Sondheim for students

Although I think all four people who read this blog also read Chris Uggen, I'm passing along a rather funny video link he provided today.

In the annals of bad marketing

I recieved an email this evening from United Airlines

We'd like to remind you that time is running out on the invitation to join Ameniti^®, United's exclusive travel club that was designed especially for you – the frequent traveler who expects world-class service and appreciates excellent value.

It appears for the small sum of $300 a year, I can:

1. Bring a companion for free (everytime I purchase an unrestricted full fare ticket).
2. Get double miles
3. Get 25,000 miles just for signing up.

Of course this does nothing for someone like me who:

1. Never purchases unrestricted full fare tickets.
   
2. Has thus far been unable to fruitfully redeem the miles already accumulated (I have something like 75,000 miles banked at Northwest and have been denied every time I've wanted to upgrade to first class, or tried to use the miles for a round-trip domestic ticket.
3. Have little reason to fly United Airlines.

Other than that, I suppose this is an appropriate marketing ploy.

...everybody is for it, except maybe the students

So says James Renfield in a short essay on the Discussion Class (hat tip to Rex at Savage Minds). Renfield writes that while he is in favor of discussion-oriented teaching methods, he finds himself using them less.

one of my students said that he found the previous two classes very helpful. When he said, "You took control," I replied, "You mean I was lecturing." The student who happened to be standing next to him said, "Oh, that's what that's called."

I have a similar reaction to the lecture / discussion continuum. In graduate school, I was convinced that lecture is an evil tool of indoctrination and domination. I became convinced (somewhat self-righteously, which was the currency of my grad program) that learning should be discursive, multivocal, and nuanced. We were into giving everyone voice. However, now that I'm doing this stuff for a full time gig, I'm starting to recognize that a discussion, in order to be productive, needs to be anchored to some kind of authoritative structure.

Renfield references this fear of authority (or in his words, hierarchy) in pedagogy. This distrust of hierarchy is something to be celebrated:

One of the great discoveries of postclassical civilization is that every soul is valuable; everyone has something to say; everyone deserves to be heard. We talk about this when we talk about learning from our students. This is one of the things we teachers say, always with a tone of self-satisfaction.

But free-wheeling ungrounded discussions seem to fail the learning objective. I recall sitting in a discussion-oriented course taught by a colleague where students were offering opinions left and right. Many of these opinions reflected a fundamental ignorance of broader context and specific social dynamics. Sure, as the instructor, I tried to raise these issues discursively; but when all opinions have equal weight, few took my points for what they were: explicit corrections, not suggestions.

Renfield contrasts the free-wheeling, let a thousand flowers bloom discussions with the hole in the board method (characterized by Ben Stein in Ferris Bueller's Day Off). This is discussion in name only... the instructor knows what the right answer is and asks the class to fill in the blank. I used this format today...

me: does anyone know what form of crime is the most costly in terms of property loss?

student1: Burglary?

me: nope, not Burglary

student 2: Arson?

me: nope, something much more benign

student 3: White Collar Crime?

me: we're getting warmer, but that form of crime typically is restricted to elites...

And so it went on for a few minutes before someone finally hit upon occupational theft. This can be an effective way to keep a class engaged; but I find it often backfires as I ask vague, poorly worded questions and students tire of the "guess what Colyer is thinking" game.

We typically see lecture contrasted with discussion. Some argue that there is a disconnect between the learner and the instructor... that lecture is mechanical. Renfeild counters this argument by pointing to one of his favorite teachers, who made exclusive use of the lecture method.

He had extraordinary classes in which he improvised his lectures and was so interactive with the students that they felt part of the process the whole time. At the end of ninety minutes, I'd be astonished to realize that nobody had said a word except Henry. He was learning from his students what it was he could get them to understand, or what he could get away with.

This is the kind of lecturer I aspire to be. I mostly teach large (80 to 100 student) sections of Criminology and Criminal Justice. In the past, particularly in Criminology, I lectured mechanically. I outlined lists and the students copied them down. There was very little dynamic going on. This semester, I'm making a real effort to lecture by pursuing a question. Undoubtedly, I'm going to keep using the Ben Stein hole in the board method... but I will try to be flexible in letting the question emerge as the class moves forward.

I'm glad I found Renfield's essay. His website also includes several other short essays about pedagogy in the University. I'm going to do some more browsing before preparing my next class.

Albany, Airlines, Amtrak, and Annoyances

I'm planning on traveling to Albany this fall for a symposium on the future of death penalty research. My friend Janet has graciously offered to let me crash at her house (big scarry dog not withstanding).

According to Mapquest, the drive from Morgantown to Albany is roughly 8 hours. While not a horrible drive, that's more time than I want to spend in the car for a work-related thing. So, I started pricing out alternative options.

Flying

I was pleasantly surprised. I can buy a plane ticket for less than $300. Though this will involve driving to Pittsburgh (70 minutes), hopping a puddle-jumper to Dulles, and then flying a big plane to Albany. The last time I checked into airfare for this trip, a ticket couldn't be had for less than $400. I'll have to strongly consider it.

However, with the new airport security hassles... one must be at the airport ungodly early. With the connection and layover, the flight will take nearly 4 hours. Getting to the airport 2 hours early bumps us up to 6 hours and then the 70 mile drive to Pittsburgh during rush hour bumps us up to more than 7 hours. Alternatives are looking attractive.

Amtrak

Well if its going to take me several hours regardless of my transportation, I figured I'd check out the train. For $180, I can board a train in Pittsburgh at 7:00 a.m. and arrive in New York City at 5:00 p.m., then wait 2 hours for a northbound train to Albany. I think I'll drive.