Welcome |
Research |
Teaching |
Resources |
Interests |
Contact Me
In general, college is a setting wherein students learn how to think critically and communicate effectively. All else is window dressing. In all of my courses, I work toward creating better thinkers and writers through in-class activities, group discussions, constructive feedback on writing, and the occasional lecture. My teaching style is inherently interactive, my lectures peppered with examples from real-life experiences. Students frequently comment that their favorite parts about my classroom are the activities and stories I use to illustrate concepts. In this section, I will explain my teaching style and then briefly describe and reflect upon courses I have taught or assisted with.
My initial approaches to teaching were based on my experiences tutoring math and statistics as an undergraduate, wherein my greatest strength lay in not being a mathematics major. Instead of relying on further abstraction to explain concepts, I focused on concrete examples, frequently using everyday objects (like spoons) to give students a visual image of what was occurring in an operation (like rotation around an axis). The look of understanding that came over students' faces and the increase in their grades, reinforced my use of concrete examples.
As I have learned more about the art of teaching, I have confirmed my first instinct. Students develop their critical thinking skills best when they are engaged in the material whether through discussion or a well-planned, thoughtful lecture (so much for rote memorization). Therefore, when I am preparing any lecture, I use a strategy that I call "hook, line, and sinker". The "hook" is usually an interesting "fact", a newspaper article about a recent scientific study or current event, or a short survey of class opinions on the current topic that we will dissect throughout the class period. The exact medium of the hook is less important than ensuring that it is relevant both to the current class topic and students' lives or interests.
After the hook has caught their attention, it is time for the "line." The line is where I hope to lead students or what I would like them to gain from the class period. I use any technique that seems appropriate to pull them along the line, including group discussions with guided questions, the Socratic method, personal stories and examples, classroom polling, and media. I design each class to provoke more questions than are answered, to demonstrate how research design influences all of the "facts" we have learned, and to show how research results can be interpreted in different ways depending upon the researcher's agenda. The goal is to move students, through "scaffolding" just a little bit at a time. Eventually students become frustrated as they realize that answers are multi-faceted and subject to bias (I frequently tell them that "if the answers were easy, we'd already have them").
According to cognitive dissonance theories, learning occurs when two conflicting thoughts or assumptions must be reconciled with each other (see this site for more discussion of cognitive dissonance and other learning theories). In my classes, I aim to complicate several general assumptions: 1) participants are unbiased reporters of events in their lives, 2) researchers are unbiased observers of natural phenomena, and 3) media sources invariably report factual results from studies without biased intent. As conflicting results and interpretations are presented, the students come to realize that all of these answers cannot be right simultaneously and that none of them are completely "right" without acknowledging the conflicting results of other studies. "Is there anything we know for sure?" they ask. "We know that certain people with certain backgrounds at certain points in time in their lives will respond in certain ways to certain questions in certain situations," I reply.
Once the "truth" has been complicated, it is time for the "sinker," wherein students are taken to a greater depth of thinking than they previously had. This is when students learn that, although there is no "Answer" to most questions, some answers are better or more accurate than others. Rather than completely disregarding social science research, they learn to evaluate the merits of research, think about how the sampling and design could have influenced the results, and draw their own conclusions while reflecting upon how their own background can bias their interpretation of results. This is the most difficult part of the process, and I have found that it's helpful to use students who have already found the sinker to pull other students along the line.
As an example, the murder of Lawrence King, and a resultant article in Time magazine, prompted the following email to students:
The following Monday, the students discussed their responses to my questions. By this point in the course, most students could easily identify potential problems or questions they had about the survey's methods. When presented with the question of how and why they thought there were problems, they were able to justify their opinions and provide evidence from the summary of the survey methods that they read. Then, I asked the class how they would conduct this survey, if they could, to find more accurate answers. Several of the senior students (particularly those within our major) provided thoughts about improving the research design (random sampling, multiple questions for improved reliability, etc.) and we discussed the feasibility of implementing these improvements. Because I was not simply listing these improvements, the students were not deceived into thinking that these were the only "right" ways to conduct research. Instead, they looked at each proposed improvement without the oversight of an instructor who wanted them to give the "correct" answer.
