|
Compilation of Teaching Fellow Questionnaire Responses
Questions Asked: 1) How would you characterize the quality of lecturing in courses you have been a fellow for? What factors have led to successful lecturing, in your opinion, and what to less successful lecturing? 2) To what extent have lectures and sections meshed in the courses you have taught? What factors have made for a successful integration and what for a less successful one? 3) What has been the nature of your interaction with the faculty lecturers in classes you have taught (i.e., have they been supervisors, mentors, colleagues, etc.)? How regularly have you met with them, and to what end? What do you feel is the ideal type of interaction between faculty and fellows? 4) To what extent has your course teaching been informed by the one-two structure of IHUM? That is, when you teach a fall class, do you feel you are imparting skills which student can use in their winter/spring courses, and when you teach a winter/spring class, do you pay any attention to what students have done in the fall? 5) In your opinion, how well does the one-two structure of IHUM work? 6) To what extent have the faculty in classes you have taught incorporated works from outside the traditional Western canon? To what extent should this be a criterion for works included in IHUM classes? 7) How important has student writing been to the design of courses you have taught? How has this been reflected in the design of assignments for the course, and in the way that you deal with those assignments? 8) To what extent have the faculty in your fall-quarter classes followed the mandate to study 3-5 primary texts? Do students generally, in your opinion, thereby learn to read more deeply or critically? Have you seen any advantages or disadvantages to this mandate, for you and/or for the students? 9) Please comment on the interdisciplinary structure of the fall-quarter course (team-taught by faculty from different disciplines). Does it effectively expose students to diverse views on humanistic texts? Please note any advantages or disadvantages to this structure for you or for the students. 10) What do you see as the main functions of section? Do they in general fulfill those functions? 11) Sections are supposed to contain 15 students on average, and to be held for 3 hours per week. How has this worked? Are there specific improvements you can suggest? 12) Do you feel that working in IHUM has contributed to your professional development? If so, how? 13) Do you feel that you have been adequately trained to be a section leader in IHUM? If not, how could the training be improved? 14) Overall, have you been satisfied with your participation in IHUM? 15) Do you have any other comments that you think would be useful to the IHUM self-study?
FELLOW 1 1. Excellent lecturing by both faculty. [Professor X and Y] communicate often and well. They work to complement one another’s lectures. Attend one another’s lectures. Meet constantly. 2. lectures and sections mesh well. some days I simply refer to points. usually when we begin a new text I go over the lecture in more detail; it depends on the sophistication of the lecture. It is enormously helpful that both faculty provide lectures ahead of time. It also helps that we all meet once a week. 3. The faculty have been very collegial. We meet once a week. I feel that were I to approach either of them for support or references in other matters they would also be accessible. 4. I am trying to follow this pattern. I do not know how it play out next quarter. 5. I wish I knew! 6. Our fall class is largely canonical. I have no problem with it. The winter spring sequence will be quite the opposite and I am also happy about the shift. I really cannot answer the larger question you pose at this point. 7. I'm not sure how to measure the importance of student writing. I have no other courses at Stanford with which to compare. We've all been putting a lot of effort into preparing students for their papers (giving clear guidance about various phases of writing and preparation, extended office hours, thesis workshops in class, etc) We will not receive the assignment until the end of this week so I cannot comment on how effective this was. 8. My limited experience hampers me here. I certainly think more than 5 texts would make in depth reading impossible. 9. Yes, I do think this gives the students an inkling of different disciplines. It is difficult to spend much time clarifying the distinctions between history and comparative literature (nor do I think the students would be enthralled by such a discussion) and the texts that we use in the course are almost all literary so the differences get blurred. Ultimately, I don't think I can answer this question very well. I do not see any disadvantages in this particular course. I think I would prefer to have the differences get blurred than have such divergent views I'd spend all of seminar bringing them back together. 10. Continuing the work of the lecture to hammer home the ideas of the course. Developing critical reading, speaking, listening, and writing skills. Adjusting to college level work in a smaller, safer environment. I think it helps students a lot. In general, they do fulfill their functions. 11. In my very particular experience, I've had some difficulties with section size. I have one that has 5 students, one with 18, one with 16. This makes things a little more difficult for various pretty obvious reasons. I think one thing that would have helped in this particular case is to consider the known obstacles. I'm told it's fairly well known that 1:15 MW is a time dominated by Chem and Math? Concerning section size more generally I think 10 to 12 is ideal. 15 is also great. I'm having a difficult time really drawing out the quieter students with a section of 18. 12. Yes. Working with other fellows and faculty is stimulating both because I'm learning a lot from other fields and because I've found some people working on my very specialized interest (word and image) but from different perspectives. I'm hoping that I'll eventually be able to get some writing done too. The time demands can be daunting but I think the second year will be more manageable. 13. Yes. I was adequately trained. In an ideal world the training might be a bit more hands on and directly related to "real life" at Stanford. I was slightly confused by how best to teach from different disciplinary perspectives. Despite the fact that I realize that everyone teaches from their own strength somehow I wound up scrambling to "fill in gaps" in my background to better teach the course. This turned out to be a bad idea and I should have stuck with my strengths and teaching close to the text. Perhaps more meetings with the faculty and other fellows earlier in the orientation would have helped. I do not mean to imply that the training should be entirely specific but I think we would all benefit from some more guidance from vet TFs earlier on. --on very practical survival issues for the first weeks If there were any possibility of more interaction with "real live students" I think I'd have had a more well rounded idea of what Stanford students are like. 14. This is a hard question for a very self critical person. Yes? I feel I'm settling into it and finding out how to do a better and more efficient job. 15. Nope.
FELLOW 2 1. Most of the IHUM lectures I attended were engaging and informative. I think that the key factor leading to success is a strong commitment to aiming the lecture at a general student audience—showing how specific elements of a reading somehow advance a larger understanding of the discipline or field of study. The best lectures offered essential background information and then combined that information with a specific interpretation of the text to advance a more general understanding of the whole project of humanistic knowledge. 2. The lecture and section relate to each other differently depending on the quality of the lectures. If lecturers pose provocative questions, it is easy to follow up with discussion specifically about the lecture. Then again, sometimes a lecture may cover its chosen topic very well, but skirt a topic that is particularly interesting to the students. In this case, it only makes sense to leave the lecture behind and follow the students’ interests. 3. Meeting once a week has been the norm. Most faculty recognize that there really is no “teaching team” without this minimum contact. I really valued these meetings because they gave me insight into the design of the course and allowed me to better integrate my sections into the overall plan. In many cases, the meetings also allowed me to get clarifications about the content of lectures, and I was then able to pass this insight on to my students. The faculty lecturers were my colleagues and they were generally pleasant to work with. 4. Students clearly advance from fall to winter/spring in terms of their oral and written communication skills and their critical thinking skills. Because I was constantly reacting to the students’ comments in class and their writing, the level of instruction naturally changed over the course of the year. The kinds of skills that are taught in IHUM are not the sort that can be truly mastered once and for all, they are skills that must continually be cultivated. 5. I think that the progress from a more interdisciplinary humanities course to a more specialized course makes sense. One criticism: The faculty need to be flexible in their choice of texts and cooperate with each other so that no text is offered in both a fall course and a winter/spring course. Without this cooperation, students end up engaging in a ridiculous repetition of work. (Of course, there is no problem with any number of fall courses or any number of winter/spring courses offering the same text. In fact, the more texts that students have in common, the better the discussions in section.) 6. I think that courses should be true to themselves, as it were. If faculty who are primarily schooled in the traditional Western canon teach texts from that same canon, who can be surprised? But faculty should recognize that they are choosing texts not only for themselves, but also for other instructors to teach. Therefore, I think it makes sense for them to choose texts that can get a broad base of support among fellow academics in the humanities (namely, the co-lecturers and IHUM fellows). To choose some grand theme and then only consider how it plays out in the traditional canon is no longer adequate. 7. Essays are the primary means of evaluation of student learning. I have also used short writing assignments in class to focus students’ attention on a specific passage, for example. However, given the fact that there is a specific freshman writing program in place at Stanford, I preferred to focus on reading and interpretation. And I believe that IHUM courses should avoid getting involved with revisions of essays. Let that old essay go and more on to the next humanistic encounter! 8. In my experience, faculty have chosen to read 5 texts. The problem with doing so few is that students will never like all of the texts, so the chance of them being inspired is reduced when so few texts are available. (I’ve never experienced the “double pass” strategy where all the texts are presented once and then presented again with a different focus. Perhaps this strategy justifies a small number of texts.) 9. I did not experience any particularly provocative combinations of disciplines in the fall courses that I taught. The best interdisciplinary team that I saw was in the winter/spring [Course A] which combined historical and literary approaches. The structure was effective because the faculty worked closely in the design of the course. 10. The main functions of section are 1) to provide expert academic support for students to engage intellectually with the texts and lectures and 2) to help students learn how to learn from each other. I believe that the sections generally succeed. My best section was an ideal size (11 students) and had about 9 students who were truly well prepared for discussion. They were friendly and respectful of each other’s ideas. It was an amazing group! 11. This structure for sections is sound, in my opinion. 12. Yes, I’ve gained valuable teaching experience. I’ve also been given funds for attending conferences, taking software training courses, and buying professional resource materials. 13. Yes, the summer workshops were conducted very well. They offered key information about IHUM goals, allowed for problem-solving and brainstorming activities concerning various teaching issues, and helped to create an esprit de corps among the IHUM fellows. 14. I’m extremely satisfied with my three years of participation in IHUM. While I was definitely critical of certain aspects of the courses along the way, that was simply because I had the very highest expectations for Stanford courses and students. 15.
