Archive for the 'Pedagogy' Category

A Memorial: Saul Bruckner

When I heard that my high school principal Saul Bruckner had died in his Mill Basin home on May 1, I was shocked, but in an aimless sort of way. It felt huge, impossible—a massive loss and somehow a very personal one. And yet while I had a vast sense that Mr. Bruckner had influenced me deeply, I had no luck when I tried to articulate that influence to the people around me. “My high school principal died,” I told my roommate. “He was really incredible.” And then I’d trail off.

So, like legions of other Murrow alums, I’ve been spending time thinking about just what it is exactly that makes me feel like I want a bust of Mr. Bruckner in my living room. Many of us appreciate the important teacher figures from our pasts, but what of the folks who didn’t necessarily teach us long division or what the Rococo period was about? What of the learning that comes from that dispersed thing known as educational leadership?– from administrators, of all people?

The first thing to mention about Mr. Bruckner is just how old school he was, in a new school kind of way. He was a truly progressive educator who didn’t need to appropriate slang or wear a whistle in order to “connect” with young people. He rose up the ranks in the New York City school system (back when it was still a Board of Education, and not a Department) as a social studies teacher, became assistant principal at Dewey High School, and eventually opened Murrow in 1974.

Edward R. Murrow High School is known for the many progressive aspects of its structure and approach, but Mr. Bruckner himself came across as a pretty subdued, non-controversial guy. You’d imagine that a principal who allowed students freedom of choice in their academic pursuits, outlawed bells and hall sweeps and detention and sports teams, gave students the benefit of the doubt when it came to unstructured time, and fiercely defended music and arts programs might be more of a hippie crusader in moccasins than a buttoned-up older gentleman in neat tweed suit jackets. Not so.

Andrea Mohin/The New York Times

Still, those are the facts. When the Times published a short article about his memorial service, I started honing in on what I found so unique about Mr. Bruckner.  The photo that accompanied the article did it; Mr. Bruckner, with his arms folded, his red name tag jutting out from his jacket, listening intently to three students surrounding him, all of whom look like they’ve got more than one bone to pick with the guy. That was his usual posture—arms crossed, ears open, completely committed– and it wasn’t rare for Mr. Bruckner to be outnumbered. I stood in front of him this way many times, standing with my friends and shooting off at the mouth about something or other, while Mr. Bruckner stood stock-still and listened—sometimes with a bemused smile, sometimes with a look of mild judgment. Perhaps the man closed the door to his oblong office (where he also taught his 7:30am AP American History course) and privately screamed into a rattan pillow—if he did, we never caught on.

The man was consistency itself, and I’d guess that he realized just how important that was to us, to see him standing by the main entrance every morning as we entered clutching our bagels. He was an eloquent man of few words, but clear actions. Students at Murrow were allowed to lounge in the hallways during “free” periods (which weren’t called “periods” at all), but if we were obliviously sitting next to a clump of trash, Bruckner would suddenly swing around a corner to pitch it in the garbage, reminding us at once that he was boss, it was our building, and no task was too insignificant for him– or us.

Mr. Bruckner’s death crystallized for me even further when I read an article penned by one of my former English teachers at Murrow, Katherine Schulten. Ms. Schulten is now editor of The Learning Network, and she identifies five poignant lessons for educators that she took from working with Mr. Bruckner.  The final one, “Kids come first,” coupled with her description of Mr. Bruckner—kindness, intelligence, commitment and vision—packaged up exactly what I’d wanted to say all along. How remarkable to observe someone with so little (discernable) ego, a fellow who never went out of his way to strut his feathers and yet implemented such a strong vision at the same time. To be an educator who skips the bloviating and lingers on the students while constructing a school culture that follows his thoughtful concepts– and then he hangs out long enough to really see it flourish and sustain? A term that Mr. Bruckner himself taught me is the only one I can think to use: rara avis.

Ms. Schulten’s article got me thinking: as someone who routinely stands in front of clusters of young people and some days finds the crown of educator a very difficult one to wear, ignoring Mr. Bruckner’s legacy outside of its most general terms shouldn’t be an option. Sure, the life of an adjunct lecturer and Communication Fellow is very different from that of a high school principal, but that’s no excuse to disregard the challenge that his example puts forth. I heard the news about Mr. Bruckner’s passing during the crowded and frustrating end-of-semester crush, when students were filling my  inbox with frantic emails arguing about grades, contesting plagiarism charges, pleading for forgiveness. Some days it’s incredibly difficult to maintain empathy, priorities, and focus—the kind of focus, I realize, Mr. Bruckner persisted with, day in, and day out, for so many years.

