I’m curious about the demand for certain grade distributions. In my department, this is definitely not true. If it were, I’d explicitly object! Quantifying student performance and self-assessing with a standardized grading system can be perfectly fine in many cases. But calibrating students’ grades on the basis others is completely unfair. I think grading on a curve and having to meet certain grading quotas is always wrong.
Author: Emma
Comment on Weekly pessimism – Anti-Teaching by Emma
I’ve found myself frustrated with some of the readings for many of the same reasons. Even at the college level, not every student is there because they want to be. And for those who aren’t, even if they are “constantly learning,” it’s going to be a miserable experience.
It would definitely be interesting to encounter material in this course that directly confronts totally miserable students. Because that’s a reality instructors face every day. A lot of this advice will work for your average college student, even somewhat surprisingly and counter-intuitively. That is great. But for other students, it might come across as glib, insubstantial or a bit hack-y.
Also, quite a lot of students are dealing with serious psychological and psychosocial problems. This is an epidemic on college campuses: depression, anxiety, substance abuse problems, eating disorders, girlfriend/boyfriend abuse…. anyone who’s taught, even just one class, has had a student in this situation. In all likelihood we didn’t know about it, and it affected their schoolwork. On the note of teaching to unreceptive and miserable students, I’d be interested in learning tactics that worked with this without having to explicitly address it. Maybe it’s too taboo to start teaching with the assumption that some kids are psychologically impaired, but it would actually be much more representative of the reality we deal with as college instructors. It’s going to be complicated to develop pedagogical tools with this in mind but the benefits could be enormous.
Comment on To have dessert or to not have dessert by Emma
That was a great post — and hey, what’s wrong with being philosophical? Some of us are *studying philosophy*… ?
So to your philosophical post, a philosophical reply: one’s ability to delay gratification could be thought of as a measure of mindfulness. Impulsiveness, the constant pursuit of stimulation, and self-indulgent behavior all rise when we’re not fully aware of the way we’re feeling, thinking, and comprehending the world. On the other hand, I think PhD students are generally already aware of serious self-discipline. Constantly denying one’s immediate desire is not mindfulness, it’s a rigid program, and can become as habitual as frequent impulsivity. I think the most mindful way to live is to acknowledge your impulses fully as they arise, don’t necessarily delay gratification, but trust your mind enough to know when to eat the dessert now and when to hold out for two.
Honestly, if I’m going to eat a dessert, I would probably just do it in the moment. Two isn’t always better than one. Immediacy seems like it would be part of the fun of this, and knowing that you only have that one dessert, for that one ephemeral moment, might make it all the sweeter.
Comment on Had I been a railway minister… by Emma
I don’t think the author meant that inspiring students is bad insofar as it always implies entertainment. Their critique of entertainment is more nuanced than that. More close to the author’s intention, I think, is the fact that “inspiration” is often terminologically misappropriated to mean a quick, feel-good approach to learning. This is the ethos of many techno-utopian TED talks, and I think that over time, the insubstantiality of this will come to be clear.
Comment on Draw a Pair of Wings for Your Publication by Emma
“Who says only artists can have their portfolio, we scientists and engineers can have amazing taste of art too! ”
There are more students than scientists and engineers here in GEDI class ? — some of us in the philosophically oriented disciplines may even do work that challenges the presumption that scholarship can be transformed into infographics. Images are more readily accessible to online audiences with limited attention spans, but it doesn’t always work. Image creation, like gamification, can be a way to avoid the most painful — but rewarding — part of learning.
Comment on Dubious on Digital Learners by Emma
I think a problem with gamification is that it adds an incentive to the learning above and beyond the knowledge itself. Jane McGonigal is popular for a reason; her philosophy represents an accessible, feel-good solution for a generation that is very heavily addicted to gaming. Learning is boring and painful sometimes, and so much “active learning” and gamified learning seems like a thinly-veiled attempt to gloss over the parts of learning that require that very thing culture has trained us out of: deep, deep focus, attention, and relative lack of stimulation. The fact that “progressive” pedagogy has been *so* willing to jump on board with a lot of these ideas may also represent a greater crisis in education that demands that this field innovate as quickly as for-profit sectors. Thinking critically about this should be a central concern for educators who are genuinely interested in conveying educational material, though it may be unpopular (and receive less funding and resources from rapidly-corporatizing universities right now).
Comment on No Information is an Island by Emma
Being clear on the difference between different types of writing, even online writing, is so important! English and communication classes need to emphasize this to a greater extent. Blogging is very different from using most Web 2.0 social media platform. If you are an English instructor, you wouldn’t be well-advised to encourage students to tweet before they fully grasp that colloquial language, emoji, etc, are variations on a standard that needs to be upheld in other contexts.
I explicitly ban the use of technology in my classroom for the reasons you listed — the major reason being distraction. I make it clear that if students have differences in ability that required them to use an electronic device, they can, but aside from that: no. I wonder if other GTAs here do the same thing?
Comment on Vulnerability & Credibility by Emma
I completely understand your point of view. Being forced to “express yourself” online can fundamentally change the nature of what you write. I don’t think your perspective is shallow at all, and that you should complicate and explore your feelings further.
Comment on Reflections on Publicness, Learning, and Teaching by Emma
I’m really with you on this. It’s good to know that I’m not alone. When you publicize writing, you tacitly endorse the content you create. That’s more okay for some disciplines than others: talking about a mathematical formula may not reveal much about the writer’s ethical orientation, but obviously a blog about the Arab/Israeli conflict might. Having unimpeded space to work on one’s thoughts is certainly essential to deep humanities scholarship.
A related tricky issue is that blog posts, even if they’re assigned with the option of anonymity, can usually be traced back to the writer. Not all scholars — at any age, in any stage of research — necessarily want to be publicly associated with the writing they must do in response to a homework prompt. If you’re writing about a controversial topic or a subject that you want to specialize in for your career, this could be very problematic indeed. Just some food for thought.
Comment on Networked Learning: Moving Forward, Going Backwards by Emma
You bring up a great point about access to technology (as did Dr. Nelson). Relying on tools like Twitter and Facebook can hold back students barred from using these, either through their geographic location — Facebook is banned in China — through ability differences that make social media harder to use (like print disabilities). I don’t think we can meaningfully talk about networked learning, with its ethos of openness/connectivity, without discussing access issues. And, in fact, a conversation about access can turn into one that highlights the inner workings of the web, the unique possibilities engendered by this tool, and what we can do to facilitate scholarship online across the globe.