FELLOW 3 1. The quality of lecturing was great -- by all of the professors. As to what made them successful, I don't know, maybe expertise, or the fact that they had given them before? 2. We did not spend a lot of time on the lectures in section discussion; we talked more about the readings and questions/themes that arose from the lectures and the readings (rather than about the lectures themselves). A couple of students in the [Course A] sections commented that they would have liked to spend more time talking about the lectures. 3. Not supervisors, mentors, or colleagues. They were the professors, and we were the TAs -- which is not to say that they were "mean" or unfriendly. We met once a week both for [Course A] and for [Course B]. [In Course B], we talked more about the texts; in [Course A] "team meetings," we talked more about the daily runnings of the sections (how they were going, etc.). The ideal type of interaction would depend on the personalities of the professors and the fellows both. Maybe because I am a good bit older and more professionally experienced than the average fellow (closer to the age of the professors), I wasn't really looking for mentorship, and wasn't really distressed about not being treated as a colleague or as an equal -- so I have no complaints about interaction. Others may have wanted less of a distinction. 4. Well, the nature of the fall course [Course B], was quite different from the nature of the winter/spring course ([Course A]); the readings were very different and the call and requirements of the exam essays was different. What mostly carried over, I think, was the stress on the IHUM style of argumentative essay. 5. OK I guess -- from my one year of experience. 6. Zero for [Course A] (as might be expected); a bit of Chinese "philosophy" for [Course B]. Personally, I don't think it should be a requirement or criterion for all IHUM courses across the board, but I think IHUM should offer courses that either are "non-traditional Western" or that incorporate such works. That is, I think there should be a choice among courses available for the students. 7. Very important. Actually, I thought that's what IHUM was mostly about -- teaching a certain kind of analytical writing. I spent a lot of time in section and in office hours on writing. We did various exercises, etc. 8. Mandate was closely followed for [Course B]. I think the "close reading" was valuable for first semester freshmen. Most of them were either so wound-up, overly-confident, nervous, or intimidated by their other courses that the close reading of a few texts was a relief, and allowed them to prepare for discussions. Some complained that we (in lecture and in section) spent too much time going over the material, however. 9. Well, [Course B] was very effective in that regard, I thought, though that was probably because [Professors X and Y] specifically made a point of emphasizing their different interpretations and different views on the texts. 10. To discuss the texts; to teach students about analytical, argumentative essay writing; to get them to realize that a single text can be -- and often has been for centuries -- read and interpreted different ways; and that it's really a good thing to spend time and effort reading and thinking about things other than science and technology, and to discuss topics and issues that don't have an "answer" (unlike math, for example). Discussions without answers ("discussions that don't resolve anything") seemed to bother a number of students. I kept trying to emphasize that that's what college is about. 11. 15 students is a lot -- the quieter students really do sit back or get left out, despite a fellow's best efforts. I had 9:00 am sections that were smaller (what a surprise, only 8 students in winter, 10 in spring), and everyone was always on. Those were the sections where everyone knew they had to do the reading, and all I had to do was glance at someone to get him or her to make a comment or join in discussion. I think 11-12 would be ideal. Were the sections really each only an hour and a half? Some of them seemed much longer. In my sections, we always voted at the beginning of the quarter whether to take a 10 minute break in the middle or to end 10 minutes early: unanimous votes to end early. An hour is too short to get some discussions going, but an hour and a half is too long. The most common complaint was that section was too long. I think once a week for an hour and a half, or twice a week for an hour would better. 12. I'll let you know. Actually, the student self-assessment idea, and the fellow peer review (I can't remember the exact name of the latter, but when [Fellow F] and I went into each other's sections and had the students break up into groups and critique the section) were far more valuable than I thought they would be. I will use those again. 13. I had taught before (law school, history), but had never been a TA in my graduate school years, so the lecture/section dichotomy and teaching someone else's material were new to me -- but I don't think that more training would have made a difference. I thought the 2 week training session was great -- no complaints. 14. Quite satisfied -- other than with the drive between [City A] and Palo Alto four days a week. The TA-ing was not totally satisfying (it wasn't like designing and teaching one's own class), and the grading was really exhausting, but overall the experience was good: I read some books I otherwise would not have read; heard some good lectures; and picked up some hints I hope to use in my own teaching. I'm very interested in the writing process, and in argumentative writing, so I actually enjoyed that aspect of the TA-ing. 15. When my students complained about IHUM (in class, when I could hear them -- I don't know what they said to each other privately), other than about the length of sections, a common complaint was that there was not enough choice in the IHUM course offerings. I'm sure you've heard this before -- but "too many old, white male ideas" they said. It seemed to me that some of the courses (the readings at least) were pretty much repeats of each other ([Course A] and [Course C], for example). Also, the requirement of typing the comments for student papers was really burdensome for me, because I am a very slow typist. It took me way too much time -- so that by the end of a grading session, I cut comments shorter than I otherwise would have, just to get the grading done in time. When, in the spring quarter, I finally started hand-writing the comments, I was able to be more thorough, and to intersperse comments in the margins of the papers. The students seemed to appreciate the comments themselves, more than the fact that I typed or word-processed them.
FELLOW 4 1. In [Course A] and [Course B], the lectures were outstanding. In [Course C] they are OK. The key to successful lecturing in IHUM, it seems to me, is understanding the students and pitching the lectures in such a way that will challenge them (but not be over their heads) and interest them (entertainment value). While all of the lecturers have put a lot of work into preparing their lectures, the less successful lectures have failed because they have been either so high level that the students get frustrated and resentful, or the lecturers have assumed that their subject matter is of great interest in and of itself, and so they haven’t tried to ‘sell’ it. That is fine for upper division courses but for freshmen a performative component to the lectures is essential. 2. [Course B] most successfully meshed the lecture and section. To have the two mesh, the lectures must include an element of opinion or overt theorizing, so that the students can pick up the thread of the lecture in section as a contribution to the discussion. In [Course A], the presentation of facts, with little explicit inductive reasoning, made it hard to open up a space for discussion. In [Course C], the theorizing is there but the students have found it too difficult to understand so they just avoid talking about it in section. 3. In all my courses, I have met with the faculty weekly. The interaction has always been cordial, and they have treated the teaching fellows with respect, and treated us as peers rather than graduate students. They have not acted as mentors, but more like senior colleagues. 4. By the Winter/Spring, the students do seem to be writing better and thinking more analytically, but whether that is because of IHUM or just the general challenges of the first term of college, I don’t know. I hope that what they learn from me in the Fall has some relevance in the subsequent quarters, but I don’t really see the courses as a continuum. 6. In the classes I have taught, all the books have been from the Western canon except possibly [Text T]. I know some students express concern about reading too many dead white European authors, so I think there should be courses available that draw from works outside the canon, but I don’t think each course needs to have a ‘token’ non-traditional work in it. 7. I’m not sure what you mean by ‘design’ of the course. The majority of the students’ grade always comes from their writing assignments, and I do a number of writing exercises in section to prepare the students for their papers, but it is one component of a broader emphasis on analytical reasoning. 8. [Course B] followed the mandate; [Course C] has a course reader in addition to 5 texts. I think they DO learn to read more deeply and critically. Some texts end up being studied too long, and the students are fed up, but this seems better than the alternative of rushing through snippets of many texts. 9. Unfortunately most of the students have too little understanding of the disciplinary boundaries to appreciate that these boundaries are being crossed! From my experience they attribute different views to the different personalities of the professors rather than to disciplinary divisions. However, it doesn’t seem to pose any problems. 10. The main functions of section are to “develop critical reading, listening, thinking, speaking, and writing skills; to become familiar with various analytic approaches commonly used in the humanities and apply them effectively”. That is the blurb in the section information sheet that I give the students. I think the last two functions aren’t fulfilled as often, in that they don’t recognize what they’re doing as approaches used in the humanities. However, they do develop a good skill set. 11. It has worked well! 12. Yes, it has made me a better teacher and a better verbal communicator. 13. Yes, the training was extensive. 14. Yes, I think I have the students have learned a lot and enjoyed my sections. 15. No.
