How to write an essay about teaching that will not be published in the NYT, Chronicle, IHE, or anywhere else

1) There are many pedagogical techniques.

2) These techniques vary in usefulness, depending on the discipline, class size, role in the major/GE program, level of instruction, content, classroom layout, time of day, available technology, instructor's skill set, the university/college environment, and student demographics.  

3) Depending on changes to any or all of these variables, these techniques may or may not work from one course to the next.  They may or may not even work across two sections of the identical course taught during the same semester/quarter.

4) Not all techniques are suited to all instructors.  

5) The instructor's perception of a technique's efficacy may or may not match the students', and vice-versa.

6) The instructor's perception of a technique's "enlightening," "liberatory," or other X quality may or may not match the students', and vice-versa.  

7) Students may or may not agree with what pedagogical theorists think is helpful for them.

Short version: All instructors have to assemble their own pedagogical toolkit from the many resources out there and restock it (and recreate it) as necessary.  There is no one single way of being effective.  There is no magic spell (previous post on this blog to the contrary) that will make all pedagogical techniques effective all the time.  It is very difficult to generalize from one instructor's experience to the next.  One gets on with it.  

Comments

[James Goodman]

Brilliant. Thanks for this. Had I seen this sooner I would not have wasted yesterday morning arguing about that stupid NYT piece on and off FB. I would have simply shared your post, as I have been doing all morning. James Goodman, History and Creative Writing, Rutgers University, Newark.

[Leigh Johnson]

So true.

[James Rovira]

Most intelligent article about pedagogy that I've read in quite some time that illustrates why national discourse about pedagogy isn't productive.

[Fie Upon This Quiet Life]

haha! Yes. It's true. There's no silver bullet from one class to the next. Everyone's entitled to their opinions, but holy hell, there's a lot more nuance to teaching than anyone (other than teachers) would believe.

I have had some colleagues try to convince me of their efficacy with their particular techniques. But for me, being able to read the room, get to know students, and being able to improvise when necessary have been the key tools in my tool box. Adapting to whatever you've got in the classroom, for me, is the most important thing.

[Nathanael]

*Cough*. Good points, but for a *complete* version of the essay, I would add a reference to the Hawthorne Effect.

https://colbypearce.wordpress.com/2012/09/24/the-hawthorne-effect-in-schools/

In schools, trying *anything* new has a measurable positive benefit -- even if the new pedagogy method is actually worse than the old one. Why? It shows interest, it causes everyone to get excited. This has actually shown up over and over and over again in studies of new educational methods -- the new method practically *always* appears to be better than the old method. Even if the new method is actually the method of 5 years ago. It's the novelty which makes it better, not the actual method.

Anyway, I thought you might find this useful.

[Euryalus]

Thank you for pointing out what should be obvious! (By the way, it was an unexpected surprise when this showed up in my Facebook feed. I miss having you as a colleague--hope all is well in B-land!)

[Tony Waters]

Along with the Hawthore Effect, I would add Campbell's Law

"The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor."

http://www.ethnography.com/2013/05/campbells-law-and-the-fallacies-of-standardized-testing/

[Tim]

Great piece. I think there are definitely valid generalizations about how not to teach though!