Any teaching development program at a college or university, like Lewis & Clark’s Teaching Excellence Program, aims to generate strong faculty participation. But faculty are busy people, especially mid-semester. Too often, when papers, tests, advising appointments, and administrative projects of all sorts start building up, our availability for “extras” like our own research or teaching development dwindles severely. Still and nevertheless, there are many faculty who regularly say yes to opportunities to grow in the art and craft of teaching in the company of others by attending TEP events – just as there are many who do not. In other words, when that email announcing an enticing new possibility for working on our teaching comes across our screens, some of us think, “Well, hello hot stuff!” and swipe right, and some of us mutter, “Ain’t gonna happen” and swipe left. (And let’s face it, some of us really want to swipe right but simply can’t, due to conflicting class or meeting times, or the urgent need to prepare for a class that begins 5 minutes after the event ends.)
Why is it that some of us find the prospect of talking about teaching with others so appealing, while others of us flatly resist it? I am convinced it has nothing to do with teaching ability or accomplishment. There are teachers of excellent reputation who attend every pedagogy lunch and workshop, and others, just as respected, who have never attended. To be sure, one can be a perfectly good teacher without participating in pedagogy workshops. And yet, for those of us who attend regularly and have experienced how invigorating, how helpful, and how comforting it can be to talk about teaching with other teachers, we wonder, why doesn’t everyone want to do this?
As I’ve pondered this question, I’ve developed a theory about how one’s vision of teaching might influence one’s views on pedagogical development. It seems to me that there are two basic ways in which one can view the role of teacher, especially the college-level teacher, who represents the highest levels of disciplinary knowledge and accomplishment.
On the one hand, one could consider that the teacher is responsible for passing the methods and content of a discipline on to students. From this perspective, the teacher is an “imparter” of knowledge s/he has spent years mastering at the highest levels possible (thus the term, “terminal degree”). “Imparter” teachers see their primary responsibility as being to the content and discipline they represent. They strive above all to ensure that their students understand the content and become as skilled as possible at putting it to use. Over the years, they develop and perfect their own unique approaches to imparting this material that, they believe, do not apply widely to other teachers in different disciplines.
On the other hand, one could consider that the teacher’s most essential role is to establish a certain kind of relationship with students. Once built, this relationship will provide an environment in which content learning can happen most effectively. “Relater” teachers consider their primary responsibility as being to the health and well being of the learning relationship. They strive above all to create an environment in which their students can do their best learning.
Of course, as with most dichotomies, few of us are pure imparter, or pure relater. Most of us fall somewhere in a blended middle, a little more this, or a little more that. “Relater” teachers feel responsible for imparting content, and “imparter” teachers know that having a positive relationship with their students is crucial to learning. Still, this dichotomy can be useful for understanding oneself as a teacher, and one’s vision of teaching development.
For I suspect that, when it comes to participating in pedagogical development opportunities, relaters might occupy more seats than imparters. The possible reasons for this are multiple, and complex. On the most basic level, relaters place a premium on relating, so the prospect of getting together with others to talk about teaching might appeal more to them than to imparters. Moreover, by nature, campus-wide events focused on pedagogical development need to apply across disciplines. As a result, they do not usually relate to the specific content towards which imparters naturally gravitate in their teaching. Instead, they cover topics deemed to be useful for teachers in all disciplines – topics like inclusive pedagogy, universal design, transparent assignments, etc. Perhaps, imparters perceive that teaching development will not be of much use to them, because for them, teaching is about sharing specific content. So they stay away, leaving the relaters to talk about teaching without them, thus making it more likely that teaching development programs at the college level come to emphasize relationships over content, simply because relaters are the main participants, and in this way drive the agenda. Yet in truth, pedagogical development opportunities offer much that is relevant for all of us, relaters and imparters alike, precisely because the real work of teaching asks us to work across the spectrum of imparting and relating. We would all benefit from having more teaching styles represented in the room when we talk teaching.
In conclusion, from this “mainly relater” to you “mainly imparters” out there: please join us! If you find yourself thinking that TEP doesn’t relate to the kind of teaching you do, think again, and give it a chance. Talking about teaching with others not only introduces us to new techniques and perspectives that re-invigorate our teaching, it reminds us how amazingly cool it is, this job we get to do. That’s something all of us need, especially veteran teachers.
No comments:
Post a Comment