Final Thoughts on Teaching with Your Mouth Shut

Have you ever thought about the distinction between thinking and intelligence?

Keep in mind this quote: "We think only when some obstacle arises, preventing the satisfaction of our needs and throwing us into disequilibrium" (151).

My conclusion is this: we need to focus on teaching our students how to think. No matter our subject matter, teaching content missing the point. Yes, students do need to have a basic level of content in their brains, but in the end, they need to know how to use that content. Otherwise, what's the point?

"Refusing" to Teach

What would happen if you went into the class and didn't stand up in front of the class? What if you just took a seat with the students?

Chapter 7 is a tricky one; I've sometimes assigned students to take lead in Chapter discussions, for example. And, I've sometimes assigned small groups to do class presentations. But those of you that have done those and similiar activities have probably experienced the same sorts of problems and issues that I have.

Is it simply because we didn't give enough time to getting students used to the role? Did we resume our "instructor role" too soon?

I can only imagine how awkward it would be to do what Finkel suggests in this chapter. Then again, I can also imagine that it's crazy enough that it just might work.

Thoughts?

The Canary Problem

What did you guys think of the Canary Problem (pages 86-on)? Had you heard of it before?

I loved the way that Finkel shows how to build on the example with other scenarios and examples. It would be all too easy just to give the problem, and then immediately offer the solution. Even if you had your students work in small groups for fifteen minutes, just calling them back in and solving the problem would be a real shame. Finkel demonstrates how you can extend the process and make the learning much more meaningful as a result.

What's your discipline? I'm thinking that the Canary Problem, if tweaked and adapted, could be used in a lot of different disciplines. How might you adapt it for your specific discipline?

Teaching Through Writing

The idea that instructors teach through their own writing (page 70) is a natural for those of us that teach online; but even in face-to-face teaching, our writing serves multiple purposes.

Instead of lecturing to your students, why not give your students the written lecture the class before? That way, your students could have a chance to read it ahead of time, and you could spend the class period discussing the lecture.

One thing Finkel did that I'm not sure I agree with: writing long letters to your students (page 74). Do any of you do this? I'm not convinced that students read long letters. When I comment on students' work, I generally cut myself off after 3 sentences, at most. What do you think? Do students appreciate long letters?

Inquiry: The Instructor's Role

Finkel summarizes the "five main jobs" that instructors interested in inquiry-centered teaching have (page 59). Keep these tasks in mind:

1. Organize the inquiry

2. Develop ways to help students engage with the text (without giving them the answers)

3. Develop students inquiry skills

4. Evaluate students' work

5. Participate in the inquiry process along with the students (i.e. serve as a model)

This is really good stuff, me thinks.

Inquiry-Centered Teaching

Chapter 4 (pages 51-69) left an impression on me. We talk a lot about engaging the student and putting learning into context. That's what inquiry-centered teaching is all about.

I greatly appreciated Finkel's point (page 53) that learning is motivated by disequilibrium. We need tension to grow, but as teachers, we must make sure that the tension isn't so great that students give up.

What did you think about the author's point that all learning is interdisciplinary? (page 55) How could we bring an interdisciplinary approach to teaching and learning at RCTC?

Questions Trump Answers

If you're like me, you believe that the Question is more important than the Answer (page 40). These days, we live in a culture of the standardized test. We have "course objectives" and "learning benchmarks" and we expect everyone to know certain things at certain points -- either by age level, class level, or course level.

But who's asking about students' ability to ask questions, to think? Who, in other words, is asking about students' ability to be creative?

I have the feeling that there's no value placed on creativity any more, but creativity is essential to learning.

Look Here

John Landretti's "On Waste Lonely Places" (pages 154-159) suggests that the place we're looking for is right where we are. We just have to be willing to look.

The problem, Landretti notes, with National Parks is that we feel a certain reverence for them, but then what gets removed is reverence for our own plot of ground.

Landretti comes off as a wanderer in this piece, so it's not as though he's suggesting that everyone should just remain in place. It's fine to travel around, but pay as much attention to your journey as you do the destination. And, don't come home needing a vacation from your vacation. That may only blind you to the neglected, but important "book nobody reads" (158).

