This week’s readings focus primarily on designing, structuring and finally creating a comprehensive syllabus for the students. There is also mention of office hours and channels of instructor-student communication, which shall be addressed shortly. The readings are interesting because they tie in well with my present teaching assignment (COMM 110- How the syllabus and related policies have been framed already). They are also indicative of the kind of course I will be designing in COMM 702.
Lang believes that the act of writing a syllabus is in fact, synonymous with course planning (Page 1). Learning objectives for students play a vital role in syllabus writing. It is easy to follow the coverage model (Lang, page 1) which focuses on what the instructor needs to cover in the course. But, a more student-centric act would be to understand the skill-sets and knowledge that the students can take away from the course. (Lang, page 2). Davis echoes similar thoughts by suggesting that the learning outcomes be student driven (Page 3). The syllabus should be designed in a manner that it accommodates all kinds of learners (people with disabilities and the rest). Lang suggests that it is a good idea to insert an ADA statement (Americans with Disabilities Act) in the syllabus. It reflects the instructor and the institution in a more credible light (Page 16).
There are some note-worthy points of convergence in the assigned readings. Syllabi in general should keep the semester-end and beyond as their frame of reference. That helps in delineating the learning outcomes for the students better. Benjamin Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educative Objectives (1956) is a common point of reference for identifying learning outcomes. (Lang, course promises, page 6). The cognitive skills propounded by Bloom are Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis and Evaluation (Lang, page 7; Davis, page 5). By using words (definition, knowledge acquisition, paraphrasing, critiques etc) that further qualify these skills; the learning outcomes can be more enriched.
With an introductory course like COMM 110, there is a limit to the amount of knowledge that can be created for students. So, it makes sense to mention some skill-sets (based on taxonomies) that promise to foster students' intellectual growth (Lang, page 8). According to Davis, the skill-sets can be a function of 'content and content-neutral outcomes' which focus on specific and generic skills assimilation (Page 6). The concept of learning outcomes indicating cerebral growth looks good in writing, but might be challenging to execute. However, the integration of these elements in the course that I design in COMM 702 will be very interesting. Moreover, the reaction of the students, when informed of these lofty goals, will be fascinating to note.
In order that the students may connect dots throughout the course, attention must be paid to the course structure. Courses can be arranged based on different time-periods, or may couple theory with applications (Davis, page 10). Davis also quotes Bergquist and Phillips (1977), when talking about organization fundamentals like Micro/Macro - fitting a specific concept to a bigger phenomenon, Distal/Proximal- Explaining a current phenomenon (proximal) by tracing its roots back to history (distal) among others.
The concept of 'meta-question' as pointed out by Lang (page 5) felt remarkable to me. It seemed riveting to have students pivoting the course expectations around a question. This question would help the students learn more about the course in-depth. At the semester end, the final take away would be the students learning to opine on the course with their own comprehensions.
Course policies feature standard statements related to late work, attendance, assignments etc. Lang suggests that student 'responsibilities' complement 'promises' better as opposed to policies (Lang, page 9). It's almost like investing in the students and sharing the stage with them. But, then again, I'm not sure if under graduates taking an introductory course would appreciate these subtleties. When talking about assignments, it is in the students' interests if the assignments are in line with the learning outcomes or course promises (Lang, page 12).
Having the students co-design the syllabus sounds like a worth-trying concept (Davis, page 35). Since, it pegs the students at an equal footing with the instructor (by devising learning objectives, policies etc.), the students might feel a greater sense of belonging to the course. However, this concept might be easier to practice with graduate students who are more serious in their academic aspirations. Under-grads might just find this process tedious and unnecessary.
Office hours should be posted online and on the syllabus handed out to students. For students that missed the first session, an office hour is a good time to hold the course procedural for them. (Davis, page 492). Students might feel disarmed if the office hours (from time to time) were held in slightly informal places like coffee shops, study lounges or while walking (Davis, page 493). Some students might feel inhibited in voicing their concerns during the office hours, despite showing up. Diffusing the air with patience and a general conversation might help here (Davis, page 494).
While technology has helped push the boundaries of student-instructor communication (texting, video conferencing, instant messaging), e-mailing still is a more formal mode of communication. However, it would be an inconvenient one, if the matter at hand were a sensitive one. A face-to-face rendezvous with the student would be more productive (Davis, page 497).
When sharing contact information with students, it's the instructor's discretion to share their personal home or cell phone number with the students. Lang believes that sharing the same is a 'symbolic gesture' indicating the instructor's enthusiasm to help out the students (Lang, page 4).
It is a good idea to point the students towards an e-mail etiquette guide which will inform the students of appropriate electronic exchanges with the instructor (Davis, page 498). The tone of the electronic exchange is an important one to watch out for, as it can be easily misinterpreted (especially by the students). When replying from a smart phone, it is advisable to have a 'sent from handheld' line in the body of the message. This will justify shorter replies and mistakes, if at all (Davis, 501).
No comments:
Post a Comment