Teaching and Learning Academy

Teaching and Learning Academy

Highlights from Week of Nov. 4-7, 2003

T@3:30

15 participants (9 students, 4 faculty, 2 administrators)

§  Group discussed a range of issues from micro level (classroom) to macro level (national politics) and acknowledged a number of venues for being heard, including the TLA, Assoc. Students, Faculty Senate, Academic Coordinating Commission, Academic Grievance Board, and the Western Front.

§  Some people expressed the view that students don’t really have the interest or desire to voice their ideas on either the micro or macro levels, while others attributed the gap to time restraints and work load issues.

§  General consensus was that Western has ample venues for being heard, but using those forums requires basic information about them as well as the reflective space to be able to use them.

§  Suggestion for a new forum: a Speaker’s Corner in Red Square (like the one in London), where anyone can show up and talk about anything at all!

§  Lingering question: What does TLA want to be heard?

W@1

15 participants (8 students, 4 faculty, 2 administrators, 1 staff)

§  Group echoed idea from last highlights about the case story “On Being Heard” that we often let our implicit assumptions (such as those about gender) skew our analysis and that making those assumptions explicit is part of the work of TLA.

§  Consensus was that TLA provides an important forum for voicing a range of campus perspectives and urged that it be expanded and specific ways found for rewarding participation, including possible GER credits for students who participate.

§  One sub-group suggested a building block approach to developing venues for being heard: building up from classroom structures, such as creating more curricular spaces where small group discussions can happen (such as inviting frosh into the TLA conversations) to adjusting larger structures (such as reducing the number of requirements) and bringing central administration more into the dialogue.

§  Another sub-group focused on ways to create/expand venues and structures for hearing multiple voices, including more publication sites for disseminating ideas from multiple perspectives together (students, faculty, administrators/staff); more support for integrated service learning components as a way for the community to be heard as well; perhaps creating an ombudsman position to help students negotiate difficult issues with faculty/administration.

§  Many noted the clock-time and work load constraints for everyone, making it increasingly difficult to find time to voice ideas anywhere!

§  One specific suggestion to address these time constraints was to establish an “institutional learning time” so that these kinds of teaching-learning discussions, seminars, institutes could happen in multiple venues in a regular, deliberate way across campus and in multiple venues. Perhaps even just once a quarter to begin with?

§  Lingering question: How to structure more institutional time for TLA-like discussions?

W@3

13 participants (5 students, 6 faculty, 1 administrator, 1 staff)

§  Group noted that they thought gender was more of a factor in understanding the Critical Moments case story “On Being Heard Across the Table,” than the last highlights may have indicated.

§  Discussion ranged from micro level venues for being heard (on campus) to macro level venues (voting for national issues), and some wondered whether “influence” was a better term for indicating what we want because it points to some result.

§  Consensus was that the TLA provides a structure for a range of voices from across campus to be heard.

§  Suggestions for additional forums included bringing back the salons where faculty could discuss current research/teaching issues and alternative perspectives could be brought to light; developing an electronic forum for securing more honest classroom feedback, and creating a “commons,” a place where all students (on and off campus) felt like they could voice ideas.

§  The idea of “being heard” was interrogated, and some wondered if we what we really want is to be “understood” and “acknowledged.”

§  The group acknowledged the risky consequences of voicing ideas: needing to take responsibility for what is said.

§  Lingering question: What do we want to use our TLA voice for?

R@2

15 participants (6 students, 5 faculty, 1 administrator, 3 staff)

§  Group discussed a number of specific structures for expanding venues for voicing:

1.  Use My Western more as a central place for campus communications – could provide topical/chronological/departmental points of entry.

2.  Build more small communities within Western, creating multiple spheres for being heard.

3.  Establish more formal occasions for canvassing perspectives on specific issues and for providing information, e.g. an Assoc. Students Open House to present and gather information on pressing legislative issues facing students.

4.  Revisit current teaching evaluation modes and develop ways to gather more honest feedback and to create more authentic methods of interaction between faculty and students.

5.  Devise ways for additional stakeholder voices to be heard, e.g. expand TLA to include parents and family/community voices.

6.  Develop more inviting formal and informal spaces for teaching and learning all over campus. Consensus was that we need to secure more input from students and faculty/staff for integrating more interactive spaces into all new/remodeled building projects on campus. The intention seems to be there, but something is getting lost in the final construction (e.g. plan for new Communication building lacks adequate physical spaces for small group, informal interactions as does Arntzen eatery remodeling plan).

F@12

6 participants (2 students, 2 faculty, 1 administrator, 1 alumna)

§  Group recapped last time’s discussion of “On Being Heard Across the Table” with a special focus on gender differences in communication styles. Consensus was that we need more discussion around the topic of gender needs/differences in teaching and learning (what’s the gender breakdown in TLA?)

§  Group acknowledged the benefits of studying ourselves and our own “critical moments” to learn more about teaching and learning. Consensus was that changing highlighting format back to reporting out each group’s *voice* might be way to capture that self-record more fully.

§  Specific strategies/structures/venues recommended included:

1.  Develop ways to “count” TLA participation for all participants, so that it is valued and rewarded for real.

2.  Show emphasis on teaching by “counting” faculty development sessions for professional advancement.

3.  Find as many ways as possible to value anyone who is involved in education, especially rewarding collective efforts for enhancing teaching and learning.

§  Lingering question: How to reward individual and collective work on behalf of teaching and learning?

A total of 64 people participated in TLA during this week – 30 students, 21 faculty, 7 administrators, 5 staff, 1 alumna. ~ Compiled by Carmen Werder