Prof. Erfani teaches the course Meaning and Purpose in the Arts, a course far different from the other general education classes. It is a philosophical 200 level class inserted into cluster number 1, making it hard for Prof. Erfani because students will reach his class with no previous philosophical knowledge. Because it has no supplement, and therefore students enter with no foundations, Prof. Erfani can’t make any assumptions and has to structure the syllabus so that the students will understand the subject even if they know nothing about it. Through different teaching techniques, and a very specific syllabus, Prof. Erfani is able to reach the goals he believes come with teaching a general education class.
Prof. Erfani believes that the goal of the class is to teach students what philosophy can do within the arts, but more importantly to get students to become critical learners and take responsibilities for their beliefs. At the beginning of the semester, Prof. Erfani will start by covering different philosophers with different theories on what art is. He will then narrow the topic into specific definitions of art, all of which eventually fail. This, he believes, will demonstrate to students how complicated the matter is and will encourage them to come up with their own definitions and approaches to what art is.
Due to the difficult structure of the course, Prof. Erfani relies on Blackboard for everyday readings, instead of using a specific book. This allows the professor to choose the correct readings that apply to that day’s lecture because he believes that no single text comes close to what is needed to understand the class. Students will have to come to class prepared for discussion, by answering two questions about the reading, all of which are included in the syllabus. This gives students that have not studied philosophy a second chance each day; if they did not understand one of the readings they have another chance because next day’s topic is completely different.
He will also divide the course into different segments where he will go into the different types of art, such as music and film, and read philosophical approaches to these subjects. He will also leave 2 to 3 days open in the syllabus, where he will allow students to choose their own art forms for in depth study. This semester, the students chose theatre/musicals and graffiti. Prof. Erfani found that this helped engage the students in the course, it made many usually quiet students speak up and it allowed students to guide their own learning.
Prof. Erfani believes one of his best strategies, which he also uses in all his other gen ed classes, is an essay which is done at the beginning and end of class. The first day of class, he will ask his students to write a two page essay and tell what art is; this will be done with no research, just the student’ perspective. At the end of the semester, students will then review this essay in a three to four page assignment, where they will be able to apply the knowledge they acquired throughout the semester. Students can either change their minds, and will have to explain why they did, or stick to their original conclusions and defend their perspectives with better support. Prof. Erfani thinks this essay will demonstrate to the students how much they have learned and their particular evolution after the class has ended.
Prof. Erfani does not focus his class on getting students to be critical thinkers, but rather get them to be critical thinkers through good writing. He will reach this goal by sending several assignments throughout the semester. Students will have to write responses to readings and different assignments which will make them read the required articles more carefully and therefore come prepared to the class with discussion comments and questions.
Although a difficult class to teach, Prof. Erfani has managed to structure the course so that students are focused on the topic and engaged on the subject. He believes it is the teacher’s job to make cohesion of the topic, and he achieves this through a complex syllabus that clarifies where the course is going.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Dave Chappelle's role in our general education
When I asked Prof. Rachel Watkins how she believed she was reaching the general education goals in her Roots of Racism course, she told me she had many techniques to incite critical thinking and develop student’s intuitive, creative and aesthetic faculties.
She focuses on getting students to take a second look at ordinary things, and getting them to reflect on their effect on our perspectives and our values. At the beginning of the semester, she will teach her students on racism in general. Towards the end of the semester, she will make her students apply their knowledge to the world around them, therefore making them use their critical thinking capabilities. Students will look at TV shows, such as Comedy Central, and address the issues related to racism that this show portrays. They specifically discuss Dave Chappelle, a popular comedian amongst the students. Prof. Watkins will then encourage her students to look past the jokes, and, instead of looking at it mindlessly to get a good laugh, they will investigate on the critique of race relations this show discusses. They will look at the different layers that Dave Chappelle puts into his sketch, and demonstrate how this affects the audience through its racist comments.
Prof. Watkins also devotes a whole module of her class to talking about how celebrities, being an important influence to our society, also demonstrate racist behaviors. They will look at cases such as Mel Gibson or Michael Richards to demonstrate that racism is still part of our society, and to analyze its different representations.
To teach students intuitive, creative and aesthetic faculties, Prof. Watkins separates the class into small groups and requires them to develop their own research project. They will have an in depth study of any concept or idea that they see fits with the topics discussed in class. This, as Prof. Watkins believes, “will facilitate their own, self directed second look”.
Prof. Watkins believes that one of the most important parts of her class is getting rid of the students’ tendency to believe that racist ideas have been around for a long time. Her main goal is to make students realize that these racist processes are not natural, but created by specific social relations, political situations and economic conditions. This will enable students not to take things for granted, and question everyday events. They will eventually develop a method of thinking, where instead of saying “this is just how it is”, they will question processes by asking themselves “how did this stuff come to be?” or “ where did this process come from?”.
