What would be a reasonable approach to classroom teaching in the fall?

[Puget]

[. . . ]

The latest fad is "trauma informed pedagogy", which an English instructor tried to lecture a bunch of psychologists about in our hybrid teaching institute the other day (which went over about how you would expect it to. 

[. . . ]

Ah yes, the early 21st century equivalent of "learning styles."

Please don't get me started on "learning styles" which a lot of people outside psychology still seem to think are real.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/01/09/learning-styles-debate-its-instructors-vs-psychologists

There are a whole set of these zombie ideas, that are long dead within scientific psychology, but are still roaming around outside the field. Some are useless but relatively harmless (e.g., left brain/right brain), others, such as ones that increase mental health stigma, are actively harmful, others are in between (e.g., while unscientific "personality tests" are often harmless entertainment, the NPR podcast Invsibilia had a great episode on some of the harm the totally unscientific Myers-Briggs personality test continues to do:https://www.wnyc.org/story/the-personality-myth/)

[Puget]

There is a distinction between traumatic and stressful events. The DSM-5 defines trauma as exposure to actual or threatened death, series injury or sexual violence, through actual experiencing, witnessing, learning that the traumatic event happened to a close family member or friend, or repeated and extreme exposure to details of traumatic events (e.g., first responders, NOT exposure through media). There are plenty of problems with the DSM, but this  accurately captures the consensus definition in the literature.  An event can be very stressful (e.g., losing a needed job, failing out of college) and still not be a trauma.  The key difference is threat to life or bodily integrity.

How does the DSM define "phobia"?

You can google this you know-- the DSM is not some closely guarded professional secret.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK519704/table/ch3.t11/

[marshwiggle]

There is a distinction between traumatic and stressful events. The DSM-5 defines trauma as exposure to actual or threatened death, series injury or sexual violence, through actual experiencing, witnessing, learning that the traumatic event happened to a close family member or friend, or repeated and extreme exposure to details of traumatic events (e.g., first responders, NOT exposure through media). There are plenty of problems with the DSM, but this  accurately captures the consensus definition in the literature.  An event can be very stressful (e.g., losing a needed job, failing out of college) and still not be a trauma.  The key difference is threat to life or bodily integrity.

How does the DSM define "phobia"?

You can google this you know-- the DSM is not some closely guarded professional secret.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK519704/table/ch3.t11/

From my reading, "phobia" is at least as overused as "trauma", and has been for years without any apparent pushback from the psychological community.

[Puget]

There is a distinction between traumatic and stressful events. The DSM-5 defines trauma as exposure to actual or threatened death, series injury or sexual violence, through actual experiencing, witnessing, learning that the traumatic event happened to a close family member or friend, or repeated and extreme exposure to details of traumatic events (e.g., first responders, NOT exposure through media). There are plenty of problems with the DSM, but this  accurately captures the consensus definition in the literature.  An event can be very stressful (e.g., losing a needed job, failing out of college) and still not be a trauma.  The key difference is threat to life or bodily integrity.

How does the DSM define "phobia"?

You can google this you know-- the DSM is not some closely guarded professional secret.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK519704/table/ch3.t11/

From my reading, "phobia" is at least as overused as "trauma", and has been for years without any apparent pushback from the psychological community.

How and why exactly do you expect us to push back on that? Lots of terms get used in unscientific ways-- we are not the language police. If something is being used in an inaccurate way that affects important outcomes, we can and do try to educate. I don't think someone saying they have a phobia of avocado (or whatever), or have OCD because they like to keep things clean, is (a) much of a problem, or (b) anything we can do anything about.

[marshwiggle]

There is a distinction between traumatic and stressful events. The DSM-5 defines trauma as exposure to actual or threatened death, series injury or sexual violence, through actual experiencing, witnessing, learning that the traumatic event happened to a close family member or friend, or repeated and extreme exposure to details of traumatic events (e.g., first responders, NOT exposure through media). There are plenty of problems with the DSM, but this  accurately captures the consensus definition in the literature.  An event can be very stressful (e.g., losing a needed job, failing out of college) and still not be a trauma.  The key difference is threat to life or bodily integrity.