To me, this is the height of teaching, when students no longer look to me for answers, but to each other, when they begin to engage and evaluate research on a critical level. I enjoy the irony of the "hook, line, and sinker" metaphor in that students are not expected to swallow (and regurgitate) facts. Instead, they are trained to find their own questions, and their own answers.
A writing-intensive course designed to provide students with the basic skills needed to understand, evaluate, and design research. The course is taken almost exclusively by sophomores and juniors within our department. The course culminates in a research proposal intended to prepare students for research evaluation and proposals for upper-level courses. In upper-level courses, students are trained in detailed aspects of human development, family interactions, and basic therapeutic and intervention skills. The summer courses have about 20 students in each section.
This course was challenging to teach, mainly because of student fears, which were understandably numerous. First, the “W” designates the course as one of Penn State’s writing-intensive courses; students are required to take and pass with a “C” at least one writing-intensive course. Not only is the course writing-intensive, but students in 312W are writing about primary research and statistics. Not only are they writing about research and statistics, they are then using their knowledge of research design to propose their own study about their topic of interest. Additionally, students must earn their “C” before signing up for upper-level courses, which makes the course even more high-stakes.
My general strategy in this course is to first address the stress associated with it by infusing the class with light-hearted humor and copious levels of encouragement. For example, for the second day of class students submitted a simple writing assignment wherein they discussed their experiences with writing and statistics using their best “academic voice.” This activity served many purposes. First, the students’ initial experience with writing in the course was “low-stakes,” meaning they received credit for simply submitting the assignment. Second, we were able to assess the general classroom climate regarding writing and statistical experience. Finally, I used the assignment to reassure the students that, despite some problems with structure, grammar, and spelling, their writing indicated that they had the basic skills needed to pass the course. Therefore, the goal was no longer to pass the course; it was to improve their writing skills and knowledge of research methods.
In this iteration of the course, I taught with two different co-teachers, Joanna Bissell and Annie Pezalla. Together we developed and revised activities, assignment descriptions, and rubrics using my materials from the previous summer. We made several adjustments to the course. First, due to difficulty scheduling exams in the summer, we eliminated exams in favor of in-class activities that required students to apply methods to their topic of interest. Second, we completed daily writing activities in order to keep students thinking about their writing every day. We continued to use peer review techniques and small, iterative writing assignments. The students responded well to this, and we were able to keep track of learning daily in the classroom and identify misunderstandings as soon as they occurred.
Summer courses have small enrollments but are time-intensive, meeting every weekday for six weeks. My co-teacher, Megan Winchell, and I were challenged to find a way to cover all of the material, assess student learning of the material, and provide feedback on writing assignments in a timely manner without students becoming so overwhelmed that they disengage from the material. We decided to use a plethora of activities, teaching styles, and humor in order to keep students learning. We also peppered the course with guest lecturers and demonstrations of websites and applets that explain statistical concepts. We also incorporated peer reviewsm, wherein students read each other's assignments and suggested global and local changes. Students were provided with worksheets to guide them through the peer review process and reviews were conducted in class so that we could assist students who were struggling. The research proposal was slowly built throughout the class and multiple revisions and additions to assignments were required. Through this process, we tried to help students break down writing larger papers into smaller chunks, providing them will the skills necessary for higher-level courses.
A sophomore-level course that is an overview of the development of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender/transexual (LGBT) people over lifetimes, cohorts, and U. S. subcultures. I approach this course as a critical analysis of research on sexual orientation and sexual identity. I pay particular attention to how ecological factors (e.g., age, biological sex, gender, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, geographical location, and historical time) affect development and complicate research findings. It has about 120 students. Although it is an elective for most students, it fulfills a University requirement that students complete a course about U. S. cultures.