Numerous Facebook groups have already popped up paying tribute to Mr. Bruckner, and an accompanying campaign to have the street outside of the school renamed in his honor would be a fitting memorial to a life’s work that thrived at the humble intersection of Avenue L and 17th Street. An equally moving tribute is represented by the many students who, like me, have been newly considering just what was in this special sauce and where  we might apply it ourselves. I’d suspect that it won’t just be about picking up that lone piece of trash in the hallways, but also about that particular blend of action and patience. Still, it’s an educational riddle worth committing time to: how did he do it? And how can we?

Once Again Back it’s the Incredible…

the blog animal, ZOE, blogfessor number one.

For the second straight year, we’re awarding the Blogfessor of the Year Award to Zoe Sheehan Saldana, of Baruch’s Fine and Performing Arts Department. The award comes with priority support from the Schwartz Institute on all online publishing endeavors. Of course, Zoe already has that because she’s so awesome.

Zoe developed three sites on Blogs@Baruch this academic year.  Last Fall, she did a Do-it-Yourself Publishing site that used FeedWordPress to syndicate nineteen individual journals where students documented making their own books from scratch (some digital, some not).

This Spring, she used a site in her Basic Graphic Communication course… here’s a description of her course and how she used her course blog from her “About” page:

…this course

This course introduces the graphic design process and methodology. Conceptual and creative thinking is stressed and understood through problem-solving assignments based on research, readings, and classroom demonstrations. The student is introduced to graphic design principles and exposed to historical and contemporary models and current standards of advertising and design. The Macintosh computer is included as the primary graphic design environment. This class is a prerequisite for all advanced Graphic Communication courses. Complete course guide available here, as a PDF file.

…this blog

This blog is a venue for presenting, exploring, and discussing work, ideas, and topics pertaining to the course.

And, finally, together we developed a site for the Focus on Photography Exhibit which served initially as a processing space for members of the Baruch community to submit photos that they wished to be considered for a physical exhibit (which opened last week at the Mishkin Gallery).  The site’s since evolved into an online companion displaying close to 200 images submitted by Baruch students, faculty, and staff.  The submissions process used the TDO Mini Forms plugin to collect information from applicants, allow them to upload their images, and then it published those images to password protected pages where the exhibit judges could asses them. After decisions had been made about which images were accepted for the physical exhibit and which were not, Zoe hacked the Monotone WordPress theme (ideal for photo blogging) to create the online exhibit, which will live beyond the one at Miskhin. The amazing photographic ability of Baruch folks is a topic for another post, but I encourage you to take your time and click through the exhibit to see the fantastic images these folks have captured.

What’s so great about Zoe, beyond her gracious personality and charm, is that she’s exactly what an educational technologist like me needs to get better at what I do: someone who asks questions that I don’t know the answers to, patiently awaits the answer, and works to arrive at a consensus around what can be done with the tools, time, and resources available.  She’s a great collaborator and a creative teacher.  And, as she showed in talks she gave at last year’s CUNY WordCampEd and this year at the Baruch Teaching and Technology Conference, she has a strong grasp of the pedagogical, political, and philosophical impulse behind what we’re trying to do with educational technology at the Schwartz Institute.  As her course blogs and her own art show, she’s an O.E.: Original Edupunk, and both Baruch and the Schwartz Institute are lucky to have her around.

image credit: lumax art

The Humanities Drive; Skills Ride Along

I am going to reveal a hope of mine; I have long kept this hope closeted, as it seems very likely to bring me disgrace. I hope that Writing Across the Curriculum and Communication Across the Curriculum programs might one day render Composition obsolete.

The development of a specialized knowledge of writing instruction has been one of the most important achievements of higher education in the last forty years. This specialized knowledge of how to teach students to write will remain important. In fact, the incredible utility of this knowledge means that it cannot be confined to specialists! The birth of WAC, analogous to the invention of the web-link, has the potential to completely transform the way we conceive of the essential material of higher education. No longer can we isolate writing instruction to language classes. Could this be the idea that reverses a hundred-and-twenty year trend of increasing specialization in the curriculum?

Okay. So, once again, I have resorted to polemic (here, in the form of a strange sort-of-Hegelean fantasy). However, my conviction is a serious one. The humanities are ill served by the teaching of writing prior to the more fundamental questions. Why are we here, what do we do, how do we form the bases for our beliefs? These deeper questions, which students ponder on their own, are seldom addressed in their course work in Humanities disciplines, even though these are the questions that motivate humanistic study.

