Monday, December 13, 2010
Blog LXIV (64): Another Question
Over the weekend I had a conversation with a friend. He had a manuscript that he was trying to get published. He had originally thought about publishing it as an article, but got an offer to publish it as a chapter in an edited volume. That got the two of us to thinking about what would be better from a professional point of view an article or a chapter? If it were a question between a book and an article there would be no question. The book would win. But, what is better for your career an article or a chapter? I would love to hear the views of those that read this blog.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Blog LXIII (63): Teaching Effectiveness
Are your students really learning what you are teaching them? How do you know? Why? Why not? Those are simple questions, but ones that are very difficult for historians, and many other professors to answer.
A little while back two professors in the University of California system (Philip Babcock at the Santa Barbara campus and Mindy Marks at the Riverside campus) published an article that shows that college students are devoting less and less time to studying than they did forty years ago. The average student at a regular four-year college in 1961 put in roughly 24 hours a week of study. Today the average student devotes only 14 hours.
That study has created a lot of consternation in higher education as people debate why? Any number of culperits have been found responsible for the decline in study: the rise of the computer, interactive media, and changing demographics. Some people have asked related questions about teaching effectiveness and wondered if it is a bad thing that students are studying less. Maybe modern students are better at using their time more effectively.
Babcock and Marks, for their part, believe the decline is due to what I called in Blog LX “the student vote.” They argue that a major reason for the decline in study hours is a breakdown in the relationship between the professor and the student. Instead of a situation where a professor sets standards and students try to meet them, they claim that the more common outcome is a scenario in which both sides hope to do as little as possible.
“No one really has an incentive to make a demanding class,” Marks told The Boston Globe. “To make a tough assignment, you have to write it, grade it. Kids come into office hours and want help on it. If you make it too hard, they complain. Other than the sheer love for knowledge and the desire to pass it on to the next generation, there is no incentive in the system to encourage effort.”
Murray Sperber, a visiting professor in the graduate school of education at the Berkeley branch of the University of California, blames teaching evaluations. The original idea behind evaluation was a noble one. Students got a chance to express their opinions about their classes, but the whole concept has backfired. Course evaluations have created a sort of “nonaggression pact,” Sperber explained to The Globe. Professors—particularly those seeking tenure—tread lightly on assignments and students reciprocate with glowing course evaluations.
I disagree with this assessment for two reasons. First, my personal assessment is that factors external to higher education are responsible for the decline in study hours. The big drop took place in the 1960s and 1970s. So the reasonable question to ask is what happened during this period? What were college students doing with this extra time? Two things: television and sex. Television, it is true, became a major cultural phenomenon in the 1950s before this drop, but college students in the early 1960s would have developed as high school students and, in some cases, college students before the television came to dominate American society. Also, there is a real possibility that their families could not have afforded to give them a television when they went off to college. Nor would there have been room for them in college dorm rooms. So television had less impact in 1961 than it did in 1969 or 1971.
The second reason is due to the development of the birth control pill. College students had sex long before the 1960s, but it became far more common after the pill gave women the power to control their fertility. As the chances of having sex increased, students (male and female) often found the pursuit of the other more interesting than studying accounting, political science, astronomy, or any of a number of other fields.
The other reason I disagree with this assessment is that it accords the students too much influence. As I discussed in Blog LX, student evaluations are not that influential. Now, in preparing to write this blog, I came across a number of news stories about professors being denied tenure. For one reason or another these stories, made it into the local media. The professor often claimed they were rejected because of teaching evaluations that complained of heavy study obligations. While those evaluations might indeed support the professor's claim, there usually is something else at work—like a failure to publish or publishing in mediocre venues unworthy of tenure. Adrianna Kezar, an associate professor of higher education at the University of Southern California, got to the point when she told The Chronicle of Higher Education, “Faculty rewards have nothing to do with the ability to assess student learning. I get promoted for writing lots of articles, not for demonstrating learning outcomes.”
The Babcock/Marks study is important because it is forcing some people to ask if students studying less is a good thing or a bad thing, and it is also getting people to ask how you assess student learning, which is no easy thing. Andrew Hacker, an emeritus professor of political science at the City University of New York's Queens College, who has been teaching for over fifty years admitted to The Chronicle that he has no way of knowing what type of impact he is having. “I couldn't say objectively or reliably what I do for students.”
