coming from.

I teach at a large, state university, and a lot of my students, especially in introductory classes, do not have a lot of academic preparation, at least: not the kind that makes philosophy intelligible to them.

I find two things to be true of many of my students: (1) they will, if possible, not read the material I assign them; and (2) if they do read the material I assign them, they often have extremely defective interpretations, or even no interpretation, of what they read. (I.e., sometimes they'll tell me that a particular article, or a particular paragraph, is about something it's not about at all--say, they'll focus on one word they remember and think the paragraph is about that word; or, they will read it, but simply be unable (or unwilling) to tell me anything about what they've read.)

To some degree, this makes sense: philosophy is unlike anything they read in their day-to-day lives, or even unlike anything they read in the rest of their college classes or in their previous high school classes. Consequently, they don't know how they're supposed to read it.

But to another degree, it can be frustrating. I will sometimes, in class, put a single sentence or paragraph on the board, and ask them to think for a while and write down, to themselves, what they think that sentence or paragraph means. And often, what they think it means is very far off from what I think it means (and I think my take is usually much closer than their take).

Consequently, I find it difficult to assign primary readings with any expectation that those readings will be read or, if read, understood. Perhaps I just don't have enough faith in them, or perhaps I'm expecting too much of them. Both those things are probably true, for my colleagues often assign texts to intro students that I think are fiendishly hard (Aristotle, Kant, Spinoza) and don't report any problems.

Incidentally, I've used lots of strategies: daily reading quizzes (they don't work unless I tell them some possible questions I may ask ahead of time; and when I do that, the students just read the sections necessary to answer those questions, or they just look at the answers--prior to taking the quiz--of the students who have discovered the answers); me lecturing on the material in great detail before I have them read it (in that case, they simply look at their notes on what I said, or they look at the notes I post online, and read that instead of the article); small group discussions about the material (often, the students think they've got the right answer to the questions in about 30 seconds, and spend the rest of the ten minute period talking about other classes, movies, etc.); and so forth.

It's all rather frustrating. I try to get my students to learn this stuff, and I really do care, but it seems pretty hopeless at times.

[Marcus Arvan]

Hi Rob: I don't have much time to respond today, as I'm fiendishly busy. But here are a few brief remarks.

--First, I have to admit that a lot of my strategies might not be feasible for your situation. I myself have found that teaching small classes vs. big classes requires very different strategies. That being said...

--How long my reading assignments are depends on the material. If it's something like the Groundwork, I'll assign maybe 5-8 pages at a time. If it's something like On Liberty, I'll assign an entire chapter at once. It really depends.

--Grading the daily assignments *is* time-intensive, but I find it's worth it. I just give brief remarks like, "No, Mill defends the *opposite* of the position you summarize", or "You need to give some (brief) argument to better motivate your question -- such as...[I briefly suggest an argument]." In other words, my comments are pretty brief, but give the student a good idea what they did wrong and need to do better next time.

--Sometimes the students interpret the text completely incorrectly in their daily assignments...but they tend to get much better at it as the semester goes along. At the beginning of the semester, my students are mostly as you describe (completely unprepared for philosophy). But having them do daily short assignments at home and then answer difficult questions in class with groups in *combination* work wonders. Both sets of assignments require them to start reading closely, testing their interpretations of texts not only against mine but their fellow students' interpretations as well.

--I tried reading quizzes in the past, but they were a total disaster, for basically the reasons you give. They just don't understand a lot of what they've read. In contrast, having them just try to summarize *one* important idea correctly (and then motivate a worry about it) -- which is what I require -- has the following benefit: even if they don't understand 99% of what they've read, they have some incentive to try really hard to understand *1%*...and over time their ability to understand that 1% translates into a much better ability to read and understand the other 99% (I can't begin to tell you how the overall ability to read and comprehend philosophical texts improves in my students over the course of a term. Really getting them to see what a *close* and careful reading of a single idea requires eventually gets them to read that way in general! Though it *does* take a lot of time. It can be 3/4 through the semester before things start to "click" for a lot of students -- but still, seeing the switch flip for most of them is, I think, an achievement).

--I too found that *untargeted* group discussions are unhelpful (and end in 30 seconds or so). Instead, my questions (e.g. "How does Mill argue for X on page ZZZ?") require them to pull out their text, talk about it for a while, and then write out an answer -- all of which takes a significant amount of time (sometimes upwards of 20 minutes). Initially, I worried that students would hate spending so much time working in the classroom, but they actually enjoy it. I realize this is only possible in smaller classes.

Anyway, I wish I could write more to you about this now, but I gotta run. Got lots of grading to do! ;)

[Lee Braver]

I use a similar assignment, though I assign fewer of them (around 5-6 per semester) and make them longer. The description is here:
http://www.apaonline.org/documents/publications/v04n2_Teaching.pdf