Model Teaching Criteria: A bit longer post...

I read an article that just came out in Teaching of Psychology by Richmond, Boyse, Gurung, Tazeau, Meyers, and Sciutto (2014). Here's the link, although it's behind a subscription pay-wall. The article is about Model Teaching Criteria (MTC), or the ideal qualities and abilities of teachers in psychology, in their opinion. These authors are seen as experts in this area and were part of an APA presidential task force about this topic.

I will summarize and comment on the set of criteria they propose.

The first criteria is that model teachers are well trained. This means they are up to date in both the content of psychology, but also up on the latest pedagogy. These are two very different criteria, in my opinion. Staying up on the latest research in psychology seems like an obvious requirement, but I think there are some assumptions underlying this recommendation that need exploring.

One is that any one person can be an expert in any substantial area of psychology. Everyone with a PhD knows this to be folly. In my own area of social psychology I am an expert on a very small range of topics, like maybe one or two out of a possible list of 40 or 50 (or more). Am I qualified to teach a social psychology course? Sure, but even in that class I lecture about some topics with not much more knowledge than exists in the textbook. I think the same could be said of most professors in my area, no matter their type of institution (R1 to community college) or experience. I remember one person from graduate school (Mark Zanna) who know about nearly every area of social psychology, but he's exceptional in every sense. APA guidelines suggest that it might be unethical to teach outside of one's area of expertise. Again, that sounds reasonable and prudent, but I admit that I have often violated this principle, without, I believe, disastrous consequences. I would never attempt to teach physics, or even physiological psychology, but I have taught psychology and law, and political psychology, with only my interest and enthusiasm and not much graduate training in the areas. Not to mention interdisciplinary courses team-taught with members of other departments. These were learning experiences for me as much as for the students, and I think that's ok.

Another assumption is that professors are the source of knowledge and the students the receptacles into which professor pour that knowledge. The sage-on-the-stage model. I agree that this is (more) true in lower level courses like Intro, but even there I think this assumption can lead to student disengagement. The best courses are the ones where I feel that I and the students collaborate on covering the material. This requires a certain letting-go, which comes to me with difficulty, I admit. Giving the students control of the course in this way requires that I not get upset if we don't get to or emphasize what I think is important. But it also turns the students into active participants in the learning, and I think that outweighs my anxieties.

Another assumption is that the content of psychology is static, and that the current state of knowledge is the most important thing to get across to the students. Of course today's cutting edge takes on a patina with age, and the cutting edge of tomorrow never arrives. This is not to say that content is irrelevant -- of course it's vital to teach something. But remember that our future selves and academic descendants will view our content the same way we view Wundt or Jung today: interesting history, and perhaps a foundation for later work, but not what we believe is true today. Our discipline is a science, and I tell my students that that means we don't know everything yet, that we are constantly increasing our knowledge. To then act as if our knowledge of today's content is essential seems to ignore the true nature of a science as on-going. Wouldn't it be better to approach the content of our courses as a scientist, an explorer, and pull along the students on our voyage into the dark mysteries of the mind?

The second part of this criteria is that model teachers know about pedagogical practice and theory and I think they are on more solid ground here. I love the idea of the scientist-educator. This idea requires instructors to know about what our science tells us about how the human mind stores, retains, and recalls information. What could be more appropriate? There now many articles and books on the topic. Right now I'm reading Make It Stick by Brown, Roediger, and McDaniel (2014). Good stuff. In addition, model teachers should know about effective pedagogical practices. Like any area of research there have been numerous dead ends, like learning styles. But there are also promising avenues like the flipped class (pay wall) or the jigsaw classroom that deserve our attention.

-------------------

The next criteria address what teachers do in class.  Here they emphasize teaching methods that engage students, and I think they are on-target here. It certainly helps that they cite several studies (including meta-analyses) that support students engagement as the royal road to student learning. They also talk about many of the qualities of excellent teachers that many people think of first when reminiscing about their favorite professors -- enthusiasm, public speaking, organization. They also throw in competence in technology, but it seems like a throw-away addition. This is a mistake, in my opinion. Our students are digital natives, and ignoring this universe is a luxury we can no longer afford. It's not that technology for it's own sake deserves our attention, but rather that the opportunities that now exist to enhance our teaching are too good to ignore. Just as Socrates resisted the technology of his day (the written word, hat tip to William Power's Hamlet's Blackberry), those that resist digital technology today will be be seen as mistaken years hence. Our students live in a digital world, and we have to join them or they will find someone somewhere else who does.


I've just covered the first two of six criteria they propose and this post is already much longer than I thought it would be (congrats on getting this far!). So I'll leave it here and come back to the other four criteria in another post.

A new find

I just found this blog (Pedagogy Unbound), and it's full of gems. Here's a list of the tips I've learned so far from reading just the most recent posts (as of Oct. 2014):

1. Rubrics can be helpful, but mainly for forcing instructors to clarify their goals for an assignment. Vague language on a rubric doesn't help students.
2. Of course the students haven't done the reading before class. Again. That's because they prioritize their duties (just like the rest of us) and can cleverly discern which readings are really required, and which are actually optional (hint: something bad happens to them if they don't read the required ones). But quizzes can be punitive devices to force students to read. Better is to structure class time so that doing the reading is actually helpful (to them) in class. You could also ask the students what they want you to cover about a reading -- what an idea, put the onus on them by asking for their preferences!
3. Teach the last day of class on the first day of class. Sounds odd, but I think it could really work.

Lots more there, and I plan on mining it. The author is David Gooblar (@dgooblar) and the blog is part of the Chronicle of Higher Education website. Actually, the blog is on the Chronicle's Vitae website. I just created an account there. It looks to be a LinkedIn for academics. I'll see what that does for me.