Students in this class come from across the University, range from freshman to senior, and have a wide variety of reasons for enrolling in the course. Many have LGBT friends or family members or are LGBT themselves and want to understand more about their lives. Some of them take the course simply because it fits their schedule or they've heard it's interesting. Some of them take the course because they think it is about other-sex sexuality, discover on the first day that it's not, and decide to stay anyway. They have varying levels of experience with basic vocabulary of both developmental science and sexuality, with writing, and with discussions regarding sex, gender, and LGBT people.
With the high enrollment and wide variety of experience, this course is particularly difficult to run using discussion-oriented activities, which is my personal preference for engaging students. I generally approach the class by first establishing an "anything goes" atmosphere for discussion using a combination of humor, self-disclosure, and controversy. For example, on the first day I introduce some basic vocabulary that will be used throughout the semester. In my explanation of cohort effects, I give the example of the sodomy laws that were overthrown in 2003 by the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas, showing the Virginia law as an example. This law made any sexual activity other than penile-vaginal penetration a felony offense regardless of consent (this law still stands although it is "not enforced"). Then, I tell the class that that they have learned three things from this example. First, I reiterate how different birth cohorts reacted to Lawrence v. Texas and relate it back to Bronfenbrenner's bio-ecological systems theory. Second, I inform them that Virginia is not for lovers, regardless of their slogan. Finally, I state that their instructor is a repeat felon who encourages them to commit as many felonies as they and their partners choose. There is generally an audible intake of breath after this bit of humor and self-disclosure, as students try to figure out whether or not they are "allowed" to looked shocked, laugh, or otherwise react. Smiles slowly spread throughout the room, and I watch their expressions change as students realize that they really can say anything.
This atmosphere extends into open discussions regarding the meaning of sexual identities in people's lives and the influence of family, cohort, culture, and other developmental variables on these identities. Students complete position papers wherein they explore issues affecting LGBT people from differing viewpoints and reaction papers wherein they report on how they feel about being in the class. Finally, the course culminates in an interview project (with family members, peers, or LGBT people or student groups). Students are encouraged to share what they learn in class with their family and peers, and they are frequently surprised when their family or peers are more open or more prejudiced than they anticipated. Occasionally, students will tell me that the course has enhanced their writing or research skills, but they generally speak of the course as a very personal, transformative experience. I have found that it is very important to honor differing starting points, paths, and endpoints of students' journeys throughout the semester. This means showing a high degree of respect for all opinions while informing them about actual research findings that may contradict their views.
Due to student feedback, I made minor adjustments to the course for this iteration. First, I included multiple-choice questions on quizzes, as lower-level students seemed particularly perplexed by short-answer questions. Second, I included a session in which I conducted an exercise on how to outline discussion papers and provide support for their points. Although instructions for the papers had been discussed in previous iterations, the exercise proved helpful, particularly for lower-level students or those who were not in the social sciences. Finally, I changed the course from one long session a week to two shorter sessions. All of the changes seemed to improve the course, except for the changes to the quizzes; students continue to be distressed about quizzes and I am considering further changes for Spring 2009.
This course had been taught since its inception by the same professor, Dr. Anthony D'Augelli. When I began teaching this course, I was fortunate to have all of his materials at my disposal. Unfortunately, due to the large enrollment in the course, Dr. D'Augelli mainly lectured, which completely conflicted with my personal teaching style. I was faced with the choice of adapting my style to suit the materials or adapting the materials to suit my style. I chose the latter route and spent a great deal of preparation time for the course researching and developing strategies for promoting discussion in large classes. As most students talked about the activities and discussions as their favorite part of the course, I believe this approach was successful.
Additionally, this iteration of the course contained several students who were active in political student organizations, complicating the creation of an open atmosphere for naive heterosexual students. The LGBT students tended to dominate discussions and other students were silent, waiting for the LGBT students to give the "correct" answer to questions I put to the class. In response, I selectively called on students, adjusted questions to reflect developmental theory rather than opinion about LGBT issues, and emphasized the difference between personal experience and research findings. Although heterosexual students had reported feeling somewhat isolated in the midsemester evaluations, by the end of the semester students were talking about the open classroom environment.