I have, tentatively, shared these ideas with my colleagues. The ideas are not well received. “If you can’t write, you can’t think. How can you work on big ideas if you can hardly sort out your words into sentences or your sentences into paragraphs?”

Further confession: I am either so prescient or so far-fetched in my thinking that I even like to imagine WAC and CAC will lead to curricular solutions to the economic problems of today’s higher education in the humanities. There are too many graduate students. Graduate education takes too long. Professorships become scarce as institutions increasingly rely on adjunct- and other temporary appointments. Meanwhile, enrollments continue to climb, especially at junior and community colleges. A caste system has formed where only “the best” professors can teach original courses, and an underclass of highly educated professionals prepare the masses by running them through a byzantine system of prerequisites for contact with the elite specialists.

Specialization in the sciences is important. In the humanities, specialization is like a derivatives market; it takes something that has a basic function, and, in trying to increase the wealth this thing produces, it fouls the thing’s basic functionality.

Let every graduate teach what he wants, but have him also armed to teach writing. Instead of, “how can you work on big ideas if you can’t write a sentence,” let it be demanded, “how can you build advanced knowledge, if you can’t teach basic writing?” The system of levels and prerequisites will fall away. The humanities will drive, and skills will ride along.

Is this really such a disgraceful idea?

Digital R&R Makes You Smarter

Gaiman Neverwhere
Photo credit Comixology

Recently I was reading a comic book on my iPhone on the subway ride to Brooklyn, and a few people noticed what I was reading and asked me about it. The first person to ask me was someone who had never seen a comic in that format and wanted to know more, so I told him what I was reading and how I had found it using the Comics app I’d downloaded from Comixology. [I didn't mention that I had just learned about the app from Joe Ugoretz's tweet about it -- thanks, Joe!] Later in the same ride, I met a nice guy named Greg who just wanted to know which app I was using to download comics, to discuss with his friend nearby, both of them being great comic book aficionados. It turned out his friend, Karen Green, curates the graphic novel collection for the library at Columbia University and actually writes a column for Comixology called Comic Adventures in Academia.

We talked about what series the two of them were reading, and the ones I had tried in my new exploration of the genre. Comics are a little small in this format, but the iPhone presents them to you one frame at a time in a cool way. From there we moved on to a more general discussion of graphic novels and what they have to offer, including for instructors. I admitted I was a little self-conscious about my students knowing I read comics in my spare time (although Karen Green said, “Don’t be!”) I often find comics that are so well-written I want to share them. Neil Gaiman’s Sandman series, for example, is so literary, so steeped in Shakespeare and classical mythology, that I had wondered if I should recommend it to students. (Karen said, “Absolutely!”) I found her column online later and saw how she takes a proactive role at Columbia in “influencing faculty to use comics in their coursework in innovative ways,” which made me start thinking about how graphic novels could be used in different courses. I think I just like fantasy and science fiction in whatever format it appears: novel, film, graphic novel, digital comic. That’s why I am enjoying the comics app I just discovered, and may start to think of ways to occasionally use comic books in coursework. I have been teaching an online course called Digital Information in the Contemporary World, and it fits in nicely there. In another kind of course? I’ll have to read more of Karen’s column for inspiration.

David Parsons posted here on cac.ophony recently about students bringing distracting gadgets into the classroom, and included some amazing footage of professors smashing the offending technology in front of the class. [Can they really do that?!?] Szidonia in her comment wondered whether overuse of technology shrinks our brains. I guess my own experience with digital comics and graphic novels more generally is that I feel they have worth to me personally and potentially as teaching tools, even though the enjoyment I take in reading them makes them feel like guilty pleasures.

in defense of traditional pedagogy (?)

I’m aware that many forward-thinking educators, particularly those of the WAC-oriented ilk, take a critical, if not perhaps disdainful, view of the standard compare-contrast essay. I’m actually not sure what the specific criticisms are, and am hoping this post will spark more discussion about this genre’s merits and problems.

I strongly feel that the compare-contrast essay is, or can be, an excellent way for students to practice, hone, and demonstrate analytic skills. This essay requires them to show mastery and comprehension of material, a grasp of the larger, more abstract concepts, an understanding of the relationship between these concepts, and a recognition of the significance of these similarities and differences.