FELLOW 5 1. (a) [Course A] = lectures generally poor: unstructured, opaque and rarely (if ever) providing viable links with the course reading. Less successful because lecturers did not appear either prepared or engaged with the subject or course itself. (b) [Course B] = clear, entertaining, informative, broad-ranging: all in all, just perfect for the topic(s) covered. Successful because lecturers were extremely familiar with their material, articulate, and *engaged* in the course. 3. I occasionally met one of the four faculty members outside of work. Otherwise there were few if any occasions to extend our relationship(s) beyond the minimum required. I feel that the position of the fellow is ill-defined -- and so it is easy for some faculty to revert to the typical relationship between professor and graduate student/TA. It would be great if there were occasions for faculty and fellows to meet and share discussions of their areas of research. However, I realize that with many commuters & already busy commitments, it would not be practical to expect attendance at such meetings... Another suggestion -- which surely has varying relevance according to the specific department involved -- would be to have closer affiliation between the fellows and the academic departments they would otherwise be linked with. I made efforts on my own to participate in [Department D] events, and offered a talk myself within [Department E]. However, I felt somewhat of an outsider as a "mere" IHUM fellow. 4. I only taught at IHUM for one year, so I don't feel I can comment very helpfully. However, I do believe that in my second year teaching, I would have known better how to orient Fall students for their Winter-Spring courses. My Fall course was so radically different in style and content to my Winter/Spring course, that I don't feel I transferred anything from the first to the second course. 5. I believe it *could* be a good way to allow students become more deeply involved in a particular theme, after having "learned the ropes" in their first quarter. However, the variety of topics and teaching styles within the IHUM program perhaps prevent this from happening as it is meant to... 6. (a) [Course A] all works from Western canon. A shame, really, given the topic of the course and its potentials. (b) [Course B]: [some of the] literature I suppose is non-Western -- but still fairly familiar to Western readers, what with its links to biblical texts. I don't believe that it should be an absolute requirement to include a non-Western work in a course. In a course such as [Course B], it would have been irrelevant and artificial (eg) to extend the discussion to a non-Western empire, just for the books. 7. Writing was intended to be central to each course. Their written assignments reflected a wide range of levels of comprehension of these recommended writing strategies... as students came from very diverse backgrounds. I felt in conflict, as I was not to be a writing instructor, but still was expected to instruct the students on communicating their critical thinking in written form. Due to time constraints, I gave students a fair amount of study aids for them to review on their own. Occasionally there were feelings of conflict felt from the students who were simultaneously taking their required writing skills class (I can't remember the name at the moment!) where their tutors were advocating for entirely different writing styles and methods. This led to a rather cynical attitude on their part... and frustration. It would be good to have more integration between these two aspects of the freshman experience (i.e., IHUM & Writing class). I spent enormous amounts of time editing papers, and I am not convinced that the students took this work of mine for what it was worth! 8. As indicated above, there was really no link between the texts and the lectures in the Fall course, so the critical thinking was accomplished primarily by trying to find any link whatsoever... and in devising our own topics of discussion and interest. One suggestion would be to strongly encourage the professors to make explicit links to the texts in their lectures, so we all know we are on +/- the same page for engaging certain ideas and/or themes. Another suggestion -- consider reducing the amount of reading required so that we can focus more specifically and methodically on particular passages. This should encourage real critical thinking -- rather than the skill of learning to skim over texts just to get their gist. 9. Not relevant to our Fall course ([Course A]): both faculty members were from same dept [...]. 10. I would expect sections to allow us to review topics in the lectures and readings, investigate their links, and offer critical assessments of both. My role in section evolved over the year, as I learned to stand back and let things roll on their own. Discussions amongst students in section improved in fun value, I am sure -- but I had misgivings: I felt that often the most significant points were not touched upon, and many "learning moments" lost, because students neglected to address them. 11. I feel this format generally worked well. Occasionally we (students and I) felt that topics were skimmed over too quickly in the 3-hr allotted time. See my comments above re reducing reading load. 12. Yes – it has taught me alternative ways of teaching (discussion format). I’ve been made to think of how to integrate young students’ tentative efforts into more productive sessions for everyone... emphasizing that the process of learning (e.g. open discussion) can be at least as important as the learning itself (absorbing particular concepts etc)! 13. I very much appreciated the training sessions. Would have appreciated additional role-playing experiences on how to "lead" a discussion indirectly, from the sides. *** Urgent suggestion: offer a brainstorming session for fellows (and professors) on how to discuss biblical texts *as literature and history*. I had great challenges conducting fruitful dialogues with extremely religious / Creationist / Jehovah’s Witness students in [Course B]! There were risks (luckily avoided) of great offence being taken all around. Volatile issues... 14. Yes -- I certainly learned a lot about teaching and about commitment to students. The first quarter was character-building, and offered good lessons on how things should *not* be done. I so much appreciated the change with the Winter/Spring course! I would have loved to stay on for another two years -- but a personal attachment took me back to [...] 15. It would benefit everyone, in my view, to have occasions for fellows and professors together to review course assessments and strategize together in case there are suggestions for change. It would be extremely helpful for fellows to hear feedback from the professors about their own experiences and attitudes. I saw little evidence of IHUM requesting feedback from them. The mid-term assessments of the Fall course were not available for discussion amongst the fellows and professors -- and clearly made not a dent on the lecturers' performances... Professors seem to be immune from assessment pressures at IHUM... and that is a real shame for the students who may have to experience poor lecturers year after year. Perhaps I am naïve?
FELLOW 6 1. Lectures were a very mixed bag. On the whole, I think lectures were more successful in [Course A] where the faculty had an ongoing relationship to the course, than in [Course B] where lecturers were invited and sometimes had absolutely no idea what type of lecture was appropriate. Lectures seemed to work best when they presented historical background; students often had a lot of difficulty following an argument of any complexity or sophistication. What worked *really* well was the Round Table format instituted in [Course A], where faculty members and fellows would argue together on stage about their views of the material--students seemed to be able to follow this a lot better and got more out of it. 2. When the lecturers worked closely with the Fellows and more or less followed their directives about what lectures needed to do, where they needed to be pitched, etc., the two meshed well. When lecturers went off on their own tangents sometimes the Fellows really had to scramble to try to make the lecture fit in, and occasionally one would have to ignore a lecture entirely. 3. This is a difficult question, because frankly I do not feel there should be a distinction between faculty and Fellows: I think either the roles should be interchangeable or the course should be taught entirely by Fellows. Teaching [Course B] when it was organized and taught entirely by the Fellows, was a much more useful and enriching experience (for us, of course, but more importantly for students) than teaching [Course A] --except for the ongoing problem of finding suitable lecturers. With that said, the original cast of [Course A] did make some innovations that made the two groups work much more effectively together as a team and gave the students a far more coherent learning experience. The weekly public Round Tables were one; having the faculty sit in on and team-teach sections was another. The Fellows also gave lectures. All three of those things can and should be instituted throughout the program. Furthermore, I want to note that in [Course A] the faculty members welcomed, listened to and used the advice of the Fellows, which I gather was quite atypical. The structure of the program prevented them from being true colleagues, but they really tried. The fact is, however, that the structure of the program *does* mean that accomplished Ph.D.'s who are fully qualified to be faculty members (and sometimes have *been* faculty members) are essentially TAing for people who are, in some cases (this was true in [Course A]) younger and less experienced than themselves. As it is currently set up, IHUM is being staffed by people who ought to be teaching their own courses and are instead being asked to do work any competent third-year graduate student could do. As Fellows we were perceived by the students, and frequently by the faculty, as TAs. There is no way for this situation not to breed resentment and tension. 4. I tried to do both those things, but found it difficult. As a teacher, I preferred the year-long structure of CIV, but I do think the one-two system probably works better for students as it gives them a chance to explore quite different areas with different teachers. 5. See above. 6. We worked on this a lot in [Course B] and I was pleased with the results, particularly with the unit we incorporated on medieval Islamic culture--in the last year I have heard from several former students that in light of current world events they're really grateful they had even that minimal exposure to Islamic thought. But while I think it should always be a goal, teachers also need to think about what else they're trying to accomplish with any given course and to make sure *all* the works serve a particular function. 7. We made writing *really* important and I think that was one of the most successful aspects of the program. I learned an enormous amount about teaching writing effectively, and the assignments that the Fellows designed cooperatively have been invaluable to me over the years. 8. They seemed to follow the mandate. Don't know if this made students read any more carefully; they certainly didn't re-read, as we had hoped they would. But it gave us more time to explore and discuss each work, which was nice. 9. The three faculty members for [Course A] weren't from wildly different disciplines, so it's hard to say. I think it worked when they called attention to it--when they very consciously modeled their methods for the students and explained what they were doing and pointed out how it differed from what the other faculty had been doing. As I recall our biggest problem was not having enough *Fellows* from different disciplines--everybody was from history or literature. The program needs, or at least used to need, Fellows from genuinely different disciplines--political scientists in a course that deals with political philosophy, for instance. 10. This was very different in [Course B] and [Course A]. In [Course B], the section was where the teaching happened. The sections *were* the course, and it was a lot more satisfying and engaging for students than the "discussion section to hash over the lecture" format. It seems crucial to make sections long enough and frequent enough that they become the place where students argue and dissect and learn; if their only function is to clarify points from lecture, they should be made shorter and taught by graduate students. 11. Fifteen to 20 students is good. I liked four hours/week better than three (see above) but three is OK. 12. Yes. Most importantly, the pedagogical brainstorming sessions we had for three years in [Course B] taught me practically everything I know about teaching writing and about teaching first-year students. That part was *great*. Furthermore, it certainly helps having a Stanford affiliation when applying for jobs elsewhere; I would have had that anyway, since my doctorate is from Stanford, but I think the amount of teaching experience, and the range of texts I had taught, probably helped with obtaining a tenure-track job. The anecdotal evidence of my experience and that of my friends from the program certainly indicates that the program can be a useful springboard to tenured positions elsewhere. 13. The training was pretty good. Advice and input from other Fellows (or whatever we were called when it was CIV) was more helpful than the formal training, but certainly some kind of regular meeting is essential. 14. Overall, yes. Not to put too fine a point on it, it's a lot more money (and better benefits) than most fixed-term positions offer, in a nice place, at a university with amazing resources. And, as I've said, the cooperative pedagogy that happened in [Course B] was absolutely wonderful. 15. I've already said it, but I'll say it again: if the financial and political demands on the program are such that it appears essential to hire Ph.D.'s for these positions, then let them do what they're trained to do. The whole "get more contact with real Stanford faculty" line doesn't fool the students; most of the time they see the real faculty for fifty minutes a week and they think the Fellows are graduate student TAs. Make the Fellows honorary fixed-term faculty members, and either let them run the courses themselves or integrate their jobs with the faculty's, as we attempted to do in [Course A]: have faculty teach or team-teach sections, have Fellows lecture, give everybody on a teaching team equal say in designing the course. If students felt they were being taught, in lecture and in small, intimate sections, by a whole team of professors working together--*that* would impress them.