How does the DSM define "phobia"?

You can google this you know-- the DSM is not some closely guarded professional secret.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK519704/table/ch3.t11/

From my reading, "phobia" is at least as overused as "trauma", and has been for years without any apparent pushback from the psychological community.

How and why exactly do you expect us to push back on that? Lots of terms get used in unscientific ways-- we are not the language police. If something is being used in an inaccurate way that affects important outcomes, we can and do try to educate. I don't think someone saying they have a phobia of avocado (or whatever), or have OCD because they like to keep things clean, is (a) much of a problem, or (b) anything we can do anything about.

But people are accused publicly, including in the media, of being "transphobic" or "homophobic", and journalists will even use the terms themselves. And those terms are intended to be extremely perjorative. That IS a problem.

[PhilRunner]

I want to return this discussion to teaching in the midst of the coronavirus. Let's bracket the safety issues for a moment to focus on the instructional options with which we'll be left. For context, I teach courses grounded on conversation about difficult topics. While I do lecture, it isn't the primary way I teach. I emphasize this because much of the writing about teaching amidst the pandemic focuses on lecture and testing. While many professors may teach in that way, many of us also seek to create interactive classrooms where we teach critical engagement with ideas through discussion. To be clear, I also do not like teaching online. I value human interaction, and I enjoy being in classrooms with students. I question, though, the value of in person teaching given the changes that social distancing will have on how we go about engaging students. After reading articles about the options, it seems to me that online discussions through something like Zoom will be superior to the in person strategies folks are discussing. For example, I've been looking at my university's suggested course design advice, and on the list is this article by some folks at Vanderbilt:

https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/2020/06/active-learning-in-hybrid-and-socially-distanced-classrooms/

I'm curious about others' reactions. By the end I was exhausted. It seems that there are ways we could use technology to try to bring students together, but I worry that these methods will be incredibly time consuming (and thereby reducing our actual classroom engagement time to a fraction of what it might normally be) and ultimately not worth the effort in the end. Rather than becoming some classroom techno-wizard who uses the latest tricks to try to get students to engage in some semblance of discussion, so far, it seems that going online is a much better instructional strategy. I also wonder if students actually know what instruction in the socially distanced classroom might actually entail?

[dr_codex]

I want to return this discussion to teaching in the midst of the coronavirus. Let's bracket the safety issues for a moment to focus on the instructional options with which we'll be left. For context, I teach courses grounded on conversation about difficult topics. While I do lecture, it isn't the primary way I teach. I emphasize this because much of the writing about teaching amidst the pandemic focuses on lecture and testing. While many professors may teach in that way, many of us also seek to create interactive classrooms where we teach critical engagement with ideas through discussion. To be clear, I also do not like teaching online. I value human interaction, and I enjoy being in classrooms with students. I question, though, the value of in person teaching given the changes that social distancing will have on how we go about engaging students. After reading articles about the options, it seems to me that online discussions through something like Zoom will be superior to the in person strategies folks are discussing. For example, I've been looking at my university's suggested course design advice, and on the list is this article by some folks at Vanderbilt:

https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/2020/06/active-learning-in-hybrid-and-socially-distanced-classrooms/

I'm curious about others' reactions. By the end I was exhausted. It seems that there are ways we could use technology to try to bring students together, but I worry that these methods will be incredibly time consuming (and thereby reducing our actual classroom engagement time to a fraction of what it might normally be) and ultimately not worth the effort in the end. Rather than becoming some classroom techno-wizard who uses the latest tricks to try to get students to engage in some semblance of discussion, so far, it seems that going online is a much better instructional strategy. I also wonder if students actually know what instruction in the socially distanced classroom might actually entail?

I share your concerns. I dropped a planned conversation in one of my Freshman courses in the Spring because it's the kind of material that gets people fired if they aren't careful. Under normal circumstances, I give my Chair a heads-up when it's happening, and any revisions to the lesson plan. It's important for me to listen, not talk, during most of this session, but also to have a quick hand at shutting down some kinds of contributions. I treat this session like a live grenade at the best of times, and wasn't going to try it under less controlled conditions.