I will repeat what I said in Blog LX, the student vote is important, but mainly in indirect ways. It is also important to consider that faculty have different stages of their careers in the classroom just as they do in publishing. Scott E. Carrell, an assistant professor of economics at the Davis branch of the University of California, explored learning at the U.S. Air Force Academy. What he found is interesting. The cadets that took introductory calculus from experienced professors failed to do as well in these introductory class as the cadets that took the course from more junior instructors. On the other hand, the cadets that had an experienced professors did better in higher-level courses than did students who had inexperienced teachers for introductory calculus.
A good professor should pay attention to those approaches that work with students and those that do not. “What do you think we’ve all been doing for 100 years?” Gary Rhoades, general secretary of the American Association of University Professors, asked a reporter from The Chronicle. “Classes are like organic things: Not every one is the same. If you are a good professor, you are responding to what students are getting and what they’re not. If you try and mechanize that, it can be a problem.”
He is right. A good teacher can only do so much with the raw material they have to work with, which is to say the intellectual ability of the students. A 2008 survey of undergraduates in the University of California system made that point. Students were asked to list what interferes most with their academic success. The number one reason, according to 33 percent, was that they simply did not know how to sit down and study.
With that point made, it might be a good thing for a new faculty member to be able to document their effectiveness with something more than teaching evaluations. Here at the Naval War College a lot of that is done for the faculty by our staff. Now, there is a difference between teaching mid-career professionals and teenagers. I also keep a diary to document what is working and not working in the classroom. Another simple way to document teaching effectiveness is to give students the same multiple-choice assignment at the beginning and end of the class. Use it as a diagnostic tool rather than a grading mechanism. Someday someone is going to question your teaching effectiveness and having this material might prove very useful.
A little while back two professors in the University of California system (Philip Babcock at the Santa Barbara campus and Mindy Marks at the Riverside campus) published an article that shows that college students are devoting less and less time to studying than they did forty years ago. The average student at a regular four-year college in 1961 put in roughly 24 hours a week of study. Today the average student devotes only 14 hours.
That study has created a lot of consternation in higher education as people debate why? Any number of culperits have been found responsible for the decline in study: the rise of the computer, interactive media, and changing demographics. Some people have asked related questions about teaching effectiveness and wondered if it is a bad thing that students are studying less. Maybe modern students are better at using their time more effectively.
Babcock and Marks, for their part, believe the decline is due to what I called in Blog LX “the student vote.” They argue that a major reason for the decline in study hours is a breakdown in the relationship between the professor and the student. Instead of a situation where a professor sets standards and students try to meet them, they claim that the more common outcome is a scenario in which both sides hope to do as little as possible.
“No one really has an incentive to make a demanding class,” Marks told The Boston Globe. “To make a tough assignment, you have to write it, grade it. Kids come into office hours and want help on it. If you make it too hard, they complain. Other than the sheer love for knowledge and the desire to pass it on to the next generation, there is no incentive in the system to encourage effort.”
Murray Sperber, a visiting professor in the graduate school of education at the Berkeley branch of the University of California, blames teaching evaluations. The original idea behind evaluation was a noble one. Students got a chance to express their opinions about their classes, but the whole concept has backfired. Course evaluations have created a sort of “nonaggression pact,” Sperber explained to The Globe. Professors—particularly those seeking tenure—tread lightly on assignments and students reciprocate with glowing course evaluations.
I disagree with this assessment for two reasons. First, my personal assessment is that factors external to higher education are responsible for the decline in study hours. The big drop took place in the 1960s and 1970s. So the reasonable question to ask is what happened during this period? What were college students doing with this extra time? Two things: television and sex. Television, it is true, became a major cultural phenomenon in the 1950s before this drop, but college students in the early 1960s would have developed as high school students and, in some cases, college students before the television came to dominate American society. Also, there is a real possibility that their families could not have afforded to give them a television when they went off to college. Nor would there have been room for them in college dorm rooms. So television had less impact in 1961 than it did in 1969 or 1971.
The second reason is due to the development of the birth control pill. College students had sex long before the 1960s, but it became far more common after the pill gave women the power to control their fertility. As the chances of having sex increased, students (male and female) often found the pursuit of the other more interesting than studying accounting, political science, astronomy, or any of a number of other fields.