FELLOW 7 1. The quality of the lecturers has been mixed, although for the most part I would rate it as quite good. The best lectures presented substantive ideas about the text which could then be debated in section. Less successful lectures worked mainly as an overview of the text, quoting from the best parts, so that I felt that all the 'good parts' had been taken before I even started section. All the lecturers I worked with, with the possible exception of the spring lecturer for [Course A], did a very good job of incorporating background material into the lecture. In some cases--am I supposed to be naming names here?--there was too much background. 2. I make a point of asking about the lecture before I begin section, so students always feel that the lecture is included, at least in a small way. The one place where I felt that the lectures and section did not match up well was in the classical component of [Course B]. [Professor X] provides, what is in my opinion too much background. That means that the first section on a [...] text is always put in the position of jumping ahead of the lecture. I think the best lectures are the ones that set up areas to discuss (as in: this is something you may want to take up in section). The worst ones leave the students feeling that all the important things have been said. 3. I have looked upon my faculty lecturers as friends and colleagues, and in the case of [Professor Y], as a mentor as well. [...] In all of my courses fellows met with faculty on a weekly basis to discuss the substance of the upcoming lectures, how sections went, problems, ideas for future sections, etc. I was visited each year by [Professors X and Z]. [Professor W] visited last year, but not the first year. [Professor Y] never managed to visit at all, although he expressed regret at not being able to do so. I liked these visits, and I know the students did as well. At no time did I feel observed, evaluated, or as though my position of authority was being usurped. I would say that my relationship with the faculty of [Course A] represented an ideal one between fellows and faculty, because they truly cared about fellow impute in terms of running the course. While I admire [Professors X and V] commitment to visiting sections, they were not particularly interested in fellow input (except that fellows were expected to create the paper topics and the final exam). For example, although I suggested at the end of the first year that we change editions for [Text 1] and [Text 2], and we did in fact use different editions in the following year, at no time was this represented as an implementation of a suggestion coming from me. 4. I would say that this is an area where IHUM ideology does not match up with IHUM reality. True, in the fall we were able to spend a bit more time looking closely at texts, which teaches (or at least models) close reading skills that students will use in the winter/spring, I'm not sure that students even notice this. I have never felt that my winter/spring students were bringing something specific to the course from their fall quarter courses, except perhaps complaints. 5. I think it sounds good, but doesn't necessarily work that well. I'm sure that some courses are designed in such a way so as to meet the IHUM goals more than others. The main difference between my fall and winter/spring courses is a slower pace. I don't think students do very much rereading unless explicitly directed to do so. 6. Certainly [Course B] could not be more dead-white-male dominated. The same pretty much holds true for [Course A] as well. And yet, I think these were both good courses. I like the fact that IHUM makes a serious effort to go beyond the Western canon, but I think you need to be wary of tokenism. 7. Very important. 8. I pretty much answered this above. I don't think students necessarily read more critically. I think they just have more time to do other things. 9. In [Course B] the 2 different viewpoints boil down to eccentric and friendly banter between 2 old friends who like each other. 10. Section allows students to take up an issue and express a viewpoint. It also allows students the opportunity to get to things that weren't covered in lecture. I think that in general, section does fulfill these functions. 11. Some students invariably find that the 1.5 hour section is too long. I have mixed feelings. You can do things in 90 minutes that would just not be possible in 55, so I think that it's best to keep it as is, with section leaders offering breaks at their discretion. 12. Yes, I learned a lot about pedagogy. 13. Yes I do. 14. I think I've done a great job. 15. Even if I did I wouldn't put them down now since I have to go teach. I had no idea that this would take so long.
FELLOW 8 1. The quality of lecturing varies. I have only seen one lecturer whom I would characterize as NOT a good lecturer, but I would say that some lecturers do not seem to realize that they are addressing freshman. It is hard to use sections uniquely for discussion if lecture material is too far beyond the comprehension of students and is full of allusions to people and materials they have never heard of. 2. I would say that lecture and sections meshed well in all of the courses I have taught except for one. The one that didn't mesh was one where the lecturer barely alluded to the texts we were reading in section. 3. I think interaction varies, though, unfortunately, I get the impression that most of the lecturers do not seem themselves as mentors. Overall, I think there is a tendency to forget that we have temporary jobs that are incredibly time-consuming and that they should in some way be looking out for us as future colleagues and helping us get to that point. The level of respect lecturers have for the fellows varies wildly. 4. I am not sure I can reply to this question fairly, since I only have experienced this transition once. I found that I had to ignore what students did in previous IHUMs because the quality of teaching of the IHUM fellows also varies wildly. I had a lot of students who had done nothing but play games all quarter in their fall sections and a number of students who still had not learnt very much about writing. My peers have different levels of commitment to the program precisely because it is so time consuming that it prevents one from doing one's own work. Some people do their homework and become really informed about what they are going to teach and some people do not care if they make stuff up. I am sorry to have to say this, but it is true. So I have colleagues I really admire and others that I have less respect for. The new feature of a leave quarter for both second and third years is really a wonderful thing and was a big relief! Otherwise, I don't see how one can truly follow through with what IHUM mandates AND further one's own career. I personally wish the fall quarter were a little less demanding on us because it is hard to do the job market at the same time. 5. Again, I don't have enough experience with it to answer. I think it depends on the courses. I would not be opposed to three different courses either. 6. All my lecturers have incorporated things that are not part of the traditional Western canon. I personally don't think this should be much of a criterion at all for classes. I care more about how well the course is structured and taught. I have pretty much liked all the texts I've worked with. It's been great to be exposed to new things. 7. Student writing has been central to all of the courses I've taught and writing assignments are always taken seriously. I tend to assess the quality of writing as much as the content, which is not universally the case in IHUM. I am not convinced that the grade norming exercises work very well, even if we end up having the same proportions of A's and B's. because, depending on our fields, etc., we have different ideas of what constitutes a good paper. 8. I didn't even know that the mandate said 3 to 5! I thought it was five! The faculty I've worked with has always tried to push the envelope towards more reading rather than less. For the fall quarter, this can be problematic for some students. However, the students still don't understand the Spring and Winter sequences. They complain a lot about the quantity of reading without realizing that that amount of work will become typical for a Stanford class. I have to say that last winter and spring (one day for [Author A], one day for [Author B], one day or so for [Author C]...) things did get a bit absurd. 9. I am HIGHLY in favor of this interdisciplinary approach. I think that barriers between disciplines should be broken down even further! Freshman, of course, are not yet aware enough to "get" what these differences are, but my professors right now, particularly [Professor X], makes a point of distinguishing types of reading, which is good. 10. In theory, it seems to me, the functions of section are to discuss what when on in lecture, help clear up misunderstandings, and delve deeper into the texts. The sections also provide time to teach skills that cannot be acquired through lecture: oral presentations; writing; discussion. In practice, I personally feel that I am also teaching my own course and that I usually have to do more than just "clarify." 11. I think the time frame is about right. The load of three sections per person is extremely heavy if one wants to really be there for all the students. 12. I feel I have learned A LOT about teaching through IHUM and that I have become well-versed in things way outside my own area of expertise. That said, I wish that the rest of the academic world actually valued teaching and cared about the fact that one's teaching skills are broad. My experience on the job market leads me to believe that it is not so important that my teaching skills have been honed or that I have familiarity with different works and approaches to teaching. This is not IHUM's problem or even Stanford's. I just think the profession needs an attitude adjustment. 13. I am not a meeting / training person. I don't get a lot out of those types of things at all. I find the IHUM handouts to be very useful, but I don't find the training sessions to be that useful. I learn on the job. I think this question really depends on what kind of personality one has. 14. 15. I think I do a good job, way beyond the call of duty (if I look at how much work I do for the group as a whole, I sometimes think I should be a course coordinator!), so I am satisfied with my work. I am sure that, e.g., this quarter, my coordinator wishes I were more interested in meetings, but I am more of a do-er than a meet-er. I also like to leave lots of time to meet with my students. I wish there were less obvious hierarchical distinction between the fellows and the professors. Students too easily think of us as TAs, and they are very quick to realize that they can impose upon us in ways they would never dare to impose upon professors. I have had complaints for not answering emails at one in the morning, am asked to go clothes shopping with my students, am sent flattering messages by some of the boys in my classes, etc. There is not a big enough respectful boundary line. Occasionally a professor can be very devoted to letting the students know that we have authority and are the ones who make a lot of decisions, indeed that we have doctorates and we are there because of a rough job market but not because we are under-qualified. There should be more of an effort on the part of the professors (and I realize some of this is bound up with individual vanity, etc) to establish that we have a certain status within the university, because I think many professors think of us as no more than TAs.
FELLOW 9 1. Very good to excellent. The IHUM lecturers I worked with—[Professors W, X, Y, and Z]--treated lectures as ways of communicating highly personal readings rather than means to "cover" a text. Thus, they initiated and nurtured the students' creative thought. 2. On my side, I made a serious effort to draw lectures into every section meeting. I think it worked. 3. Perhaps because of my age and experience, I usually felt a colleagure with three of the four professors with whom I worked. In all cases, the professors tried to make me feel that way. Usually, we met weekly with the professors, mostly about curriculum adjustments, assignments, and other practical matters. Ideally, fellows should bear responsibility for their own teaching and contribute independently to the team effort. 4. I found there to be little if any connection. One rarely encountered the same students and thus could not rely on uniform preparation. 5. Not effectively at all. 6. In [Course A], of course, we included an Asian text. In [Course B], we read one black American writer. The nature of the course seems to be the deterring factor. However, I think space should be made for extra-canonical works, even by mandate. 7. I present writing as the natural and appropriate response to reading. However, I taught writing on an individual, case-by-case basis, not to the section as a whole. 8. I like reading about 5 books. The pace must follow from the subject and methodology of the course. 9. Scholars of religious studies and English literature worked effectively together. It's a good idea. 10. Sections should be the sites of creativity, where students grapple with new ideas. 11. It worked well for me. 12. I've learned a great deal in each of the courses I taught, though more in CIV [Course C], where we bore more responsibility. I don't think it made much difference in the job market. 13. It was fine. 14.. 15. no Sorry this response is so late. I hope you can still use it.
