I thought you might benefit from reading a little about my position on education. This short summary should give a view of some of my expectations, intentions, goals, and habits as related to teaching in a college environment. After reading this you might have a better idea about what I am looking for in your work.

On the syllabus (which I expect you to read and know well), under the heading "responsibilities," I mention that my interpretation of the subject area is just one of many. In other words, I am not the bearer of truth and you should keep this in mind. However, as a college teacher, I am an authority -- one you are exposed to in my class -- so my interpretations do count for something (and we should get to some agreement about what that "something" is; quick, before the first test).

I exercise my authority mainly in the selection and scheduling of topics and in the choice of assessment techniques (homework and tests). A glance at the syllabus shows that we will be covering some of the topics that apply to the course, but not all of the possible topics. That's because I prefer to examine fewer topics in greater detail than to survey all topics in less detail. I assume you get more out of the course this way. What it means is that I have attempted to construct a coherent, systematic course, limited in breadth, with an emphasis on the central issues relating to the territory. Of course my personal interests may account for some of my topic choices, especially in upper-level courses.

(None of this means that I hold myself to be more enlightened than textbook authors. Textbook authors, who often must include a chapter on every topic within a field, have one set of limitations to address, and classroom teachers have another. By the way, I view textbooks as an aid to the ultimate goal of learning how to think and write about the topic at hand. I assume that you can read the texts -- not that you'll always enjoy reading them, but that you can read them -- and that learning to think and write about a topic requires much more than memorizing sections of textbooks.)

In class you'll notice that I don't simply present information for you to accept as fact and memorize. How boring. I hope none of your teachers take this approach to education. Instead, I try to maintain some balance between exposing you to information or ideas that exist in the field (which you have to learn) and getting you to think logically about the material and how it applies to your life. In introductory classes the former (exposure) will probably outweigh the latter (thinking), but in upper-level classes the reverse is true. I try to accomplish these teaching goals through lecture and demonstrations, open-ended discussion in the classroom, and student-centered techniques. I also try to design tests and homework assignments that reflect these same goals.

If I were to write my intentions for a class in just a few words, "getting you to think and write logically about the material" might be the few. It sounds easy, but it isn't always... and I don't just mean the writing part. Learning how to think about course material means a lot more than just remembering things you've read or heard in class. It means being able to think for yourself, to make judgments, to see how ideas can be applied to real life events, and to be able to talk to others like yourself about the material you've been learning, without being too far off the wall of what the community thinks is right and possible.

In my mind, someone who has learned psychology (or whatever the topic) is someone who can think logically about psychology (which doesn't mean always being "right"), and can use psychology to think logically about life. To think probably requires a certain mastery of the language used in the field, comprehension of the material, and a degree of freedom to be skeptical of convention and to entertain possibilities. To think logically also requires a feel for systematic progression and the possible and impossible interconnections between ideas or facts. To think logically about life requires that you integrate what you are learning in class with what you previously thought or knew about the world, with what you've learned in other classes, and with what you've learned in your own personal experiences. Therefore it is my aim to guide you and to help you guide both yourself and your fellow students in these directions: learning the language of the topic; comprehending the theories and knowledge that constitute the material; becoming skeptical of conventional knowledge; feeling comfortable and free enough to play with your thoughts (and the thoughts of others) so that you can help create valuable knowledge rather than just reciting it; developing respect for a methodical progression of connections; and changing the way you look at the world around you.

Since the logic of a field is found as much in its methods as in its theories, I place emphasis on research methodologies in almost all classes. One of my favorite quotes comes from the sociologist C. W. Mills (1959), and I think it sheds light on my concerns here:

"Method" has to do, first of all, with how to ask and answer questions with some assurance that the answers are more or less durable. "Theory" has to do, above all, with paying close attention to the words one is using, especially their degree of generality and their logical relations. The primary purpose of both is clarity of conception and economy of procedure....

To have mastered "method" and "theory" is to have become a self-conscious thinker.... Without insight into the way the craft is carried on, the results of study are infirm; without a determination that study shall come to significant results, all method is meaningless and pretense (pp. 120-121).