The other reason I disagree with this assessment is that it accords the students too much influence. As I discussed in Blog LX, student evaluations are not that influential. Now, in preparing to write this blog, I came across a number of news stories about professors being denied tenure. For one reason or another these stories, made it into the local media. The professor often claimed they were rejected because of teaching evaluations that complained of heavy study obligations. While those evaluations might indeed support the professor's claim, there usually is something else at work—like a failure to publish or publishing in mediocre venues unworthy of tenure. Adrianna Kezar, an associate professor of higher education at the University of Southern California, got to the point when she told The Chronicle of Higher Education, “Faculty rewards have nothing to do with the ability to assess student learning. I get promoted for writing lots of articles, not for demonstrating learning outcomes.”
The Babcock/Marks study is important because it is forcing some people to ask if students studying less is a good thing or a bad thing, and it is also getting people to ask how you assess student learning, which is no easy thing. Andrew Hacker, an emeritus professor of political science at the City University of New York's Queens College, who has been teaching for over fifty years admitted to The Chronicle that he has no way of knowing what type of impact he is having. “I couldn't say objectively or reliably what I do for students.”
I will repeat what I said in Blog LX, the student vote is important, but mainly in indirect ways. It is also important to consider that faculty have different stages of their careers in the classroom just as they do in publishing. Scott E. Carrell, an assistant professor of economics at the Davis branch of the University of California, explored learning at the U.S. Air Force Academy. What he found is interesting. The cadets that took introductory calculus from experienced professors failed to do as well in these introductory class as the cadets that took the course from more junior instructors. On the other hand, the cadets that had an experienced professors did better in higher-level courses than did students who had inexperienced teachers for introductory calculus.
A good professor should pay attention to those approaches that work with students and those that do not. “What do you think we’ve all been doing for 100 years?” Gary Rhoades, general secretary of the American Association of University Professors, asked a reporter from The Chronicle. “Classes are like organic things: Not every one is the same. If you are a good professor, you are responding to what students are getting and what they’re not. If you try and mechanize that, it can be a problem.”
He is right. A good teacher can only do so much with the raw material they have to work with, which is to say the intellectual ability of the students. A 2008 survey of undergraduates in the University of California system made that point. Students were asked to list what interferes most with their academic success. The number one reason, according to 33 percent, was that they simply did not know how to sit down and study.
With that point made, it might be a good thing for a new faculty member to be able to document their effectiveness with something more than teaching evaluations. Here at the Naval War College a lot of that is done for the faculty by our staff. Now, there is a difference between teaching mid-career professionals and teenagers. I also keep a diary to document what is working and not working in the classroom. Another simple way to document teaching effectiveness is to give students the same multiple-choice assignment at the beginning and end of the class. Use it as a diagnostic tool rather than a grading mechanism. Someday someone is going to question your teaching effectiveness and having this material might prove very useful.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Blog LXII (62): A Question
I have a question, and I hope readers of this blog will answer it for me. What is the biggest issue facing the history profession right now? I would like to get your feedback and use it at the session I will be doing at the AHA in January. I will also use the information for a future blog essay.
Feel free to respond in the comment section of this blog, on Facebook, or via a note to my personal e-mail address. To get my address all you have to do is google "Sarantakes." It is not that common a name.
I will tabulate the answers in early January.
Feel free to respond in the comment section of this blog, on Facebook, or via a note to my personal e-mail address. To get my address all you have to do is google "Sarantakes." It is not that common a name.
I will tabulate the answers in early January.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Blog LXI (61): The AHA is Coming
In a few weeks, I will be part of a panel at the 2011 meeting of the American Historical Association. The session is: "Careers in History: The Variety of the Profession." The session will be on the first day of the conference: Thursday, January 6, 2011 at 3 pm. The focus of this panel will be as on using your Ph.D. when you cannot get a job in a conventional history department. The conference program committee is expecting a heavy turnout, and has put us in a big room. C-Span has asked for permission to record the session. In an ironic twist, the AHA put this panel in a central location next to the job center. (It is ironic in that most of those interviews will be for jobs in history departments, otherwise the location would seem approrpriate.) The room is also near the messaging center. So that will encourage additional foot traffic.
Here is an excerpt from page 39 of the 2011 conference program:
Since this AHA session will be discussing many of the issues that I have tried to examine with this blog, I would like to invite all of you to attend. This panel will be far more productive if we have interested people. So please come. This session has the potential to be very interesting--and informative.