Anyone want to go camping at the nearest Clover Leaf this weekend? Sounds like a lot of fun to me. :)

The Prostitution of Tourism

Like many of the articles in this book, I thought Alison Hawthorne Deming's "The Edges of the Civilized World" (pages 143-153) was trying to have it both ways. But perhaps Deming acknowledges this best when she says, "Each one of us is at the center of the civilized world and on its edge" (page 150).

The article reminded me of my first real trip outside the United States. In 2001, my wife and I visited the tourist trap of Dunns River Falls in Jamaica. About 200 mainly white tourists held hands with each other and the native guides as we climbed the Falls to the top.

Once at the top of the Falls, the tourists had to walk through a maze of shops in order to get back to the minivan. I was in graduate school, and we didn't have any money for trinkets, but the sellers were aggressive, even to the point of blaming us for not making it possible for their children to have any Christmas presents that year.

When they saw us, they saw rich Americans, and we were rich, comparatively. The whole experience saddened me, though. There are a lot of gated "resorts" for foreigners in places like Jamaica, but I have little interest in going to a country and not seeing the country. Then again, what does it say about a place so desperate for money that it prostitutes out its best locations. Are tourists no better than johns?

Niagara's Lie

Ginger Strand's "Faux Falls" (pages 131-142) looks at the "collateral damage" caused by hydro-electric power.

The article notes that 7% of electricity in the United States comes from hydro, whereas 70% comes from burning fossil fuels. On the surface, hydro doesn't seem to have any nasty byproducts.

Strand's article makes it clear, however, that where there's a cheap source of electricity, pollution will follow -- i.e. through the build up of factories along the river banks.

And something that I hadn't realized before: This is where Love Canal happened.

Can Niagara be blamed for Love Canal? That's a bit of stretch to me; Strand's point, though, is that actions have consequences. Niagara Falls is now a "man-made" tourist trap, and we have the power to literally turn off the falls. Ironically, tourists might be the only thing that "saved" the Falls.

The Knowledge Paradox

I love the idea of turning the class entirely over to the students (page 35); well, not entirely, of course, but the idea of shutting up and letting students figure things out for themselves... that's powerful.

Students do have the idea that the instructor is the expert. And the instructor should know more than students about the particular discipline, it's our duty to help convince students that the inquiry process is the best way to learn. Knowledge cannot just be given from instructor to students.

Teaching Through The Brothers Karamazov?

Have you read The Brothers Karamazov? If not, go pick it up. It's about 750 pages, and I'm sure you can read it in your spare moments.But seriously, this is a great book (yes, I've read it).

How many of our students would connect to it? Many none, we think. But maybe a lot more than we think, if we "provide structure and activities to help ... students attend carefully to the book" (17). That seems to be a key point.

Do we just assign a book, and expect our students to read it? If that's all we do, then are we really doing our jobs? Don't we need to provide "the way in" to the book for our students? Give them a roadmap and points to ponder as they read?

I Don't Know the Answer

Does it scare you to admit that you don't know it all?

Would you feel afraid to go into a room full of students, admitting to them that you don't know the answers to the questions you're asking them?

I thought Finkel made an interesting point when he suggested that an instructor might actually benefit from not always knowing the answers (page 15) -- i.e. it lets students open up more and speculate more; it also puts the focus on the looking at the problem, rather than always being focused on the solution.

Chapter 2

One thing that I like a lot about the book so far is the fact that Finkel is so practical. The part about the parables and students liking to figure things out really made me think. We just finished poetry, and I hope students felt a sense of achievement by figuring it out, but I always think I end up talking too much. This gives me an idea of how to approach it next time. Hmm...

Books That Speak to You vs. Books That Bore You to Sleep

Chapter 2 of Teaching with Your Mouth Shut contains some good nuggets, and I'd love to hear your reaction.

My initial thoughts: Yes, you need to work for knowledge. How do we train our students to want to work for knowledge, though? If they read something that isn't hitting them in the face with its clarity and obviousness, they either get confused and stop reading, or even worse, they claim to be "bored" and stop reading.

I don't think it's that they're really "bored" as much as they're not willing to work for the knowledge. What's the payoff? How do we make them want to care?