I tried to introduce similar material in my graduate course, and almost nobody took it up. I am curious about why, and may ask them in a post-course interview, but again, my job is to listen, and if they aren't talking about it, there's only so much nudging that I think it's appropriate to do.

I'm not sure if my conclusion is that some topics can only be addressed in some formats. I suspect, for me, that it will prove to be true.

[Caracal]

I want to return this discussion to teaching in the midst of the coronavirus. Let's bracket the safety issues for a moment to focus on the instructional options with which we'll be left. For context, I teach courses grounded on conversation about difficult topics. While I do lecture, it isn't the primary way I teach. I emphasize this because much of the writing about teaching amidst the pandemic focuses on lecture and testing. While many professors may teach in that way, many of us also seek to create interactive classrooms where we teach critical engagement with ideas through discussion. To be clear, I also do not like teaching online. I value human interaction, and I enjoy being in classrooms with students. I question, though, the value of in person teaching given the changes that social distancing will have on how we go about engaging students. After reading articles about the options, it seems to me that online discussions through something like Zoom will be superior to the in person strategies folks are discussing. For example, I've been looking at my university's suggested course design advice, and on the list is this article by some folks at Vanderbilt:

https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/2020/06/active-learning-in-hybrid-and-socially-distanced-classrooms/

I'm curious about others' reactions. By the end I was exhausted. It seems that there are ways we could use technology to try to bring students together, but I worry that these methods will be incredibly time consuming (and thereby reducing our actual classroom engagement time to a fraction of what it might normally be) and ultimately not worth the effort in the end. Rather than becoming some classroom techno-wizard who uses the latest tricks to try to get students to engage in some semblance of discussion, so far, it seems that going online is a much better instructional strategy. I also wonder if students actually know what instruction in the socially distanced classroom might actually entail?

I do think it's going to be important to realize that no matter what we do, conditions in the fall are not going to be ideal. I think most of us can do better than we did in the Spring, but it still won't be great and things will be pretty messy. Whether online or in person students are going to have to deal with more disruptions than normal, we'll have to deal with more disruptions than normal and we are all probably going to have to be flexible, understanding and lower some expectations for both ourselves and the students.

[marshwiggle]

It seems that there are ways we could use technology to try to bring students together, but I worry that these methods will be incredibly time consuming (and thereby reducing our actual classroom engagement time to a fraction of what it might normally be) and ultimately not worth the effort in the end. Rather than becoming some classroom techno-wizard who uses the latest tricks to try to get students to engage in some semblance of discussion, so far, it seems that going online is a much better instructional strategy. I also wonder if students actually know what instruction in the socially distanced classroom might actually entail?

A point worth noting is that there is evidence that in some sorts of online discussions people participate who are less likely to in-person. (And no doubt the opposite is true as well.) So it's not good to see online as an inherently inferior alternative to in-person, but rather as one with different strengths and weaknesses. For instance, people who think well on their feet may enjoy in-person discussions, whereas people who need time to formulate their thoughts may much prefer asynchronous online discussions.

[dr_codex]

It seems that there are ways we could use technology to try to bring students together, but I worry that these methods will be incredibly time consuming (and thereby reducing our actual classroom engagement time to a fraction of what it might normally be) and ultimately not worth the effort in the end. Rather than becoming some classroom techno-wizard who uses the latest tricks to try to get students to engage in some semblance of discussion, so far, it seems that going online is a much better instructional strategy. I also wonder if students actually know what instruction in the socially distanced classroom might actually entail?

A point worth noting is that there is evidence that in some sorts of online discussions people participate who are less likely to in-person. (And no doubt the opposite is true as well.) So it's not good to see online as an inherently inferior alternative to in-person, but rather as one with different strengths and weaknesses. For instance, people who think well on their feet may enjoy in-person discussions, whereas people who need time to formulate their thoughts may much prefer asynchronous online discussions.

This is true. Also true is that courses usually emphasize either oral/aural or reading/writing. Some students prefer one or the other modality.

