Teaching Methods: A Rant
March 7, 2007
I’ve never really been very interested in teaching methods, pedagogy or anything like that until this past semester at Columbia Theological Seminary. But first, let me back up a bit. When I first heard that professors read manuscripted lectures at Princeton, I was so disappointed. I couldn’t believe they would teach in a way that was so un-interactive, so boring. I was not looking forward to those classes.
And then…after a few weeks of sitting through Intro to Old Testament, and then later in the year, Systematic Theology, I got used to it. In fact, I was appalled when another student would raise their hand during a lecture (especially a woman we dubbed as “Question Lady“). “This isn’t your time - put your hand down - we’re here to learn from the professor!” So I had become used to the “Princeton way” of doing things. Not that all of my classes were like this; they weren’t. We had some great discussions in some courses, but it was rather funny to see how quickly I became a supporter of these types of lectures.
So then I came to Columbia. I was excited for my classes, knowing that there were going to be smaller courses, more chances for creative teaching, more interaction in the classroom. And unfortunately, I was seriously disappointed last semester. Now, trust me that this is not indicative of the quality of academic life at Columbia - I think I just had some pretty bad classes last semester. My classes this semester are much better and Sarah has enjoyed many of her courses here. But last semester, I just had three really bad classes.
My rant has to do with small groups. It seems that, in an effort to provide more classroom interaction, the default mode for Columbia professors is to break students up into small groups: small groups to discuss in class, small groups to present things in class, small groups to work in projects, small groups to share feelings in response to readings. I had one class last semester where the professor probably gave 4-5 lectures the entire semester, and the rest of the class time was spent sitting in small groups, discussing in small groups and then having other small groups present to the class. During the last 5-10 minutes, the professor would stand up and “wrap things up.” Not that I didn’t appreciate those 5-10 minutes, but is that really what Columbia Seminary is paying this professor to do? They didn’t *really* grade our papers either, just wrote some comments. So, a quick skim of papers and 5-10 minutes per class? That doesn’t seem quite right.
It’s as if throwing students into small groups is the only alternative to teaching with a lecture. After a few classes that were excessively small group intensive, I started getting very frustrated. As nice as many of the students in my small groups were, I started to really not care what they thought. I took one certain class because I really wanted to know what the professor thought, I wanted to learn from that professor. And instead, I’m spending 80 percent of the course time listening to what Sally or David or John thinks (not real names) - and frankly, I don’t care.
Now, I don’t like to think like that - and in reality, I probably do care what my fellow students think. I like discussions that involve the whole class (although I’m more of a listener than a talker in small group discussions), which is definitely doable with the small class size here at Columbia. But to have the entire class focused on small groups and small group learning…no thanks.
In contrast to this, I’m taking Youth & Young Adult Ministry with Rodger Nishioka this semester, and he is employing many different teaching methods in his course, including small group activities. But when we get to the small group portion in his class, it doesn’t bother me. Because he lectures, we have discussions, we do other, more active ways of small group bonding and discussion…it’s the variety that helps keep us interested and focused on the material.
So…any of you out there educators? Teachers? Please tell me you are doing more than just sticking students in small groups? Is that what they are teaching now? There must be more creative teaching methods?
Tags: Education, Small-Groups, Teaching-Methods
Posted in 
Adam Walker Cleaveland: I am a 28 yr old 
March 7th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
There were some times at CTS when I felt we were doing to many small groups, no necessarily because I didn’t want to talk with my peers, but because of how few of the classrooms were amenable to being in small groups. It always drove me nuts when someone wanted us to break up into small groups in CH207. In the other classrooms I would just get tired of having to move the tables for every class.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
When I was teaching at a Christian liberal arts college, I always felt the burden of giving my students their “money’s worth.” They are paying an awful lot to be there (twice as much as the public university) and so the prof. better “bring it!” This has always been my perspective as a student as well. A lot of time I see group work like you describe as being a lame excuse for poor prep. on the part of the lecturer. As well, I had some brilliant students who tended to push me, and I really wanted to do their questions justice (plus I was only 5-6 years older than them!).
For my money, there is no substitute for the good ole’ Socratic method, if it is done well. The prof’s job is not only to convey content but to pose CHALLENGING and provocative QUESTIONS. Inciting a certain level of dissonance or educational valid (constructive) controversy is usually a good way to go. If the prof. does not have any solid questions to really lay on the class, I would suggest they either don’t understand their material, or they don’t really care if you do, either.
Hot: communal conversation
Not: lame group work
March 7th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Hey there, Adam -
Rodger practices what he teaches - intentional pedagogical choices - different teaching methods to meet different learning styles/intelligences. You might enjoy (? well that is a relative term) reading some additional titles on teaching and learning methods and theories as you chew over this implication for future teaching/pastoral ministries and those engaged in them.
I believe in and try to practice the intentional use of different approaches to learning/teaching. It is hard work whether it is 5 year olds or 13 year olds or 80 year olds. The Socratic method has a place - - if the group is allowed to really discuss and chew over the questions not leave them as simply “posed” or rhetorical questions to linger in the classroom but to become part of the content of the learning. I find myself heavily influenced by Friere, Palmer, Weimer and Moore - much reflection going on about how I was taught to learn and how I have learned best/most effectively over time, and how what I have experienced in the classroom (beginning in 1959 in kindergarten thru current advanced degree studies) as excellent learning has NOT been thru Socratic method but a combination of methods.