She focuses on getting students to take a second look at ordinary things, and getting them to reflect on their effect on our perspectives and our values. At the beginning of the semester, she will teach her students on racism in general. Towards the end of the semester, she will make her students apply their knowledge to the world around them, therefore making them use their critical thinking capabilities. Students will look at TV shows, such as Comedy Central, and address the issues related to racism that this show portrays. They specifically discuss Dave Chappelle, a popular comedian amongst the students. Prof. Watkins will then encourage her students to look past the jokes, and, instead of looking at it mindlessly to get a good laugh, they will investigate on the critique of race relations this show discusses. They will look at the different layers that Dave Chappelle puts into his sketch, and demonstrate how this affects the audience through its racist comments.
Prof. Watkins also devotes a whole module of her class to talking about how celebrities, being an important influence to our society, also demonstrate racist behaviors. They will look at cases such as Mel Gibson or Michael Richards to demonstrate that racism is still part of our society, and to analyze its different representations.
To teach students intuitive, creative and aesthetic faculties, Prof. Watkins separates the class into small groups and requires them to develop their own research project. They will have an in depth study of any concept or idea that they see fits with the topics discussed in class. This, as Prof. Watkins believes, “will facilitate their own, self directed second look”.
Prof. Watkins believes that one of the most important parts of her class is getting rid of the students’ tendency to believe that racist ideas have been around for a long time. Her main goal is to make students realize that these racist processes are not natural, but created by specific social relations, political situations and economic conditions. This will enable students not to take things for granted, and question everyday events. They will eventually develop a method of thinking, where instead of saying “this is just how it is”, they will question processes by asking themselves “how did this stuff come to be?” or “ where did this process come from?”.
Friday, November 9, 2007
A student's perspective
Why are students still reluctant to take general education classes if such new interesting techniques are being implemented? I’ve been interviewing professors about the teaching methods they use and every time I hear innovative and creative methods, so why is the general education program not as successful as it should be? I decided that before investigating any further into these teacher’s techniques, I needed a student perspective that could help me get an answer to my question.
I talked to Vanessa Garber, a senior here at AU, who is also involved in the general education program. When I asked her if she believed that her general education classes were interesting she told me that the only classes she found helped her, where the ones that counted towards her major. Although she is a firm believer in general education, she thinks that because classes that counted towards her major seem to have a focused purpose, they are better developed and better structured. This does not imply that students should take general education courses that only count towards their major; it implies that the general education courses that are not towards a major are “place holder classes”. These don’t seem to be working because they do not have a defined purpose and teachers therefore do not know how to approach the class. She also told me that many times professors that teach these classes are first of all in many cases adjuncts and second of all do not have control over the assigned readings or the syllabus. This creates a big problem because professors are therefore deprived of their teaching methods causing them to conform to methods that may not play to their strengths.
She also told me that the general approach of students towards a general education course is a “simple class”. This may imply that there is something wrong in the program because it is making the students not take their general education courses seriously. When I asked Vanessa what she thought about this, she told me that she believes that it is because the administration is “trying to keep a structure that is no longer viable”. She told me that she believes professors should have more teaching creative freedom and that the administration should have more detailed structures of the courses so that they have a clearly defined purpose that lets the teacher know where he/she needs to arrive at.
Although a difficult problem to attend to, she also believes that it is important to have smaller classes to allow for dialogue between the students and the professor. Because of the nature of the general education classes, they require dialogue or else they will become one more factual class. As I mentioned on a previous blog, I believe that general education classes teach more than just facts, they create a way of thinking. If there is no dialogue students will never develop critical thinking skills that they should acquire from their general education courses.
There are remarkable professors involved in the general education program, but although they are doing their best, students don’t seem to appreciate them. So far I believed that it was a problem with students; thinking that general education is not important. Now my opinion has changed. I believe that students are not interested because they are actually not getting much out of the general education classes. This mainly occurs because the structure is failing to accomplish its purpose: teaching the students about a topic while developing their critical thinking skills. Therefore, I believe the administration should look at the syllabi to determine a specific purpose for the class and at the strengths of each professor and join these two concepts together to be able to develop successful class structures.
I talked to Vanessa Garber, a senior here at AU, who is also involved in the general education program. When I asked her if she believed that her general education classes were interesting she told me that the only classes she found helped her, where the ones that counted towards her major. Although she is a firm believer in general education, she thinks that because classes that counted towards her major seem to have a focused purpose, they are better developed and better structured. This does not imply that students should take general education courses that only count towards their major; it implies that the general education courses that are not towards a major are “place holder classes”. These don’t seem to be working because they do not have a defined purpose and teachers therefore do not know how to approach the class. She also told me that many times professors that teach these classes are first of all in many cases adjuncts and second of all do not have control over the assigned readings or the syllabus. This creates a big problem because professors are therefore deprived of their teaching methods causing them to conform to methods that may not play to their strengths.
She also told me that the general approach of students towards a general education course is a “simple class”. This may imply that there is something wrong in the program because it is making the students not take their general education courses seriously. When I asked Vanessa what she thought about this, she told me that she believes that it is because the administration is “trying to keep a structure that is no longer viable”. She told me that she believes professors should have more teaching creative freedom and that the administration should have more detailed structures of the courses so that they have a clearly defined purpose that lets the teacher know where he/she needs to arrive at.
