The experimental methods and teaching innovations I attempted in L216 derive largely from my desire to engage the seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education. (note 4)   Three examples follow.

1. Asynchronous discussion threads (emphasizes time on task and respects diverse ways of learning)

Students were given several newspaper op-ed pieces over the course of the semester that related well to the course inquiry question.  They were asked to read and offer a response to the author’s point of view by means of a discussion thread that I had set up previously on Indiana University’s web-based Oncourse platform.  This interactive teaching and learning environment is primarily designed to assist faculty with tedious administrative concerns, but it also offers some functionalities that allow students to interact with each other and with the instructor electronically.

Students reported that they enjoyed this mode of communication and frequently wrote lengthy responses to the various articles I had given them.  As has been demonstrated in other settings, (note 5) electronic communication facilitates the expression and sharing of thought, especially among students who are typically shy and quiet in class but have much to say on the topics explored.  The computer format seemed to offer such students a safe atmosphere where they could find their voice and make it heard, and I was pleased to hear the voices of these otherwise rather reticent students.

This spring (2002), I would like to make better use of the synchronous functionality of Oncourse (chat) in addition to the asynchronous discussion threads.  My hope would be to prompt greater student-to-student interaction and thereby enhance the cooperative nature of learning already taking place in the seminar context.

I continue to experiment with methods of feedback on student writing that will allow me to communicate suggestions in supportive, non-threatening, and helpful ways, with the pedagogical goal that students use my teacherly input productively to improve their work and their skills.  When it was time to return the first set of papers, I asked students to pick their work up in person so I could meet with them one on one.  I wished to reassure them and give them personal attention while at the same time offering them suggestions for improvement and assigning a grade to their work.  Clearly, this approach will only work in small classes, but I think it worked well here.  I intend to repeat this strategy, though next time I will meet with students to discuss draft versions so they can incorporate my suggestions into their final versions.

Because one of my course objectives was to expose students to as wide a variety of humanistic texts as possible, I made arrangements for the class to meet twice at the I.U. Art Museum.  The first visit was intended to model the interpretation of art work (by a professional docent) to the students, to introduce them to some of the specialized vocabulary of the art world, and to show them that even art could be viewed through the lens of our course inquiry question.  The second visit was designed to give students the opportunity to present their previously prepared collaborative interpretations of a work of art that the group had chosen.  Each group chose one representative to serve as docent, who then interpreted the artwork vis-à-vis the course inquiry question for the entire class.

This project greatly exceeded my expectations.  For many students, this was a first encounter with the world of art and/or the I.U. Art Museum.  Hence, such an assignment worked to foster an “enriching educational experience” at I.U., one of the five national benchmarks of a good college experience. (note 6)  It also asked students to work collaboratively to do the work of choosing and interpreting the art.  Finally, it challenged students to look beyond the traditional classroom of books and papers for evidence of the course inquiry question in non-printed humanistic texts.

In spring 2002, I plan to repeat the assignment with greater concentration on pop and commercial art, because I think these genres suit the course inquiry question best.  This concentration will be facilitated by the catalogues I was able to secure from the recent pop and commercial art exhibition at the Indianapolis Museum of Art (April-July 2001).  I plan to use the catalogues, which contain not only pictures of various pieces, but also interesting essays on pop and commercial art, as guides from which students can learn the historical context of these modern genres and also learn specific vocabulary pertinent to such art.  Otherwise, I hope to continue with the same structure in which a professional docent leads the first tour and the student docents conduct the second tour.

4. Arthur Chickering and Zelda Gamson, Applying the seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education (San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 1991).
5. Curtis J. Bonk, “Mediating Discussion and Mentoring Students for Interactive Online Learning,” Talk given as the I.U. School of Education, September 22, 2000.
6. The other four benchmarks are 1. Level of academic challenge, 2. Active and collaborative learning, 3. Student interactions with faculty members, and 4. Supportive campus environment, The NSSE 2000 Report:  National Benchmarks of Effective Educational Practice (Bloomington, Ind.:  I.U. Office of Publications, 2001) 3.