Here is an excerpt from page 39 of the 2011 conference program:
Since this AHA session will be discussing many of the issues that I have tried to examine with this blog, I would like to invite all of you to attend. This panel will be far more productive if we have interested people. So please come. This session has the potential to be very interesting--and informative.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Blog LX (60): The Student Vote
Teaching is important. It is a major professional activity that graduate school does a poor job of preparing the promising scholar for once they graduate. There are plenty of journal articles, web sites, and blogs that share teaching tips and techniques. How though do you incorporate teaching into career? I do not know that that particular topic gets discussed much. So here goes.
1) Does teaching matter? The short answer to that question—as I mentioned in Blog LVII—is: yes. There is a longer more complex answer to that question, though. The importance of teaching will be a function of where you teach. It will be of little importance at a research university, while it will be crucial at a community college. In most cases, though, your advancement in the profession or at an individual institution will be based on matters other than teaching—publications and service. Teaching will still matter, but more in indirect matters.
2) Students get a vote. Education is a collaborative activity, but it is no democracy. Some faculty believe that the mission of teaching is to educate and being a popular teacher often gets in the way of that objective. Put another way, pushing students to develop their analytical and thinking skills is not the same thing as being entertaining. There is truth in that observation. There are direct correlations between grades and evaluations. Students getting high grades are far more likely to give instructors good comments, while those that are getting bad grades are going to use teaching evaluations as a form of payback. In addition, seniors are more inclined to make more positive comments than freshmen.
The natural tendency among many professors is to basically disregard student evaluations as nothing more than popularity contests. There are sound reasons to take that view, but what if you took the evaluations at face value? To some degree students are consumers and they do get to vote with their feet in the form of their enrollments. They want to learn and often eager to obtain the knowledge that the professor has to offer. It is wrong to ignore that enthusiasm. There will be students that will discover dating while in college or will be more committed to their fraternity or sorority, or will be cruising because your class is not as important as two other biology classes that are required for admission into medical school, but that should not obscure the fact that many students come to class with enthusiasm. A friend of mine was teaching at San Diego State as an adjunct, and took that attitude. He read the evaluations carefully, took them at face value, and responded to them accordingly. The result was his evaluations went up dramatically. They were so good that he was offered a new contract. He also had no problem in drawing students to his sections. That is crucial for a part-time instructor. It is also an important consideration for a new professor on the tenure track and even senior faculty. Students will avoid professors that fail to teach material they find meaningful. The result is that some faculty will find that they have difficulty in drawing students. They might not get to teach the classes they want (upper division courses in their areas of specialization) or will have to teach classes they do not want to teach (like U.S. history surveys). Faculty that have a reputation as a good teacher will often have classes that draw dozens and dozens of students. Classes that are cash cows for departments can be very important in a number of ways. They help fund graduate programs and give you influence within your department. It is also easier to get grad students admitted in your areas of specialization, if there is a documented need for students that can serve as teaching assistants for courses in those subjects. The professor that can draw in students should also—depending on the funding formula—significant influence within the department.
1) Does teaching matter? The short answer to that question—as I mentioned in Blog LVII—is: yes. There is a longer more complex answer to that question, though. The importance of teaching will be a function of where you teach. It will be of little importance at a research university, while it will be crucial at a community college. In most cases, though, your advancement in the profession or at an individual institution will be based on matters other than teaching—publications and service. Teaching will still matter, but more in indirect matters.
2) Students get a vote. Education is a collaborative activity, but it is no democracy. Some faculty believe that the mission of teaching is to educate and being a popular teacher often gets in the way of that objective. Put another way, pushing students to develop their analytical and thinking skills is not the same thing as being entertaining. There is truth in that observation. There are direct correlations between grades and evaluations. Students getting high grades are far more likely to give instructors good comments, while those that are getting bad grades are going to use teaching evaluations as a form of payback. In addition, seniors are more inclined to make more positive comments than freshmen.