FELLOW 10 1. Overall, the quality of lecturing for the fall quarter course, [Course A], was excellent. The professors were well prepared, engaging, and challenging in their lectures. The professors were very committed to the course, the material, and the students themselves. This was also the case for the spring quarters of [Course B], 2001-2002. It was a pleasure to work for these professors, and work with them. 2. Due to the nature of the literature/concept courses this link, from lecture to seminar, really took on a rhythm of its own. Sometimes many points came up in seminar for re-examination, criticism, and/or observation. Often the main points of a lecture functioned to launch and/or review central points and interests of the class as a whole. Factors for a successful integration: a strong reading or interpretation of a text (not just information-based, history-only lecturing); moreover, readings that challenge the students and push them to “read” in new critical directions; provocative questions; some professors raised a number of questions, philosophical, ethical, critical, without necessarily answering them – this both fascinated and stimulated, as well as frustrated students (the latter in the minority, and worth the discussion that ensues). Factors for a less successful integration: lectures that are more information based or historical. When the lecturers seem uninspired by the material they present. 3. With both the fall quarter ([Course A]) and spring quarter ([Course B]), the faculty and teaching fellows meet weekly and created the essay questions and/or exams collectively. We also discussed the texts, and any other issues that came up (problematic students and papers, etc.). Again, these two teaching groups were stellar. Of the four professors in the two teaching teams, two were very supportive, more mentor-like, and I requested a letter of recommendation for my dossier from one of the four professors. 4. I do aim to build on the skills (hopefully) acquired in each prior quarter. I have found, though, that in the winter quarter, the new group of students are so diverse that a serious recap of some of the skills/topics/writing strategies need to be revisited. The two-quarter sequence, winter/spring, allows for a more consistent building of skills in all areas. 5. For the students, I think it is valuable. I see the first quarter as a general introduction to college life (confidence building, communication skills, analytical reading); the second and third quarters in my seminars emphasized writing skills to a greater extent, and the refining of communication and analytical skills. In this way, the one-two structure is useful. I do, though, think the students may tire of the course thematic over two quarters. 6. If I recall correctly, two of the three quarters had one text which fell out of the Western canon. In the winter [Course B], we did selections of the [Text T], but this was dropped in subsequent years. How important is this? I think it is very important even though it may bring about criticism and/or may not always work so well. This depends on where and how the text is placed in the course curriculum and discussed by lecturers. There was good reason that the Koran was dropped, unfortunately -- only one lecture was devoted to the text, and the guest lecturer discussed the importance of gardens/garden imagery in the Koran. I think this was a disservice to the students; the students were terribly curious about the readings and none of us, the teaching team, felt quite prepared to respond adequately to their questions. Overall, I think the professors should be required to integrate a non Western work into their courses; it stretches them as well as the students. But it should also be strongly advised that the text be well integrated and covered adequately or equally in depth as the other texts. 7. The student writing is no doubt a central component to all the three quarters and classes; much of the work on writing and preparation for essays takes place in the seminar. For each writing assignment, the teaching team discussed briefly what kind of issues and skills the paper topics might address. 8. [Course A] followed this mandate. Whether or not the students reread the texts due to the fewer number, it did allow for extra seminar time to do just that – close textually readings, innovative exercises to revisit the text from a different angle, and response writing to the readings. I really enjoyed it for the reasons stated above, and I think it’s a novelty for the students which pays off, especially in light of the heavier reading list in the winter/spring quarters. 9. Again, I speak for only one course, the [Course A]. Yes, it effectively exposed the students to two very different thinkers and approaches to life/texts. Furthermore, one lecture for each text was devoted to a panel with Q&A’s from the students, which further expanded upon this diversity/interdisciplinary aspect. 10. I view the seminar as a complement to lecture that is more often student driven by their interests and ideas. To allow and encourage the students to read critically and to develop and articulate an opinion of the text in discussion. To ground opinions and discussion in the text and be able to use the text to develop ideas. To encourage and develop communication skills and conversation. To have fun in this intellectual endeavor. 11. 15-18 works nicely. Otherwise, works well. 12. Certainly. In terms of pure self-edification and pleasure, I read and taught texts that were new and interesting, and was able to revisit texts in a new context. Having taught the same courses for three years (with some variation), I was able to explore and develop different approaches and teaching techniques. I met and worked with wonderful people and learned a lot from the courses, lectures and teaching teams in general. 13. Yes, but much of this happens by being in the seminar room. The IHUM training sessions prior to the quarter were excellent and covered many of the relevant topics/issues in a very effective manner. 14. Yes, I have been. It’s a great program for both the students and those teaching in it. Thank you! 15.
FELLOW 11 1. In general the lecturing was superb (especially in [Course A]). One lecturer was quite bad -- the level of information never rose above high school AP history (facts, events). The students noticed this and absented themselves in number (perhaps as little as 20% attendance by quarter's end). The best lectures incorporated date with concepts that gave students issues to grapple with and reapply. 2. They have always meshed well I thought. The reading choices just have to be relevant to the lectures. Again, lectures that raised conceptual issues relevant to the readings always made this easiest. 3. [Professor X] really is the best example of how the interactions should take place. Regular meetings about what he is trying to accomplish in lectures and why he chose the readings he did. A real interest in the fellows' opinions and an openness to modifying (within limits) course topics to better fit what the fellows learn about students and their interests in section 4. No. I never really noticed the connection. What they did in the Fall only mattered if it somehow became relevant to the new course. They write better in the 2 part courses, so I imagine that was something imparted. 5. I think it depends on the classes taken. I wonder whether the "interdisciplinary" course ought to come second however. It could be argued students need some sort of more solid grounding before moving off into interdisciplinary work. But this may not be the case. 6. Some have tried ([Professors X, Y, and Z]) others have not at all. The best works for the course at hand ought to be the determining factor. Breadth is always important. 7. We tried to organize classes around due state with thesis workshops etc. 8. [Course A] did. Very careful reading of some very brief (but profound works). I did wonder whether spending 2 weeks on [Text T] was as useful as spending a week on it and a week on another work (for example. 9. Only to the extent that the professors' view diverged. It was all textual analysis -- no other disciplines really made an appearance (A superb course however). 10. To discuss and learn how to analyze texts. (Sometimes just to make it through the 1:45 minutes). And yes, the goal was generally met. 11. Three hours seemed like a whole lot, too much. Two 1:20 sections perhaps or meet once a week for 2 hours. 12. Yes and no. It certainly helped me as seminar leader. I will just add here that I think you all have done a superb job of trying to accommodate the needs and aspirations of the fellows. You are in the something of a no win situation, however, because the program requires so much work that few people have must time at all to pursue their own "real" work (by that I mean, their chosen disciplinarily interests). As a result, there is a degree of frustration among all concerned. Again, this is not your fault, and you have leave time, summers off, etc. But for people looking for work, trying to further their careers, there can be a sense of getting nowhere as we teach often fascinating courses that have no connection to our own fields. Again. It's a double sword -- you offer an opportunity for PhDs to stay in the game, be well paid, have time off and at the same time, they are both so close yet so far from what they are striving for. I only mention this because I experienced it as do many many others. And, this is through no fault or effort of your own. 13. Yes. The training course is too long by half however. 14. Yes, but see above #12. 15. Nope. It all really depends on the specific courses implemented by specific professors.
FELLOW 12 1. The quality of the lectures varied tremendously. On the whole, the professors put a lot of effort into their lectures and tried hard to bring their knowledge to the first year students. The best lectures not only provided data or a level of general background information needed for an understanding the works but actually presented a variety of arguments (and sometimes, but rarely unfortunately controversial positions!) and methods that then could be addressed in discussion sections. I also think that mere biographical background information was boring and only made sense if it was related to the intellectual biography of the authors. 2. This was a consistent struggle. The better the dialogue between faculty and fellows the better were we fellows able to integrate the aim of the lectures into our own preparations. On the whole, I don't think the integration was very successful which has to two with the structural set up of the program (personal division between lectures and seminars; faculty having no insights into students' performances (only on a voluntary basis such as discussion forums). 3. [Course A] and [Course B] provided a successful interaction in my view - the faculty of both courses were very motivated and dedicated to didactic issues and understood that a dialogue between faculty and fellows guaranteed a good outcome of the course. Nevertheless, the fact remains that it is faculty not fellows or faculty in dialogue with the fellows who make decisions regarding the final syllabus and the works being taught. In some cases, faculty was willing to adopt some works we fellows suggested but that was voluntary. 4. I didn't see much obvious evidence of the transition from the skills based courses to the other courses. The essays in the winter and spring semesters were better but we would have to find out if this has really anything to do with the skills based program of the fall semester or with the ways in which students mature and learn (they also take writing courses etc). in general. 5. I personally am doubtful about the separation of content and skills. I think the more experimental basis of the fall courses with an interdisciplinary focus is worthwhile exploring and evaluating but not within the framework of skills but interdisciplinary. 6. Too few. In [Course A] this would be hard to do. Gender is another issue - far too few women authors in both the fall and winter/spring courses. 7. This question is unclear to me - the significance of teaching writing in my current courses? Yes, I have learnt a lot from teaching in the IHUM program for the freshmen courses I am teaching at [University U]. I make a conscious effort of teaching them skills and content. In the IHUM courses - well, student writing was a consistent element of the course design and the IHUM program - thus it was also an important part of our assignments that we usually developed as a team. 8. Followed mandate. I don't think the mandate works. Not necessarily because we only taught fewer works but because there was often not connection or consistent argument between these works. One can teach the same skills with more works as well. 9. My experience is limited to the [Course A] course: there were lectures that worked - most likely if two professor presented their point of view in the same lecture or on the same book. Faculty has to make the connections to the previous speakers clear in their lectures otherwise students often don't make the connections. 10. Performing the main didactic work to be blunt. Lectures might work better in a social science environment where one discusses data but in the humanities - as many studies have shown, the most effective way of teaching are seminars because this is where students interact with the teachers and get involved. Learning is active, the more involved students are the more they learn. I personally don't think that the lectures - maybe in a few occasions- contributed much to the learning and education development of the students. 11. We had always more students which was a problem. I also think the sections were too long. 12. Yes, tremendously; to get a good insight into a program, the problems surrounding the humanities, teaching workshops, having a continuous conversation about teaching and the content (though less on the content because it did not relate too much to my own research), the collegiality among fellows. 13. Yes, was fine. 14. Yes, on a personal level because I made the best of it; but I did resent at times the division between faculty/fellows - the fact that we had little impact on the syllabus (choice of works) and knowing for instance, that the junior faculty in [Department D] only had to teach one course a semester as an incentive for them to participate- and yet they still tried to convince us to take over one or two of the lectures for them on top of the seminars- there was rarely any exchange for instance, that they would teach sections. Why would we want to do their work given that they also get paid roughly 30% more? I am also glad that the fellows can now get two quarters off for research. My research fell way behind during this time. 15. Maybe orally - I am running out of time writing these comments up!! I think the directors (both Harry and Rob) and Cheri are doing a great job given the circumstances and the place this program has within the university!!