A thought I had on the small group stuff - CTS’ primary mission is to prepare persons for pastorates/similar positions. Much of that is spent in groups - peer groups of some kind for the most part (peer meaning other adults with common interests/goals, not necesarily age-group peer) and coming to terms with a plan, issue, process, idea. Many of these groups are somewhat self-directed (as in not a paid leader or facilitator - maybe an elected or designated one). Congregational, community, judicatory groups and committees (when do we get to be pastors???) So in that sense - it is practice for being in that environment. (much of my work life before seminary was involved in groups, much of my church or other community volunteer life was in groups - I write from the perspective of a parent of college age/beyond children). Thinking/acting theologically in groups in seminary was just a variation on a theme for me - and some were definitely more satisfactory experiences than others!
March 7th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
sarah..i think you bring up good points about the context of a seminary and the goal of the preparation..i think that even some divinity schools (much less master’s programs in other fields) would bring a different atmosphere..and diversity is certainly to be commended..but diversity means risk..and risk means possible failure..and failure means possible bad evaluations by students..and that goes in tenure files..etc..etc..
kind of like alt worship..in some “evangelical” settings that are used to a certain “form” of worship, we can get up..do 8 songs that have nothing to do with each other, which have nothing to do with the prayer, which have nothing to do with the sermon, etc…we can follow the format with little to no complaint although it can be done with little thought or intentionality..but..try and do something different in the vein of alt. worship, etc..and it better be perfect..one little hiccup and you will get hammered..there is something about form that gives us security and comfort..if a teacher tries something different and it doesnt work, we have often hammered them..this doesnt encourage innovative teaching styles..(i use the following example with all the caveats..of course not all or most “evangelical” churches are like this..just trying to get a point across..etc..etc..)
Perhaps somewhere in all this..I hear Adam saying that somewhere along the line PhD students who are going to teach should actually be required to take a few education classes…Now, I must say that this idea absolutely sounds horrible to me (and I do have a pedagogy exam) right now trying to get through all the other requirements, but in the long run, it may be helpful..While most PhD programs do offer some workshops, etc., along the way, perhaps it is somewhat assumed that once you get done, you just “know” how to effectively communicate…
Mark
March 8th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
I teach English to hormone-riddled 9th graders who don’t like to talk about anything, and who apparently don’t have feelings. I will say this: teaching is hard, and putting students into groups is definitely a cop out for when you run out of things to say. I’m saying that meaning no harm to anyone, only telling the truth.
On the other hand, the best college English courses I’ve had incorporated small groups for a very small portion of the class time–just long enough to get our minds around the subject–and then we would come back together as a class for a discussion/lecture.
March 9th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
well…i am working on my masters in education and although i agree that certainly there must be more creative methods than constant small groups,i think it is interesting that so much of what you stand for adam is dialogue, and not an absolute truth. lecture style teaching provides much less dialogue, at least among peers. i think many liberal arts educators are trying to allow for outside interpretation. just a thought….even though im sure the group work gets old, there is much power in questioning right? so to do anything more than “close up the class” with a 10 minute discussion would feel a little like a new critical, modern style education.
May 30th, 2007 at 10:18 am
Small groups are a major part of the progressive movement in teaching which is not going to prep you for this capitalist society in any way, shape or form. It just soothes and placates; it “actively engages” you; in other words, it is to keep you entertained and occupied so that the classroom is manageable. One fatal flaw of their thinking is the belief that students teach other students (”peer review” in English and other classes). This could not be further from the truth. In actuality, there are hidden agendas underneath this way of teaching (scan google for traditional and progressive teaching). Those agendas are grounded in gender and racial stereotypes, particularly that women are subjective and emotional so they learn via interconnected abstract activities such as the ones you mention. Another agenda is that minorities listen more to their matriarchs so that a matriarchal, nurturing, “student-centered” mentality must be in the classroom at all times. It is PC gone insane. Also, because of the divorce rate, the advocates of small groups want to do away with the patriarchy and make everything a matriarchy (thus, class is rather like an episode of The View). The problem is that women and minorities ARE objective, and to gear an entire educational system around the belief that they are not (Women’s Ways of Knowing, etc.) means that they will not get the skills needed to apply themeselves into this (make no mistake about it) capitalist society. They will be back in the kitchen and on the streets. Here’s an example. A casting director wanted a Hispanic male (25-35) for an internet TV show. The casting director specified that the actor must have STANDARD AMERICAN ENGLISH to get that job. Do you think that the actor, if he had any dialectical issues, had progressive instruction in Voice and Diction or traditional to eradicate those dialectical issues? In other words, college is now a total SCAM. Progressives are now saying we either change the schools or change the system. Do you think the powers that be are going to allow socialism to emerge. Progressives may be in big trouble soon. Then you will see lectures take the place of the “touchy-feely” peace ed, Paolo Friere curriculum ever-present in education (K-12 and beyond) today.