Have you ever ranted at your students? Just flat-out told them they weren’t cutting it and needed to do better?
Last week, as I was grading their third assignment, I realized that many of them weren’t improving in the way: (a) they should and (b) students in the past have done in this exact class. As I handed back the assignment, I told them they needed to do better. I was supportive of their efforts, but also clear about my disappointment. They needed to work harder. They needed to ask more questions. They needed to tell me when things were unclear. I turned on my serious voice and I got their attention. We’ll see if it pays off.
There are two ways to think about what caused this: (1) I have a difficult batch of students this semester and I’m the control, the only similar thing between this class and the previous ones; or (2) I may be the control, but I need to step it up too.
At any rate, what all this has done is, I think, made me a better teacher during the last week. We almost always now spend nearly 10(!) minutes giving background to situate the lecture I’m about to give. And by background, I mean Socratic style–we learned what last week folks? And the person who ran the Soviet Union during World War II was who? And his preferred form of national economy was called what? And the junior senator from Wisconsin’s name was what? It takes a hell of a lot of pedagogical time, but repetition helps things get ingrained in those neural pathways. Or at least I hope so.
Plus, now many respond to the questions. They had in the past, but only 5 or 6 really participated. Now most do. They are making the effort.
We’ll see if it pays off come finals time, but it seems that a little splash in the face three-quarters through the semester was no bad thing for either of us.
Have you tried this before? How’d it go?
It sounds like you might have Socrates confused with Alex Trebek. There’s nothing particularly Socratic about recreating Ben Stein’s role as the teacher from Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. It seems like greater focus on the broad themes and the issues that connect to the student’s lives might create better engagement than spending your time working through an oral pop quiz of the previous lecture’s material. I can’t imagine students subjected to that kind of interaction will want to take another history course when this one is over. Given the other posts on this blog, I’m sure you are connecting with the students in these other ways and that it just wasn’t evident from this post. If you are really considering option B above, I’d suggest focusing in those directions and trying to get the students excited about the past. After all, isn’t the very least interesting thing about McCarthyism the fact that he was the junior senator from Wisconsin?
Anonymous,
Great thoughts…and yes, Alex Trebek is perhaps a better example than Socrates. But I will question you about one thing: I think that repetition works, if done in a way that is not pedantic and simply fill-in-the-blank. How boring. So I guess what I’m really doing with them is getting them to remember the broad narrative of the course and then fill in that narrative will little, memorably examples. You are right: they never remember that he’s the junior senator from Wisconsin but they do remember his varying number of “confirmed communists” and the fact that regardless of how idiotic some of that might sound, people’s fifth-grade math teachers actually disappeared from the classroom because they were rooted out by loyalty oaths. How does that appear to a fifth-grader? Thanks for pushing me to clean up some lazy ideas though…
Hey, I’m all for focusing on “broader themes and issues” over repetition of facts, but I’ll defend Kevin’s approach. Some basic refreshers on the key terms never hurt anyone; plus, asking for recall of basic info is a safe way to get people participating before moving on to more interpretive material.
Knowing the difference between Joseph McCarthy and Eugene McCarthy is important. 🙂
Aaron,
Nice distinction between the McCarthys…thanks.
All best,
Kevin