Apples & Oranges - They Don't Compare
Creative Commons License photo credit: TheBusyBrain

That said, I am often very disappointed in the work that students submit in response to this type of assignment. The majority lack a clear thesis statement, suffer from weak overall organization, show a difficulty identifying the authors’ thesis, struggle with concise yet relevant summaries, and most significantly, seem to break down when it comes to articulating the relationship between concepts. I work hard to help my students make connections between readings, to see multiple perspectives, to understand that every thesis has a counter-thesis, and I’m not sure to what extent I see these efforts pay off in their written work.

Having said that, I ask, am I barking up the wrong tree, clinging to this type of assignment? Is there a better way to help students develop stronger reading, writing, and thinking skills? Perhaps there are ways of framing the traditional assignment that better facilitate the type of end product I am expecting?

(I did use an involved in-class writing assignment today, that was then used for small group work, and which lead to an involved class discussion about relationships between four readings. I think this was successful; however, I’m not sure how that work will be reflected in their formal written assignments.)
Cakewalk Plasma CakeWalk Home Studio Sonar 4 Producer Edition Cakewalk Project 5

Adventures in Blogland

I currently teach two sections of a Composition II class here at Baruch College. My course theme is “Happiness,” and prior to the semester’s beginning, I’d been thinking a lot about the point that Daniel Gilbert makes in Stumbling on Happiness—that all humans need to have relationships with others in order to feel “happy.” Whether or not I agree with this statement is not as important as the idea that perhaps one way to approach the course theme might be to really think about communication and relationships that are constructed purely by language—not by the physical space of the classroom. So, to make a long story short, I began the semester with the idea that our blog would be an active space where the two sections of the one class could meet, write, and think.

I structured my syllabus so that, out of my 54 students, each week, two students from each section would be in charge of posting to the blog, and two per section would be in charge of commenting. I also provided “optional assignments” that students could either use as prompts for writing, or choose to ignore. But, about a month into our foray into blogging, I still felt disappointed by the space. It even felt tense, a huge problem for a class with the theme of “happiness.”

So I decided to confront them, and the quieter of the two sections surprised me by presenting a very interesting critique of our class blog. I asked the class to begin with a “focused freewrite” in which they needed to reflect on how they were engaging with the class blog thus far. Some comments included:

  • “I hate how teachers think that they can become cool by forcing us to use spaces we think are fun to produce more academic prose.”
  • “The blog is nothing more than another assignment. In fact, you even assign us when to write on it!”
  • “I talk in class, I don’t want to talk at home.”
  • “Aren’t these sites public? I heard that no matter how many years pass, if you write poorly on a blog, you won’t get a job.”

I then asked them to reflect on what a class blog should look like (making it clear that I believe in class blogs and have used them for years with a huge amount of success and student enthusiasm). The responses were not all that different:

  • “Nothing can make blogging for class fun.”
  • “Even if you don’t grade us on the blog, we still know that if we don’t write we’ll get penalized.”
  • “I have my own blog, I don’t need another one to write on.”
  • “Why should we have to participate in a communal blog when you, the professor, don’t do anything?”

I was really intrigued by this conversation and thought a lot about it. Why all the resistance, particularly from a class that is on the quiet side, but is also full of students who email me regularly? And, was the other section just being nice? Did they agree? If so, why didn’t they voice their discontent as openly? And, perhaps most importantly, where did I go wrong? What next?

James Hoff posted on a similar topic a while back. He made the interesting point that “despite our increasingly technological lives, or perhaps because of them, the creation and conservation of technology-free spaces where people can, and are encouraged to communicate face-to-face, free of distraction, with nothing more than their unique temperaments and their private store of knowledge and eloquence, seems more and more important to me.” Were the students reacting against the technology or against the pedagogy I’d laid out? To assign or not to assign…is that the real question?

My general belief is that students tend to enter a Composition classroom dreading the act of writing, let alone spending an entire semester doing just that. When I ask my students if they write outside of class they usually uniformly say “no.” But, they also uniformly admit to authoring thousands of text messages, instant messages, emails, blog posts, Facebook comments, etc. And, these things are all forms of writing. So, by using a blog I want to enable students to see “academic writing” differently, to lower the stakes perhaps, or to at least allow them a space where writing for school can masquerade as being fun.