FELLOW 13 1. I have been very fortunate regarding the faculty I have worked with (Professors S,T,U,V,W,X,Y, and Z). The most successful lecturers talk to the students, rather than pontificating abstractly or pacing back and forth on stage. Along with offering some historical/contextual background, their lectures are clearly organized and make arguments that offer interpretive stances that can be discussed for their merits/weaknesses in seminars. If a professor's personal take on a text is too extreme, however, students are turned off by their "bias." Students appreciate it when professors make connections between the course material and their own research interests, disciplinary debates, and current affairs. 2. It helps a great deal (to the extent that it should perhaps be required) when professors email everyone on the team an outline or full script of their lecture at least one day ahead of time. This allows time to prepare seminars that explicitly build on the material presented in lecture. It is generally the case that lectures (good or bad) drop into the background of the course and are only mentioned in seminar if I ask students to engage with what was said by the professors. I feel listening to lectures and taking notes that get at the heart of what is said is the students' weakest skill. 3. Nearly all of the faculty I have worked with have been very respectful of me as a Ph.D. and a colleague and have not, happily, consciously seen themselves as mentors or supervisors. In some cases, I have in fact learned a lot from them, but not because they actively tried to teach me anything. Several have been very supportive regarding the job market. Interestingly, and disappointingly, virtually none have taken any interest in what is happening in the seminars. On the one hand, I respect this as a "hands off TF terrain" attitude, but it seems contrary to the integrity of the course. The two times a professor visited my seminars, it was very constructive and fun for everyone involved. 4. I am very conscious of building writing/reading/speaking skills all year long, but am more explicit about it in the fall. Since winter quarter students are coming from a wide variety of courses, I find it difficult to assume any particular exercises, skills, information has been conveyed to them. 5. I think it works well overall. What doesn't work well is the superficial treatment of a ridiculous number of texts in winter/spring courses, but perhaps that is the subject of another question. Five books in 10 weeks (like the fall) seems a healthy pace for freshmen. 6. The [Course A] track is probably less canonical than other courses. Even in non-Western courses like [Course A], however, it is easy to lose track of subaltern voices, relying instead on readily accessible published discourses (there are non-Western canons as well, of course). I feel that choosing works whose authors' identities are diverse is less important than choosing good books that work well for the course's objectives. If there is a book that both contributes to broadening students' understandings of what an author/authority looks like and is perfect for the course, it should be selected. For example, the inclusion of [Text T] in this year's [Course B] seems a healthy addition to otherwise completely Western views of the relationship between humans and the natural world. It adds several layers of meaning [...] to the genre of the epic. 7. I enjoy teaching writing, but don't find there is much time to do so in seminars. I give general guidelines in class and then meet individually with every student for every paper (required) so that my comments are tailored to each student's skills/needs. These extended office hours are a huge time investment, but one that pays off in many, many ways. 8. I have always taught 5 texts in the fall, which feels like just the right number (3 seems like too few -- I never knew that was an option!). Most classes seem to spend approximately 2 weeks per text, but I really liked the plan used for [Course C] in which we spent one week per text and then spent the last 5 weeks comparing and contrasting the texts thematically. This would only work with shorter texts, of course. 9. I think the interdisciplinary teaching team is one of the most important features of the fall quarter courses, as students are familiarizing themselves with different disciplines and starting to think about what to major in. The fellows and profs always have different perspectives on the texts and know of different resources to draw on. I can't think of any disadvantages of this structure. 10. The main function of section is to bring together the ideas raised in the text, lecture, and students' heads and "play" with them. This is where the real work of the course happens. At the level of skills, section is where students have the opportunity (though not everyone seizes it) of developing their speaking/listening skills. 11. The size and length seem fine. 12. For the most part, yes. I have gained a great deal of teaching experience, which I did not get in graduate school. And, just having the security of 3 years of employment with the summers (and a research quarter) off gave me the elbow room to not look for a job for a couple of years, get my book out, write conference papers, and generally reflect on my relationship to my discipline and to academia more generally. For me, it has been ideal because I was in no hurry to leave the Bay Area or jump in the rat race of a tenure track position. I do feel, however, that by the 3rd year, most IHUM fellows are ready and willing to be lecturers in IHUM courses, perhaps paired with a faculty member. We represent a seriously untapped intellectual resource on campus, which the Continuing Studies program has started benefiting from. We would certainly be able to devote more time and energy to crafting syllabi and preparing lectures than most faculty can. I know it is a goal of IHUM to bring freshmen in contact with tenured faculty, but it seems this rule is bent from time to time, and it might be acceptable if we were paired up with senior faculty members with whom we have developed a collegial relationship over the years. 13. The best training has been doing the job, so I have noticed real improvement in my skills as a section leader every year. The orientation course was very helpful the first year, useful as a refresher the second year, and not useful at all the third (and fourth!) year. I understand that having experienced TFs present during the second week of orientation is useful for the new TFs. Perhaps a handful of experienced TFs should be there every day to contribute their ideas, lead workshops, etc., but having everyone there every day seems unnecessary (except to justify paying them starting September 1st). Or, perhaps more thought could be put into making sure that the topics discussed in the second week are truly engaging for people who have done the job before (i.e., not "Making the Most of Your IHUM Fellowship," etc.). 14. Overall, yes. Although it has become somewhat frustrating to be teaching other people's courses and their chosen texts, I have gained great experience as a teacher. Unfortunately, since I commute from [...], I have not been able to participate in many of the IHUM social activities, computer tutorials, etc. 15. Yes, one issue has been bothering me, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise it. I feel it is very important for those who are evaluating current IHUM policies to seriously acknowledge and grapple with the unfairness of the current salary offered to replacement Teaching Fellows. Paying fellows who are returning for a 4th (or greater) year of teaching IHUM seminars less than their inexperienced 1st year colleagues (and $4,600 less than 3rd-year fellows) is disrespectful and can only create bad feelings among those loyal employees upon whom you are finding yourselves increasingly dependent to make the program work. If rethinking the budget is part of this reassessment of IHUM, I'd like to encourage you to make correcting the current inequities a priority. With the new policy of granting TFs two quarters of research leave, you will be hiring more and more replacements over the coming years, and it is in the interest of the program as a whole to do all you can to make this process a fair one. As I see it, you have two choices when looking for replacements. You can hire someone who has never taught IHUM, or someone who has done so. It seems perfectly justifiable to have a two-tiered pay scale that differentiates between these two categories of replacement fellows. Paying new replacements the same as new post-docs (i.e., $38,000, but without travel/research money) seems perfectly fair, especially since it is possible that they may be hired on and start as "real" post-docs at some point. Paying 4th+ -year fellows who are hired back as replacements the same as 3rd-year fellows (without travel/research money) also seems perfectly fair. I am a replacement, but I am also (along with another replacement fellow) the most experienced IHUM employee on my teaching team. The replacements are coordinating all the courses I am involved in, and, because we are familiar with the course and the program, we actively mentor the 1st-year fellows in terms of content and pedagogy. All of the faculty I am working with this year have expressed huge amounts of relief and gratitude that there are experienced fellows on their teams. As IHUM Central seems very concerned about fairness and has been very accommodating with me personally as an employee (in terms of scheduling and personal leaves), I don't think the case really needs to be made to you that IHUM is getting "far more for its money" with us than with brand new people. So, the only possible explanation is that the money simply isn't there. This must have been a miscalculation on someone's part when the new policy of granting fellows two quarters of research leave was adopted and money was solicited to support it. If this is the case, perhaps it is now necessary to seek other sources of funding to correct what strikes me (and everyone I have described the situation to) as unfair. That said, I am very grateful to have been offered the opportunity to continue teaching in the IHUM program for an extra year. For my own reasons, I accepted the job this year knowing its terms. I do, however, feel it is a problematic labor situation that should be corrected for the sake of future replacements and the well-being and reputation of the IHUM program. Thanks for the opportunity to raise this issue.