The natural tendency among many professors is to basically disregard student evaluations as nothing more than popularity contests. There are sound reasons to take that view, but what if you took the evaluations at face value? To some degree students are consumers and they do get to vote with their feet in the form of their enrollments. They want to learn and often eager to obtain the knowledge that the professor has to offer. It is wrong to ignore that enthusiasm. There will be students that will discover dating while in college or will be more committed to their fraternity or sorority, or will be cruising because your class is not as important as two other biology classes that are required for admission into medical school, but that should not obscure the fact that many students come to class with enthusiasm. A friend of mine was teaching at San Diego State as an adjunct, and took that attitude. He read the evaluations carefully, took them at face value, and responded to them accordingly. The result was his evaluations went up dramatically. They were so good that he was offered a new contract. He also had no problem in drawing students to his sections. That is crucial for a part-time instructor. It is also an important consideration for a new professor on the tenure track and even senior faculty. Students will avoid professors that fail to teach material they find meaningful. The result is that some faculty will find that they have difficulty in drawing students. They might not get to teach the classes they want (upper division courses in their areas of specialization) or will have to teach classes they do not want to teach (like U.S. history surveys). Faculty that have a reputation as a good teacher will often have classes that draw dozens and dozens of students. Classes that are cash cows for departments can be very important in a number of ways. They help fund graduate programs and give you influence within your department. It is also easier to get grad students admitted in your areas of specialization, if there is a documented need for students that can serve as teaching assistants for courses in those subjects. The professor that can draw in students should also—depending on the funding formula—significant influence within the department.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Blog LIX (59): Videos
There is a new phenomenon out on the internet. It is the "So you Want to Get a PhD in the Humanities." It has spawned several variations. The videos are enormously popular not because they are funny--they are--but because the best satire always uses the truth.
I have put three of the videos up here. Everything--and I do mean everything--discussed in these videos has an element of truth. Each of the complaints that the professors make are those that are fairly common place in academia and representative of someone's life and career. The videos are much like cop shows on television. Most police officers in real life will only draw or discharge their weapon once, but it is not unusual for the lead in a television series to fire off bullet after bullet in one season, much less a career even if the story lines are like Law & Order and ripped from actual headlines. (It happens, just not to the same person over and over). The same is true with these videos.
I have included three. The original humanities Ph.D video. The one on political science, and finally the one on history. The history one is also the most harsh.
I have put three of the videos up here. Everything--and I do mean everything--discussed in these videos has an element of truth. Each of the complaints that the professors make are those that are fairly common place in academia and representative of someone's life and career. The videos are much like cop shows on television. Most police officers in real life will only draw or discharge their weapon once, but it is not unusual for the lead in a television series to fire off bullet after bullet in one season, much less a career even if the story lines are like Law & Order and ripped from actual headlines. (It happens, just not to the same person over and over). The same is true with these videos.
I have included three. The original humanities Ph.D video. The one on political science, and finally the one on history. The history one is also the most harsh.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Blog LVIII (58): A Teaching Workshop
On August 5 and 6, 2010, the Department of Strategy and Policy at the U.S. Naval War College sponsored a workshop on the teaching of grand strategy. This workshop brought together 20 visiting scholars from colleges and universities all across the country to talk with the faculty of the Strategy Department, and a small group of visitors from other NWC departments and the Naval War College Foundation. All told, 75 different people attended the two-day event. The conference focused solely on teaching. I have never seen or heard of a department bringing all its faculty together to discuss the art of teaching, much less bringing in a number of guests. As a result, I took a lot of notes during those two days. This blog essay is a short and condensed version of a report on the issues that got discussed during those two days.
Four things are important to note before we begin. First, the discussants were multidisciplinary in nature. Our guests were from history, political science, and public policy programs. Second, while the conversations focused on how to teach grand strategy (a multidisciplinary topic) much of the conversations translates very easily into discussions on how to teach history. Third, the Naval War College has a non-attribution policy. The College adopted this policy to encourage a free flow of ideas. While in my opinion, nothing that controversial was said during this gathering, I do not intend to violate this policy. As a result, no individuals will be mentioned by name in this blog essay. Fourth, while teaching is a voyage of discovery, prior planning and thinking can save you a good deal of time that you can use for other professional activities. Since teaching is actually what most of us spend most of our time doing, that is no small consideration for other career goals and options.
The conference started with an opening speaker. This individual noted that what the NWC does is significant and offered two examples. He explained that the writings of Rear Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan have stood the test of time. Mahan, who was the second president of the War College and was president of the American Historical Association in 1902 is currently being read in China for better or worse. The speaker also noted that under the leadership of Rear Admiral Stansfield Turner, the NWC in the early 1970s took the lead in developing courses in strategy, which had helped develop many of the programs represented in the room. “We can learn from one another about the craft,” he explained.