I decided to change the environment. Not the look of the blog, but the look of my pedagogical hand. I sent both classes an email announcing the “rebirth of the Happiness blog”! An excerpt:

  1. The main purpose of this space is for all of us to share ideas and thoughts, and to start conversations across classes. This is an informal writing space—write on what you want, how you want to, just make sure you keep it class/school appropriate.
  2. From this point onwards, there are no specific “blogging” or “commenting” assignments. Since we all lead active lives and must have a lot on our minds, let’s use this space to share some of these things—many of which will organically relate to the theme of our course. Share things you’ve seen, heard, read that you found exciting. Share ideas you might be having. Pieces of creative work…Use videos, images, etc…In other words–just post. Enjoy. Have fun. Play with language.
  3. You are each assigned to blog at least once this semester, and comment at least once, and that schedule still stands. I would encourage you to blog and comment more than that of course.
  4. I will participate in this blogging endeavor in the same way that you do. I’ll make the occasional posts, sharing things that I find interesting, appropriate, exciting. And, I’ll say hello in the comment boxes.

The result—students are posting actively, unpredictably, visually. They are commenting and talking to each other in the comment boxes (although still not as much as I’d hoped). They are sharing Youtube videos, analyzing songs, reviewing movies, etc. The students who say little in class have been posting the most frequently. They are writing well and writing frequently. They are voluntarily sharing their critical ideas about readings from class. So, my lingering question is: can a transparently optional assignment really do that much harm?

Outsourcing

call center
Creative Commons License photo credit: vlima.com

After reading a recent NYTimes article on a company that provided assignment grading for professors, I was struck by my own ambivalent feelings. Having taught writing intensive courses for many years, it seemed like a welcomed relief to be able to send those papers off to professional services and receive them back corrected and commented. “The graders working for EduMetry, based in a Virginia suburb of Washington, are concentrated in India, Singapore and Malaysia,” and go so far as to match the tone of voice requested, whether constructive, formal, informal, encouraging, etc.

The idea, according to EduMetry, is to take paper grading off of our shoulders so that we can better dedicate ourselves to teaching, which I must say is not a bad one. Rarely has traditional paper grading been a rewarding experience for me, and even more rarely has it been a truly educational experience for the student. It seems often to be one of those tasks that belong more to academic folkloric culture than a real pedagogical tool. It’s painful, takes a lot of time, and gives very little return on your investment…

On the other hand farming out grading would in a sense maintain the status quo of paper writing by allowing professors to avoid thinking about the real use of writing in academia. Instead of being rethought and made integral to the teaching practices,  the papers would become some external requirement evaluated by outside graders, and would have no other meaning for the students themselves. Papers would join the ranks of the outsourced products we consume, both in terms of writing and now in terms of correcting.

The underlying question in all this seems to be regarding the status of the paper itself and its actual use. Do we continue assigning traditional papers that offer little pedagogical experience, or do we revise the role of writing and the various forms it can take in the classroom? Services like EduMetry do meet a demand, but is that demand not related to a very uncreative idea of what student papers should look like?

Baby Talk

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMzwAEI56-4[/youtube]

Turns out, you don’t even need words for effective oral communication…just the ability to participate in a particular speech genre. Since I can’t stop watching this video, I am featuring it, and a couple of other babies, here in my first blog post. Mini Preacher (MP) is interesting on a number of levels, most immediately though in terms of speech genre (see Bakhtin). In the absence of language, an analysis of MP’s sermon is in large part necessarily an analysis of genre. Did you see how Mini Preacher (MP) used his chubby arms to sum up his toddler point? MP’s performance makes explicit the dialogic and collaborative nature of audience, both real and imagined (“addressivity”). The audience’s applause, cheers, and calls to “preach on!” are integral to his speech. He doesn’t need actual words to whip the house into a frenzy as the audience fills them in for him, closing his presentation with “in the name of Jesus.”

As audience for BPL groups, we are also dialogic partners,  interlocutors in the Bahktinian sense. I am a stand in for faculty and class mates, who are themselves stand in’s for the board of investors out in the “real world.” As a new Fellow working with BPL courses, about to run the gauntlet of my first rehearsal season (my first 2 are scheduled for today in fact), the MP video also asks me to consider the business speech genre in my own (non-evaluative) assessments of student group presentations. The basic characteristics of evangelist speech are clear and recognizable in MP’s performance, even if not explicitly catalogued here. What though are the specific speech genres of the business world and transactions? Are they captured in the cool confidence and rational assertiveness of the E-trade baby? Are they catalogued somewhere? And if so, would such genre characteristics prove useful standards to judge the BPL presentations by?

