Summary
Notes on "Teaching Excellence and the Inner Life of Faculty,"
by R. G. Kraft, CHANGE, May-June 2000, pp. 48-52. [Referred
by Jean Layne, Center for Teaching Excellence, TAMU]
Summarized by J. T. P. Yao, 8/17/01
"In the fall of 1998, two of my
colleagues
died suddenly within weeks of each other. They were active men,
barely middle-aged.
In the last 14 years I 've taken a
close look at the emotional landscape of faculty life, and these
deaths triggered an observation that's been stirring in me for
much of my 35 years in higher education."
"
If you think of the varying sizes
and functions of American colleges and universities, ours falls
somewhere in the middle of the spectrum - large but not the largest,
with a teaching emphasis and lots of research. You could describe
us as 'typical.'
Our state has three large 'research' universities.
In 1986 the Faculty Center for Instructional Excellence
(FCE) began offering workshops to faculty members about teaching
at EMU.
We wanted to think we were succeeding, but I had
no reason to believe that teaching was getting better at EMU."
"
So I set up a seminar called 'The
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.' We met every Friday for
90 minutes throughout most of the 15-week term. With no release
time, with no encouragement from administrators
240 faculty
members enrolled in this seminar over a period of 18 semesters.
It is advertised throughout the university as a forum 'not
about methods but about the larger questions out of which methods
might emerge. What is learning? When, why, and how does learning
happen? What do teachers do to enhance or retard learning?
'
Faculty joined up, about a dozen per term.
It became immediately
clear that they mostly wanted to talk.
"
"
There was no room for such talk
within departments.
And there is an even deeper problem
in departments: a reluctance to share feelings of any kind.
Why are there no 'intellectual communities
' within departments?
What I heard from faculty, added to my own 30 years' experience
in a department, yielded insights that I am still testing.
Pursuit of knowledge in their discipline has been largely isolated.
Research requires dispassionate observation. And whereas
teaching
is full of feeling, feelings reflect bias. In research,
bias must be avoided at all costs.
Faculty separate their
lives into segments: home-life, teaching-life, department-life,
and research-life. Feelings belong in the first two segments and
only there.
Sustained, in-depth conversation about teaching
is seen as taking teaching too seriously. Furthermore, a persistent,
not so-subtle undercurrent suggests that the uninhibited display
of feeling is undignified and inappropriate in a 'disciplined'
department.
"
"
There can be no discreet distance
between the teacher and his or her subject and students.
Therefore, teaching may be at home in a university, but not in
a department.
Teaching is hardly worthy of talk.
Despite Ernest Boyer's landmark book, Scholarship Reconsidered, teaching is not regarded within disciplines
as a serious intellectual pursuit.
But teaching is what
faculty actually do - day in and day out.
But it is not
what you talk about in department meetings, where important
work must be done."
"
Faculty consistently confess that
they feel like frauds in the teaching. No one prepared them for
teaching.
Their subject knowledge is certain and confident.
That confidence makes all the difference.
To one another,
department members wanted to talk about what they teach, not why
or how.
Complaints
about poor teaching are endless. Listen to students talk in the
elevators. But my and probably every university has many excellent
teachers. Where do they come from?
Good teaching comes
from the heart, from a deep center of caring for subjects and
students. A teacher with such a deep center
is likely to
be effective with most any method.
Therefore, method, while
important, is peripheral to teaching effectiveness."
"
Every teacher must ask, 'Who and
what am I? Why am I doing this? What exactly am I trying to accomplish
and why? What effect does my person-hood, my mind and heart as
expressed in my personality, have on my teaching? Can I relate
to these students?'
First
teaching methods must be
compatible with personalities and goals.
Effective methods
must evolve for each individual teacher. Second, teachers improve
in small increments in response to felt inadequacies that are
personally troublesome. We do not change unless we feel some discomfort
and are looking for relief.
Finally, change is a huge risk
We tend to teach
the way we were taught, only because it's
familiar and comfortable.
"
"I mentioned above that I saw no evidence
that teaching improved after most one-stop workshops and conferences.
In contrast, this seminar made a difference.
There are
no lectures, no 'presentations' by 'experts.' Instead, the focus
is always on a community of peers in conversation.
It's
simple and inexpensive to create the seminar. It only requires
an experienced faculty peer-leader with some released time, some
passion for teaching, and some familiarity with teaching scholarship.
Such a leader must start the group off with community-building
He or she gently discourages excessive complaining and keeps the
group from going off into irrelevance.
Above all, the leader
must avoid being answer-person or advice-giver. Connection, after
all, is what faculty are after, not someone else's 'right' answers.
Coffee and cookies fit right in."
"As
for my own university, we can't know if the emotional malnutrition
in faculty life contributed to the deaths of my colleagues
But I do know that faculty are often without nourishment they
need to support the ideals they seek to serve and to live fulfilled
lives. This lack weakens their enthusiasm and commitment.
"
[Readers who are interested in this article are
encouraged to read the original paper in its entirety. Other summary
notes on faculty reward systems are available on the Internet
at http://lohman.tamu.edu
under the heading "Summaries of Papers ..."]