FELLOW 14 1. I think the lectures, on a whole, have been first-rate. Offering questions to the students has proven to be effective in encouraging them to engage with the issues at hand; although I take this to be a strategy not entirely usual for a big lecture hall, it has prompted some of the best discussions. Of course, [performances] always gets their attention, as does showing film clips [...]. The only thing that seems to be frustrating to the students is the occasional use of highly specialized language [from Discipline D] without fully explaining each term prior to its usage. Thus, students feel some in the class are better suited to the course, while others are almost “outsiders.” 2. I think the sections are being run very differently, mostly as a result of the TFs’ abilities to teach certain things. Over the past two weeks, lectures have focused on [Text T], and in my sections the students have been doing close readings of several numbers from the [text]. So, my sections in this instance seem to be based quite closely on lecture material, as the students in section are given an opportunity to develop various [...] interpretive tools presented to them in lecture. The other TFs are taking this opportunity to work on other things--for example, classes spent focusing on effective essay writing techniques. Of course, both approaches are equally valid and equally valuable; I only wonder if the students will begin to notice the widely differing material. 3. The teaching team has been meeting once a week, to discuss plans for the upcoming week. I have had more interaction with [Professor X]--he has invited me to attend [...] talks in his department--and thus feel as though we are developing a good academic relationship, one even beyond the IHUM class. 4. N/A [...] 5. N/A 6. A great deal of our course material is, certainly, non-canonical--as modern [texts] are positioned prominently in the syllabus--but all of the course material could still be argued to exhibit a hyper-masculine character [...] 7. Writing is presented as an important component of the course. Aside from learning to write analytical essays on written text, the students are also learning to write about other media (this is being done through a [journal-type] assignment three times over the quarter). 8. They have not followed this at all--our syllabus includes [a variety of different texts] But I think our course is structured a bit differently that the usual IHUM course (and it is working really well, I think). 9. I think the interdisciplinary approach is great and I think that our two team teachers compliment one another very well. That being said, I also do think that our course is a special case--one that is a bit more difficult--because the students have to learn three completely different “languages” to master the material ([...]). But, as I said before, I think that the class is working well, so I’m not at all concerned. 10. I expand on ideas presented in lecture; I give the students a chance to apply interpretive techniques presented in lecture; introduce students to various modes of analysis (for example, feminist critique [...]). I am surprised that little to no time is spent simply going over or clarifying material from lecture (the students requested it be so), unless, of course, it’s a really hairy idea and they want to spend time unpacking it (which I expect will be the case next week, when we being [Text S]). 11. I have larger sections--19, 16, and 15 students. The 19-student section is a bit too big--it does feel less intimate and the students don’t seem as eager to speak to one another as in the smaller groups. I would suggest you try to enforce the limit of student enrollment, or perhaps hire a TF to teach one section (I believe the other two TFs also have classes larger than 15). 12. It has given me the opportunity to work with a well-regarded [professor], which is quite valuable. 13. Yes, mostly from working as a Teaching Assistant for four years at [University U]. The IHUM workshops were also very, very helpful, and I often refer back to hand-outs given and things said in those workshops. 14. Yes, very. [...]
FELLOW 15 1. Generally lectures have been relatively poor - lecturers have a difficult time understanding the IHUM audience they are lecturing to and assume these freshmen will major in the subject they are teaching. Additionally in most cases the lecturers have no interest in the input of the IHUM fellows re: the problems with the lectures. Some notable exceptions to the above are the following: [Professors V, W, X, Y, Z]. 2. Lectures and sections have meshed best when the lectures are of high enough quality for me to be able to extract something of value in the sections to talk about. 3. This interaction has varied greatly in the various tracks in which I've taught. As someone who had extensive solitary teaching experience before starting the IHUM program, I found being treated as a quasi- graduate student by some IHUM faculty quite irritating. Micro-managing of exams and assignments by faculty is unnecessary and counter-productive. Mini lectures by fellows in the big lecture only emphasizes the graduate student status of fellows in the course and should not be required. Best interaction occurred when faculty was interested in input about the course by IHUM fellows - texts, approach, etc. 4. I think there are some problems with this structure which the instructors of the winter quarter feel the brunt of. Students are unprepared for the faster pace and more readings in the winter after the slow pace in the fall courses, and they tend to resent it. Additionally I feel that frequently the fall students get rather poor instruction in writing and often their grades are inappropriately high, leading to disappointment and anger in the winter course. 5. Students do seem to like the choices they have with this structure, but as someone who taught in a high quality CIV course, I think the students learned more in the three quarter sequence in which ideas and themes were built upon across the three quarters. 6. This is a major issue. Both times when I taught in the [Course A] course, at the last lecture when faculty solicited student responses to the course, students asked why no or only one text by a woman was included, and why no non-Western texts were included. In both [Course B] - which in many ways follows the old CIV format - and in [Course C], students were very happy at the exposure they received to non-canonical, and non-Western texts. One big problem here is that few of the IHUM faculty are knowledgeable in literature outside of the Western and primarily European canon. If fellows were allowed more say and lectured more in the program, this might solve that problem. 7. Students are taught writing in the course of learning how to read analytically. Much writing teaching goes on in individual student conferences and in the extensive marking of papers. As for assignments, it's always complicated in a collective process, but mostly I've been pleased with the assignments fellows have come up with - learning going on there among fellows and good for students as well. 8. At times it's been good to have fewer texts – [Text T] in [Course A] , for example, needed all the time we had to offer. And this extra time allows for good student presentations. Occasionally however, students were quite tired of a text which was given three lectures and hours of discussion time - and deserved neither. Better thinking in course design needed here. 9. I didn't see that this was particularly well done in the fall courses. Students felt faculty disagreed at times but no real sense of different disciplines. 10. The bulk of the teaching goes on in the sections. 11. Basically worked fine - over 18 students seems too many - and this happens. 12. I've been pleased at the variety of courses - disciplines I've had the opportunity to teach. Heavy teaching load, on the other hand, made scholarly writing difficult. Very grateful for the quarter of leave and the travel money which made conferences possible. 13. I had a lot of teaching experience before I started IHUM and didn't feel training sessions before the fall quarter were particular useful. Best workshops were when fellows talked among themselves about particular teaching problems. 14. Yes. 15. I think the two-tiered employment system should be investigated. Having the most experienced people paid substantially less than green newcomers to replace fellows on leave seems unfair and not particularly good for morale. And particularly because the new fellows this year are hired with two quarters of leave, the number of replacement people will be extensive.
FELLOW 16 1. Good, though sometimes better than others (of course). Generally, good lectures tended to have a clear structure, three issues or questions were raised and it was made clear to the students that THREE issues were being addressed in the lecture. Four points were made about [Author A], and it was made clear to the students that FOUR points were being made about [Author A]. And so on. Successful lecturing is certainly facilitated by close co-ordination with the TFs to determine how the students are responding, by using vivid concrete examples and illustrations, and by raising vivid questions with which the students can engage and about which they may talk in section. I also believe that successful lectures challenge the students, somewhat. In contrast, poor lectures tended to leave the students confused concerning exactly what material was being covered and what the central points were that were being made. In my opinion the regular use of technology in lectures, such as PowerPoint, has not proved very successful. It is hard to avoid students “turning off” in a darkened lecture hall and merely copying down what the PowerPoint Slides say without thinking. This might be acceptable in classes whose primary aim is merely to impart factual information but it sits poorly with the goals of IHUM. 2. Overall, pretty well. Successful integration absolutely requires regular interaction between the Faculty and TFs. Lectures may briefly touch on issues or motivate questions which are then left to the TFs and section for further explanation or exploration. In the best cases the TFs and the faculty worked together closely thinking about how the lectures would be structured and what might be done in sections. In cases where lectures and sections could not be successfully integrated the lecturer either introduced a few issues and exhausted them in the lecture, or it there was no clear structure to the lecture. 3. My own case is perhaps atypical because the lecturers with whom I have worked have been, for the most part, mentors, colleges, or even friends. There have always been scheduled weekly meetings, but I talked informally to the faculty on a daily basis, even, sometimes after each section. Personally, I found this mode of informal interaction more useful than the scheduled weekly meetings, it is more frequent and more honest. (Here, to be frank, I think that those TFs who were graduate students at Stanford are at an advantage compared to those who were graduate students at other institutions. We have had time to build up working relationships or friendships with the IHUM faculty. I certainly do not mean to argue that those IHUM fellows who were graduate students at Stanford are invariably more successful, or have better relationships with the faculty, than those from other institutions. But I do think that, all else being equal, the ex-Stanford folk were better able to establish good relationships with the faculty that facilitated teaching.) 4. Ideally, it would be greatly informed by this structure but in practice it isn’t. The students for my winter/spring sections have typically come from a wide variety of fall classes and have learnt a wide variety of, not necessarily overlapping, skills. 5. Despite my previous comment I think it works pretty well. The main, probably unavoidable, drawback is that students frequently seem not to get their first choice for the winter/spring IHUM. This means that we loose many students who have already learned (say) how to write a philosophy paper and who were interested in pursuing (say) the philosophy winter/spring IHUM. 6. Very well. I think it is an excellent criterion though obviously it can be implemented more easily in some classes than in others. 7. Very important. The classes have typically encouraged the students to submit preliminary draughts of their papers and/or given the students the option of re-writing their papers. 8. Quite closely. I think/hope that the students I have taught have learned to read closely and critically as a result of this. My experience with the winter/spring classes suggests, however, that this may not be true for the students from all of the fall classes. How well the mandate works obviously depends a great deal on what the 3-5 texts are and how much time is spent upon each of them. Three short primary texts can be worked to death. Five long and difficult texts can only be given a quick and cursory treatment. The mandate needs to be implemented sensibly. 9. Although I think this is a commendable idea I suspect it has not always worked very well in practice. It can sometimes seem as if the class is jumping from text to text and discipline to disciple without rhyme or reason. It can also sometimes seem as if the various disciplines have nothing to say to each other (other than, perhaps, flatly rejecting the other’s methodology). The result of this can simply be confusion or boredom on the part of the students. Once again, this is a potential strength of the IHUM program but it needs to be implemented carefully. 10. Manifold. A closer discussion of the texts and issues, giving the students the time and opportunity to develop their ideas, making them feel comfortable about doing this, exposing them to each other’s ideas, encouraging productive dialogue and critical thinking. I think sections provide a very good forum for doing this. I also think there is lots of space in section for the TF to go beyond the specific issues and ideas that were treated in the lecture, to make connections not made in lecture, and so on. If you are teaching Plato who wants to censor art you could talk a little about the scandalous recent exhibition Sensation, show them pictures, and see if they now agree with Plato. If you are talking about irony you could use examples from the band Radiohead. All sorts of things can be done to make connections and provide a context for the issues covered in the lecture. In fact I suspect that TFs do not do enough of this and they stick very closely to the letter of what was said in lecture. They might be encouraged to go beyond this a little bit more. (This is not to say, of course, that the TF should teach her own course or that section should have nothing at all to do with lecture! My mantra for this survey seems to be ‘use common sense.’) 11. I think this works pretty well. 12. I am not in a position to say, but it was wonderful fun! 13. I think IHUM did a very good job of preparing us. 14. Extremely. 15.