Although a difficult problem to attend to, she also believes that it is important to have smaller classes to allow for dialogue between the students and the professor. Because of the nature of the general education classes, they require dialogue or else they will become one more factual class. As I mentioned on a previous blog, I believe that general education classes teach more than just facts, they create a way of thinking. If there is no dialogue students will never develop critical thinking skills that they should acquire from their general education courses.
There are remarkable professors involved in the general education program, but although they are doing their best, students don’t seem to appreciate them. So far I believed that it was a problem with students; thinking that general education is not important. Now my opinion has changed. I believe that students are not interested because they are actually not getting much out of the general education classes. This mainly occurs because the structure is failing to accomplish its purpose: teaching the students about a topic while developing their critical thinking skills. Therefore, I believe the administration should look at the syllabi to determine a specific purpose for the class and at the strengths of each professor and join these two concepts together to be able to develop successful class structures.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Music is for life
When I asked Prof. Sapieyevski for an interview I never imagined it would be as interesting as it was. As soon as our conversation started he demonstrated to me how he believed that music is an international language because, as he explains, “it is the only language that while only having seven letters, it speaks to everyone.” He moved towards his piano, and played a piece for me. Throughout the piece he narrated a story of two lovers, and with changes in the dynamics the relationship evolved into a complex bond between the two lovers. As I heard the accords my imagination wondered and music became a story inside my head- they were dating, they fell in love, they had a fight, one of them tragically died, the other was only left with memories. When the piece was over I realized how music is a language that speaks to everyone; even someone from Russia would have pictured a love story with the same ups and downs as I did.
Prof. Sapieyevski believes that his class is not about facts. He uses a teaching website, Music Happens, where he helps his students get the gist of the class, leaving the class period for discussion and demonstration. He believes his most important goal is to make the students aware of the emotion of music, something you cannot read on books. Therefore through demonstrations in class, Prof. Sapieyevski teaches his students how to "feel musical emotion" and to recognize how music sets the atmosphere on everything from a movie, to life.
Prof. Sapieyevski truly believes in the power of music. He told me music is a direct mirror of our emotions, something I also believe is true. I have played flute for almost five years, and I believe music is more important in life than we give it credit for. It helps us express feelings difficult to share with others; it gives us a safe route where we can expose our true feelings. In Prof. Sapieyevski’s words, “music is cheaper than a psychiatrist”.
Besides using a website to help with his class, Prof. Sapieyevski uses the program “Painted Music” to invite his students to mix painting with music. Through incredible technology, I didn’t even know existed, he is able to teach his students to paint on sensitive canvases so that they can create the sound they want; painting therefore becomes the instrument. This way, through painting on a canvas, the students are also able to create music and unite both disciplines into one. This helps the students realize that the world is a multidisciplinary place, where we have to learn to apply everything we know to our day to day actions.
When I asked Prof. Sapieyevski why he believed his class met the requirements of a general education course he told me “because unlike many subjects, Music is for life”. He told me that almost everything else in life becomes obsolete, but music has lasted centuries, therefore it is important for students to know about this subject. It teaches them to have a good emotional life, something many subjects here at the university do not attend to. In our modern world, we lack enrichment of emotions because we have focused ourselves on getting jobs. Through this course students are taught that there is more to life than a job, it teaches them the emotional aspect of life.
Prof. Sapieyevski believes that his class is not about facts. He uses a teaching website, Music Happens, where he helps his students get the gist of the class, leaving the class period for discussion and demonstration. He believes his most important goal is to make the students aware of the emotion of music, something you cannot read on books. Therefore through demonstrations in class, Prof. Sapieyevski teaches his students how to "feel musical emotion" and to recognize how music sets the atmosphere on everything from a movie, to life.
Prof. Sapieyevski truly believes in the power of music. He told me music is a direct mirror of our emotions, something I also believe is true. I have played flute for almost five years, and I believe music is more important in life than we give it credit for. It helps us express feelings difficult to share with others; it gives us a safe route where we can expose our true feelings. In Prof. Sapieyevski’s words, “music is cheaper than a psychiatrist”.
Besides using a website to help with his class, Prof. Sapieyevski uses the program “Painted Music” to invite his students to mix painting with music. Through incredible technology, I didn’t even know existed, he is able to teach his students to paint on sensitive canvases so that they can create the sound they want; painting therefore becomes the instrument. This way, through painting on a canvas, the students are also able to create music and unite both disciplines into one. This helps the students realize that the world is a multidisciplinary place, where we have to learn to apply everything we know to our day to day actions.
When I asked Prof. Sapieyevski why he believed his class met the requirements of a general education course he told me “because unlike many subjects, Music is for life”. He told me that almost everything else in life becomes obsolete, but music has lasted centuries, therefore it is important for students to know about this subject. It teaches them to have a good emotional life, something many subjects here at the university do not attend to. In our modern world, we lack enrichment of emotions because we have focused ourselves on getting jobs. Through this course students are taught that there is more to life than a job, it teaches them the emotional aspect of life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)