And it's true for faculty, too. Some people prefer to think through meticulous lectures and lesson plans; other love to wing it. Both approaches can work, and students often do better with one approach or the other.

[Caracal]

I share your concerns. I dropped a planned conversation in one of my Freshman courses in the Spring because it's the kind of material that gets people fired if they aren't careful. Under normal circumstances, I give my Chair a heads-up when it's happening, and any revisions to the lesson plan. It's important for me to listen, not talk, during most of this session, but also to have a quick hand at shutting down some kinds of contributions. I treat this session like a live grenade at the best of times, and wasn't going to try it under less controlled conditions.

I tried to introduce similar material in my graduate course, and almost nobody took it up. I am curious about why, and may ask them in a post-course interview, but again, my job is to listen, and if they aren't talking about it, there's only so much nudging that I think it's appropriate to do.

I'm not sure if my conclusion is that some topics can only be addressed in some formats. I suspect, for me, that it will prove to be true.

As someone who teaches history, I do worry a little bit about this online. On one hand, I'm pretty practiced at dealing with unpleasant subjects, because that's a large amount of what I teach. However, I think teaching in person allows me to read the room and stay ahead of any trouble. Discussions and questions let me clarify any misunderstandings students might have about what I'm saying, and also provide a release valve for students who might approach things from a different place. For example, while I hardly adopt a "neutral" stance towards slavery, my training has mostly taught me to think of how to understand things that I find repugnant. I think one of the values of discussion is that it allows me to make clear that I don't have any problem with people being angry or sad about slavery, as long as they can combine that with a sophisticated analysis. That's the kind of thing that can be a lot easier to convey in person, however, than over a zoom session.

[downer]

I agree that classroom courses will be disrupted and less than ideal.

I am currently teaching an online course and I'm finding it is going fine. I'm not getting any panicked messages from students, and they are doing as well as I would expect for any summer online course.

If I thought that all students could do well in an online course, I'd recommend full planning for online fall courses. But they don't. So I'm still keeping my options open for my fall "hybrid" courses.

I did look at that Vanderbilt website this weekend. I agree that it is exhausting. As I've mentioned often, my planning time is going to be limited. I will often try one innovation in teaching technique in a semester, and if it works, I will try to build it into future courses. I'm not going to try a lot of new things all at the same time.

[spork]

[. . .]

much of the writing about teaching amidst the pandemic focuses on lecture and testing. While many professors may teach in that way, many of us also seek to create interactive classrooms where we teach critical engagement with ideas through discussion.

[. . . ]

http://activelearningps.com/2020/06/22/simulating-covid-19-classroom-conditions/

[PhilRunner]

Well, that expresses it perfectly. Thank you.

[Caracal]

[. . .]

much of the writing about teaching amidst the pandemic focuses on lecture and testing. While many professors may teach in that way, many of us also seek to create interactive classrooms where we teach critical engagement with ideas through discussion.

[. . . ]

http://activelearningps.com/2020/06/22/simulating-covid-19-classroom-conditions/

Hmm, I think it highlights potential problems, but it also might draw too many conclusions from a particular setup. First of all, I agree that, generally, trying to have class live and remote at the same time is a bad plan. It might work in very specific circumstances, but in most cases it seems like it would be a mess. The more workable version is that the class is recorded and then posted online.

Starting from there, some of the problems seem very fixable. It isn't like nobody has ever recorded lectures from class and posted them before. If the recordings aren't picking up the professor's voice well enough, then they probably should not be relying on microphones on the ceiling. A lapel mike might work, or perhaps one on the podium. All of our classrooms have built in podium mikes already. In general, I don't really buy that it is going to particularly difficult to screen share from the laptop to the recording. It seems like there is some particular problem with Webex and the college's system. So try Zoom and see if it works better? Or if that isn't an option, get classroom support on it.

Obviously all of this is dependent on competent school support, but it seems strange to try something totally new, run into a few small, probably fixable issues, and conclude that the whole thing is unworkable. It isn't ideal, but it won't be an ideal semester.