As a parent I am interested in oral communication and social development. Specifically the raced/classed/gendered ways in which I/we consciously and unconsciously facilitate the social and dialogical process that consciousness develops from. Babies are also our mirrors. Children tell us a lot about our specific language-mediated proclivities, from Mini Preacher’s screaming exertions, to my toddler’s constant asking of questions he already knows the answer to (clearly a parenting pedagogy of mine in need of revision!). Thus an analysis of infant (and student) speech is also an analysis of self (and of discipline).

As a social psychologist, I am reminded of the vast literature on persuasion that exists (under the umbrella of social influence) that could usefully be applied to the prepping of oral presentations.

As all three, I am looking forward to more opportunities to consider the cute side of language and social development.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vupEpNjCuY[/youtube]

Our Course Blog Will Eat Your Brains

One of our goals in supporting Blogs@Baruch is to generate new models for online and hybrid instruction. We encourage the faculty we work with to confront the challenging question of what’s made pedagogically possible by using an online publishing platform.

The potential answers are vast. They include, but are not limited to, extending the classroom by tying together face-to-face meetings; creating opportunities for the social consideration of course material; imagining a range of audiences; staging larger assignments; inviting and providing a platform for students to easily create and share work that is visual and/or aural in nature; providing a tool for nurturing, reinforcing, and tapping into the sense of community in a course; and, of course, easily sharing course materials with students.

Faculty who are relatively new to teaching with technology usually design course sites that take advantage of one or maybe two of the possibilities above. So, I have to give it up for Mikhail Gershovich and his students, who are absolutely killing it on the course blog for “Topics in Film: Fear, Anxiety, and Paranoia.” I’ve tried not to blog about this course blog because I don’t want to be seen as buttering up the boss. But when students showed up this week for a presentation dressed as zombies and attacked one of their classmates, I simply had to bite the bullet and write about this awesomeness.

They’re using their blog for a variety of purposes:

First, Mikhail uses it to share information with his students so that they can easily access course readings and find their way to a wide range of required and recommended films, compiled from disparate locations.

Second, the students are posting in a rotation to very specific prompts that he spent much time designing, and which mix an emphasis on close readings of text and film, allow students to write to reflect, and encourage students to find visual representations of their ideas.

Third, Mikhail has very much constructed the blog as a kind of social glue, tying students together by encouraging all to get Gravatars (though only some have… I’m surprised Dr. G hasn’t docked their grades), to comment regularly, and to write freely.

Fourth, the students will be using the blog to develop and present remixes or re-enactments of short sections of films they’ve engaged this semester, and will write to reflect upon how going inside the productive process impacts their perspectives on both the themes of the course, and the art of film overall.

So, kudos to this group: this is a ton of work they’ve taken on, and they’ve done so openly, creatively, and collaboratively. Mikhail has taken advantage of various support services in the most productive way, from the library’s subscription to the film repository Swank.com, to his Twitter network (where he crowd sourced ideas for films, readings, and discussion), to his awesome educational technologist — me — who he’s consulted on both technology and assignment design. We’re lucky to have their model to build upon.

I encourage you all to check out the site, and to scare the students by leaving some spooky comments.

*note: Jim Groom posted about this course blog simultaneously.

Teaching teaching

The phrase “classroom management” appears a few times in this Sunday’s New York Times article on teaching, and the author seems to apologize for it. It is kind of icky, but why?

final exam
Creative Commons License photo credit: dcJohn

I think part of the problem is that it implies one-size-fits-all, when individual students are…individuals, and group dynamics vary from class to class. There are video clips in the article of teachers in class, with a narrator who explains their techniques. I watched all the ones on the Times website, and went to the Uncommon Schools site to watch more. They’re compelling and entertaining. And then, the wince factor arises with a description of how a teacher “draws kids’ attention to the normalcy of compliancy, everyone is doing it.” Lots of the ideas on the Uncommon Schools site seem useful and insightful, but I also know that if I tried to mimic what I’ve watched people do in videos, it would be ridiculous. There’s a smile between a teacher and a student in one clip that isn’t instructional so much as inspirational. It shows the kind of particular attention to a person’s distinct way of thinking and expressing themselves, that seems beyond these techniques and studies.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioLDgaA5Fqw[/youtube]

“I think that’s why after citing a lot of research on teaching, this article and a recent Atlantic article both claim that it is very hard to predict what traits make good teacher. The teacher is one part of a huge variable, and one person’s cheesy gesture is another’s brilliant interaction.