One of the first major teaching issues focused on context. A guest scholar from the United Kingdom observed that one of the key issues when teaching strategy is to understand the changes that take place. The tendency is to see strategy as a “generic thing” in simple structured terms. He added, “The context is important to understand where they are coming from.” Staff Colleges did not see changes and a good instructor needs to educate students to challenge of change.
Another guest from an Ivy League school disagreed. He replied that yes, context is important, and it is an issue that is important when discussing the Peloponnesian Wars. Yet, only to a degree. The course is on strategy, not history. As teachers of grand strategy, we need to back away from context and look at enduring principles. A member of the Strategy Department said he wants his student “to think like a historian.” The important thing for them to see is the “continuity and change.” He wants his students to ask “What’s similar, what’s different.” That analytical approach can be developed through the use of the theorists and it is really important for military officers to develop that skill. He always wants a voice in back of their mind, what’s different about this situation.
A senior NWC official raised several issues that the room began discussing. Since there were over seventy people in the room, the various topics of discussion overlapped. The senior asked: what constraints does an instructor face in designing a class. The big one at the NWC is time. How much context do we have to give? The other trade off is reading workload. Course critiques constantly stress that the students do not have time to do all the readings. When they reach the case studies, they see how important theorists are and it makes them frustrated that they have not had more time to think about the theorists. The reality is that the students have difficultly doing all the readings.
These questions provoked a good deal of discussion, since they are basically the same issues that instructors face in most environments. One visitor from Pennsylvania, said, “I am appalled at the idea of doing Thucydides in two hours?” How do you read a 700 page book, he asked. You got to wait out students, he said answering his own question. You ask questions and then wait for response. Another guest agreed to a degree. He has done two hours on page one of Herodotus, but that approach cannot be done at War Colleges. Military schools have to focus on key sections, and get to the “theory of the whole.”
Several members of the workshop analyzed the discussion and provided some good commentary. A War College professor said class is always a beginning. A good professor helps a student create a habit of mind. A guest from a New York school added, “All of this is a tradeoff between breadth and depth.” Most people in the room keep talking about depth, but there is a need to compare the two different modes. “There is no obvious solution to striking the right balance between breadth and depth.” A visitor from a school in the Big Ten noticed that many of the issues that this gather was talking about in teaching are the same issues that people face in making strategy: breadth vs. depth and the scarcity of time. A good instructor and course will make students familiar with these issues.
Another topic the assembly examined was what type of books should an instructor assign. The Big Ten professor observed that making policy is difficult and he wants his students to understand three factors: first, choosing between options is difficult; second, they should have an understanding of how contingency comes into play; third, the judgment of individuals is crucial. Many of the mentioned in today’s discussion offer models of judicious thinking about difficult decisions. A professor from a different Big Ten school said he assigns books that make it clear that people make grand strategy. “The students get it.”
A War College professor said there is an art to assigning books: “It’s not which great books we use, but how we use them.” He continued, explaining, “It’s the role of the teacher to be disagreeable.” A good instructor will “attack the literature in a productive way” so that it teaches them how to think. “That’s the key.” Giving them this analytical skill set will do them a great service.
Several professors from Ivy League schools that books also help when dealing with students. One noted that all students at prestigious schools—the military academies or an Ivy League university—already think they are leaders. Another said one of the ways you deal with this issue is to hit them with great books. Another is to have them do simulations where they have to develop a strategy and then deal with a crisis. One student said the faculty were trying to make students fail. That, he remarked, is true. Saying, “I don’t know to a boss but I will find out” is extremely difficult. The exercise is generally successful. The students get insights and often are what the faculty want students to get.
Four things are important to note before we begin. First, the discussants were multidisciplinary in nature. Our guests were from history, political science, and public policy programs. Second, while the conversations focused on how to teach grand strategy (a multidisciplinary topic) much of the conversations translates very easily into discussions on how to teach history. Third, the Naval War College has a non-attribution policy. The College adopted this policy to encourage a free flow of ideas. While in my opinion, nothing that controversial was said during this gathering, I do not intend to violate this policy. As a result, no individuals will be mentioned by name in this blog essay. Fourth, while teaching is a voyage of discovery, prior planning and thinking can save you a good deal of time that you can use for other professional activities. Since teaching is actually what most of us spend most of our time doing, that is no small consideration for other career goals and options.