The part about writing (yes, I didn't forget that) is necessary because if you can't express those thoughts of yours in writing, they are not going to be as valuable (socially) as they could be. From E-mail to memos to complaint letters to full-length reports, in our jobs, in school, and as citizens we are repeatedly asked to exhibit our thoughts in writing, and those who do it well have advantages over others. I want you to practice so that you can eventually do it well (and in any case better than when you started a class).

In the Classroom

When lecturing (uh, seldom a boring moment!), my topics are those that I think are important and either have not been covered by the readings sufficiently, or have not been covered by the readings at all. I seldom lecture on topics that strike me as unimportant, uninteresting, or really clear from the readings. I promise I won't just bore you with lectures ­ I try to be an entertaining lecturer, sympathetic to students, never arrogant, and sufficiently funny. I occasionally use aids like overheads, films, and demonstration equipment, but the goal of a lecture - whatever is used - is to help you comprehend some material; I might spend a lot of time "translating" thoughts and information and so on into terms that you -- or the student sitting next to you -- can best deal with.

Getting useful discussions going requires having students who feel free to discuss. Take note of the small section titled "respect" on the syllabus. I think of the college classroom as a place that is not entirely a part of the "real world." I try to create a safe atmosphere in the classroom where you can feel free to entertain possibilities -- especially possibilities that are new to you and not a part of our daily lives outside the classroom. One of my methods of accomplishing this is through humor. I joke a lot in the classroom, but one goal of my joking is to reduce anxieties and to help establish a wider range of possibilities for thought; after all, the freedom to play with our thoughts depends upon the direct and indirect constraints that have become a part of our real world lives. Another goal of my joking is, well, just to have fun. I like being in a classroom and I hope you will, too.

I ask a variety of questions in class. Some are rhetorical, most are attempts to stimulate thought and discussion, but few have specific answers. (I don't quiz you on the spot; in fact, I don't put you on the spot at all. You won't have to fear feeling embarrassed in class, except perhaps in good fun... but it's usually myself I make fun of most.) Your responses to my in-class questions are not scrutinized for reference in grading. I expect mistakes and stupidities -- these are inevitable when people feel free to think. But I do expect you to try giving answers, and to try incorporating new ideas and knowledge when giving answers. Use me as an educated discussion partner -- you are, after all, paying part of (albeit a small part of) my salary.

I also try to get you to teach yourselves -- to work with your fellow students in collaboration for the purpose of discovering knowledge, reasons, ideas, for the purpose of seeing what others think, how they reason, what strengths and weaknesses they have, and for the purpose of getting yourself understood by your equals. I want you to feel like a part of college life, and working with fellow students is a big part of college life.

Finally, though, there's the problem of grading. The graded assignments (and tests) demand that you write, write, and write. This is, after all, college, and the social sciences are language-driven fields. I also think it's consistent with my own intentions if the information and theories you are exposed to in class can be stated and expressed in a broader context, and only essays provide these broader contexts. When it comes to specific questions on tests, I seldom reward simple definitions -- high grades are received by those who understand concepts and facts well enough to use them in more complex thought. (Also, I go light on the sugar. If a test or paper is weak, I don't look hard for things to say that might boost your self-esteem. In other words, I don't think grades reflect on your personality, I think they reflect on your work on a particular assignment. Besides, I consider you fellow adults who can readily see through the use of empty, habitual compliments.) Homework assignments are, as the syllabus mentions, graded for English (organization, grammar, syntax, style, vocabulary) as well as intellectual content (complexity, originality, proper use of facts and theories). It is my opinion that clear logical thinking requires a degree of proficiency in language. If you're having trouble in class due to writing problems, please recognize it (I will), admit it to yourself, and get help -- from me or others. If your use of English on written assignments is so problematic that I can't help, I should be able to point you in the right direction to someone who can.

In conclusion, I like having fun in the classroom while remaining serious about subject matters. I like being an entertaining lecturer with an extemporaneous sense of humor. I like a good argument (about topics), I like creative thinking, I like logical progression in ideas, I like students who read, who try thinking, who try learning, who discuss and argue about topics in class, who work on their writing (I've probably rewritten this handout a dozen times), and who can take a joke. And, above all, I like my kid, who reminds me about what's really important in life: chocolate, cartoons, bugs, toys, and plenty of sleep. (Well, that and education.)

References

Mills, C. W. (1959). The sociological imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.

mofsowit @faculty.ed.umuc.edu
October 1997, 1998, 1999...