Jay R. Howard

This short book has some useful concepts; I am not sure that I learned a lot of practical use, though I think that earlier in my career I would have benefited more from it. Now, much of the advice seems basic to me, but that’s a function of the fact that post-secondary educators get very little training in how to teach. The book is also explicit that it is directed at college professors; grad school is a different kettle of fish because most grad students have somewhat greater motivation to be present/learn the material for the particular class they are in.

The biggest point is that the person who is doing the most work in the room is doing the most learning, which is a reason to make students take on discussion responsibilities. The student-as-customer mentality is unhelpful because students sometimes use it to suggest they’ve paid for the right to stay silent/engage just as much as they want to; plus it leads them to believe that only the instructor has anything worthwhile to say. Other concepts: “civil attention,” which is the expectation in many classrooms that students will look like they’re paying attention—not obviously texting, talking, etc.—even if they are not actively engaged; and “consolidation of responsibility,” which is what happens when 5-8 students take on the burden of doing 75-95% of the talking for the rest of the class, an event regarded with a mixture of disdain and relief by the rest of the class. (These numbers come from actual research about typical classrooms, regardless of class size.)

Other research: male students consistently overestimate how much participation they’re engaged in, though the research is inconsistent on whether men actually talk more per capita. Older students talk more; non-American students talk less (likely related to educational cultures that more heavily value respectful silence); students talk more in classes with female instructors. Class participation is associated with learning the material better, so it is worth trying to encourage participation in useful ways—another thing I learned is that students often define “participation” more broadly than teachers do, so students think they’re participating by reading all the assignments, coming to class, and paying attention/taking notes. Unfortunately for those of us subjected to teacher evaluations, effective teaching is often uncomfortable because students have to confront their areas of uncertainty.

Online discussion: as it turns out, the research on this is young enough that I didn’t get much in the way of help, other than the suggestion that it might make sense to front-load any online contribution responsibilities, so as the semester winds down and other responsibilities start to press in, there’s less pressure to post to class discussion forums. One intriguing suggestion for larger classes was to divide students into groups and require them to read the posts from their group and then summarize the discussion for the professor—this both cuts down on the burden of keeping up with lots of classmates’ required posts and requires them to synthesize the discussion and figure out if it went anywhere. Also, demographics matter even online: white and female students were more positive about online learning than African-American and male students; female students in particular may participate more frequently/be more motivated in online discussions.

To grade participation or not: Howard takes the position that the arguments against grading participation, while worth serious consideration—mostly that it favors a certain kind of student/penalizes others—are true of grading any kind of behavior. Participation is important enough that it’s worth encouraging by making clear that it is a part of the learning objectives of the course. At least one study found better learning outcomes where participation was required than in a no-participation-required control group. Plus, it’s almost the only kind of performance on which it’s impossible to cheat. Self-assessment/self-grading or peer grading, he suggests, can improve participation and decrease the burden on the instructor. Even providing students with a rubric to grade themselves or their partners can help clarify for the instructor what she wants them to be doing when they participate. But though students learned more and liked the class more when participation was required, they may nonetheless judge the class more harshly because they perceive it as harder. Such is life.

Howard emphasizes the importance of learning students’ names as a way of showing engagement with them—there’s even research backing this up. This is pretty much impossible for me—I don’t formally have prosopagnosia, but making a good faith effort with the assistance of the seating chart and roster photos is as far as I can go.… (meer)