The conference started with an opening speaker. This individual noted that what the NWC does is significant and offered two examples. He explained that the writings of Rear Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan have stood the test of time. Mahan, who was the second president of the War College and was president of the American Historical Association in 1902 is currently being read in China for better or worse. The speaker also noted that under the leadership of Rear Admiral Stansfield Turner, the NWC in the early 1970s took the lead in developing courses in strategy, which had helped develop many of the programs represented in the room. “We can learn from one another about the craft,” he explained.
One of the first major teaching issues focused on context. A guest scholar from the United Kingdom observed that one of the key issues when teaching strategy is to understand the changes that take place. The tendency is to see strategy as a “generic thing” in simple structured terms. He added, “The context is important to understand where they are coming from.” Staff Colleges did not see changes and a good instructor needs to educate students to challenge of change.
Another guest from an Ivy League school disagreed. He replied that yes, context is important, and it is an issue that is important when discussing the Peloponnesian Wars. Yet, only to a degree. The course is on strategy, not history. As teachers of grand strategy, we need to back away from context and look at enduring principles. A member of the Strategy Department said he wants his student “to think like a historian.” The important thing for them to see is the “continuity and change.” He wants his students to ask “What’s similar, what’s different.” That analytical approach can be developed through the use of the theorists and it is really important for military officers to develop that skill. He always wants a voice in back of their mind, what’s different about this situation.
A senior NWC official raised several issues that the room began discussing. Since there were over seventy people in the room, the various topics of discussion overlapped. The senior asked: what constraints does an instructor face in designing a class. The big one at the NWC is time. How much context do we have to give? The other trade off is reading workload. Course critiques constantly stress that the students do not have time to do all the readings. When they reach the case studies, they see how important theorists are and it makes them frustrated that they have not had more time to think about the theorists. The reality is that the students have difficultly doing all the readings.
These questions provoked a good deal of discussion, since they are basically the same issues that instructors face in most environments. One visitor from Pennsylvania, said, “I am appalled at the idea of doing Thucydides in two hours?” How do you read a 700 page book, he asked. You got to wait out students, he said answering his own question. You ask questions and then wait for response. Another guest agreed to a degree. He has done two hours on page one of Herodotus, but that approach cannot be done at War Colleges. Military schools have to focus on key sections, and get to the “theory of the whole.”
Several members of the workshop analyzed the discussion and provided some good commentary. A War College professor said class is always a beginning. A good professor helps a student create a habit of mind. A guest from a New York school added, “All of this is a tradeoff between breadth and depth.” Most people in the room keep talking about depth, but there is a need to compare the two different modes. “There is no obvious solution to striking the right balance between breadth and depth.” A visitor from a school in the Big Ten noticed that many of the issues that this gather was talking about in teaching are the same issues that people face in making strategy: breadth vs. depth and the scarcity of time. A good instructor and course will make students familiar with these issues.
Another topic the assembly examined was what type of books should an instructor assign. The Big Ten professor observed that making policy is difficult and he wants his students to understand three factors: first, choosing between options is difficult; second, they should have an understanding of how contingency comes into play; third, the judgment of individuals is crucial. Many of the mentioned in today’s discussion offer models of judicious thinking about difficult decisions. A professor from a different Big Ten school said he assigns books that make it clear that people make grand strategy. “The students get it.”
A War College professor said there is an art to assigning books: “It’s not which great books we use, but how we use them.” He continued, explaining, “It’s the role of the teacher to be disagreeable.” A good instructor will “attack the literature in a productive way” so that it teaches them how to think. “That’s the key.” Giving them this analytical skill set will do them a great service.
Several professors from Ivy League schools that books also help when dealing with students. One noted that all students at prestigious schools—the military academies or an Ivy League university—already think they are leaders. Another said one of the ways you deal with this issue is to hit them with great books. Another is to have them do simulations where they have to develop a strategy and then deal with a crisis. One student said the faculty were trying to make students fail. That, he remarked, is true. Saying, “I don’t know to a boss but I will find out” is extremely difficult. The exercise is generally successful. The students get insights and often are what the faculty want students to get.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