FELLOW 17 1. Lecture quality varied between professors; the most successful ones brought detailed examples of the core themes together into a coherent narrative about the topic. Some lectures in the Fall term were unduly esoteric, and were far too advanced for first-years. The Winter/Spring course was highly successful because the professor personally engaged the students with images, clear examples, and concepts that all linked together. 2. The Fall course was less successful because the fellows were all from different perspectives and we did not really have quite enough time to prepare what was a new and ambitious course (though I must say I personally loved teaching it). While we had an idea of what would happen in lecture, we found ourselves in section often trying to do damage control in order to acquaint students more clearly with the concepts introduced. That was not always the case, of course, but it happened enough to make things difficult, reducing the time we had to move into greater detail, rather than reviewing what happened in lecture. In the Spring course, the fellows and faculty were more closely from the same background, and we worked together to develop the course, so it worked fairly seamlessly. We shared ideas and strategies, agreed on material, and reinforced each other’s work even as we each had some autonomy in how we did it. Communication was at the heart of it. 3. We met once a week for [Course A], and that was important; our meetings were less regular with the Fall course. E-mail was important, of course. The ideal working relationship is one in which the faculty member shares a clear vision of the course but works with the fellows, accepting their input, to make the best course possible. In the Fall course, there were 3 faculty members, and they had not quite gotten their idea of the course together; by the time they figured out really what it was about and how to do it, it was too late. 3 faculty were ‘too many cooks’. One strong but flexible faculty leader and several ambitious but reasonable fellows makes the best mix, I think. 4. Not teaching at Stanford and not on a quarter system any longer, I cannot speak directly to that question. But certainly my experience in the IHUM program was instrumental in making me a better teacher, and in particular, to conceive of courses, as well as course sequences, as ‘integrated arcs’. 5. This was a big issue being discussed when I was there. In theory it is nice, but in practice, there was little carryover from Fall to Winter/Spring. Sure, students benefited from all the mentoring we did with them in developing their writing skills, but the kinds of writing assignments from class to class varied significantly, sometimes so that students got really confused. Also, many students ‘followed their fellows’ from Fall to Winter, more than they selected the courses out of intrinsic interest. The fellows were their mentors when they first arrived, and many students found security and reliability in that. Given that there is not a ‘core curriculum’ any more, I don’t see how you can really integrate the 1 with the 2. So perhaps it is best not to pretend that you can. I think students need to be able to change classes (a 3-term sequence would be too restrictive), but I wonder whether it would not work better to try a 2-1 sequence, providing both continuity, more chance to really get into some topics, and then setting the students free in the Spring term to explore whatever they wanted, by which time they are ready (they THINK they are ready after Fall term, but really they are not. Sometimes we like to think they are ready too, to validate our own performance, as if we can transform them suddenly in 10 weeks!). Here at [University U], we have only a fall (15-wk.) First-Year seminar, except in the Honors Program, and it is not quite enough. I must say, however, that the extra 5 weeks does make a lot of difference in their maturation. At 10 weeks, they are only beginning to ‘get it’ before they have to stop and switch. I think a 1-1-1 sequence, unless it consisted of a string of clearly related courses, would be even more chaotic. 6. I teach in Classical Studies, so there you go. However, in order to do that more effectively, I have begun to use lots of film, esp. foreign and non-Western film, to deal with the issues or ideas (and sometimes form and style). I think doing something just because it is ‘outside the canon’ is misplaced, just as doing something only because it is ‘inside the canon’ is short-sighted. Works should be selected because they work and they work together. Courses compiled by committee because everyone wants their ‘portion’ in tend to fail because they have no vision other than to please constituencies. So should it be a ‘criterion’? No. That is a mistake. Many classes will have them; some may not. To force that requirement on every class interferes with the ability to craft a clear, coherent and meaningful course. That being said, good teachers usually know what ‘outside’ works may in fact make their course richer and better. Use the carrot, not the stick. Right now I am on leave at [University Y] in [Country C], which is primarily an engineering school, and regarded as the best university in the country. They have recently started a seminar program [...] that teaches ‘the humanities’ to their engineering students, and (in a Westernizing but Muslim country) have embraced many of the ‘classics’ that some American institutions have recently abandoned. Why? Because classic works (whether Greek, Roman, Babylonian, Chinese or Jamaican) are in fact less about a particular culture than they are about the problems of being human. 7. Writing is central. Very few students write well when they arrive, and writing consumes a huge portion of the effort for the course both by faculty and students. That is as it should be. Students are quite familiar with informal modes of communication, but they need intensive training in formal writing. We did argumentative papers, essays, and creative projects; the first and last worked well enough; the ‘essay’ assignment was a disaster; no one knew what we wanted. I think it is something for seniors to tackle, but it is too refined a format for students to understand or do well. Finally, it was good to be tough on writing. Students need to know, honestly, how well they write, and being nice to them does not help. (I mean, do not be too generous, even as you remain supportive). 8. That was sort of the case in our Fall class, but in fact, there were far too many secondary and ancillary readings, instead of really concentrating on primary texts. Students were flung back and forth and were not able to integrate the readings very well. I agree that in the Fall, students should mostly read primary texts. That is something they need lots of practice on, having not got much of primary material in high school. 9. Again, in my case (n=1) it was simply confusing. It sounds good in theory, but in practice it is hard to pull off. Diversity is important, indeed, but students more importantly need to develop their basic skills and competencies. I think good courses are diverse, but diversity should be in the service of the teaching, not teaching in the service of diversity. Diversity gets flung around as a buzzword far too much without really defining it. 10. Section is a chance in a small class to explore topics and texts (or images) deeply and thoughtfully. I think all the reasons for small classes (in IHUM or elsewhere) have been said many times. It is really the place where students can talk about the books, and have someone listen to them, and help them develop skills of analysis and argument. Yes, I think it does work. Students should get the ‘big picture’ in lecture, and explore the nitty-gritty in section. 11. Both those parameters work well, although I sometimes had sections of up to 22, which was not good at all. You cannot run a proper section with more than 16 people. It just turns into a min-lecture. 12. Sure; it was a fantastic teaching laboratory, with wonderful people to observe, emulate, and share information and strategies with. I think it might have gotten me my current job. I did not get any research done, but I think the program was much more beneficial as a high-powered teaching fellowship rather than trying to do both in a mediocre fashion. 13. I was because I had previous teaching experience in a similar program, and two years of other teaching experience. The workshops were useful, though sometimes repetitive. The best part of any training or workshop is simply talking to other teachers, not the theories or ‘experts’ or speeches or grand plans. That it is as true at [University U] as it was at Stanford. 14. I was very pleased, and still am, to have been a part of IHUM. I have often recommended it to other young scholars as an excellent venue for becoming a good teacher and for considering the value of first-year seminar programs, to which I am strongly committed. 15. Not really. Just keep the program going; 4 years later, I still have Stanford students contacting me, telling me about their progress, asking for recommendations, etc. Programs like this are often the best way to convey to students the joy of encountering beauty and beautiful ideas, so that they develop a lifelong love of learning and become ‘wide-awake’, active citizens of the world. Call it ‘head-start’ for college kids; I think they need it, and once they taste it and digest it, they find that they really want it.
FELLOW 18 1. The lecturing for the courses I have taught has varied. All of the lecturers were organized, prepared and dedicated to presenting the material in a clear and interesting way to the students. The strongest lecturers were willing to challenge the students with difficult concepts presented with a clear focus in mind. Lectures that didn’t work as well were either too fast paced and vague or too simple (of course it’s difficult to find the middle ground). Outlines, PowerPoint presentations, and other practical aids also helped students to follow complex lectures. 2. Generally, lectures and sections have meshed. The most successful integration has occurred when the whole teaching team commits to this, and the weekly meetings play an important role in keeping everyone on the same page. It’s helpful when lecturers can make fellows aware of the subjects of their lectures in advance. Occasionally, faculty will suggest topics for discussion sections during their lectures. This can be problematic when fellows have limited time to prepare for class after a lecture has occurred. 3. Faculty lecturers tend to treat fellows with a high level of professional respect. Some faculty have acted as important mentors in my experience. Others occasionally forget the demands on the time of fellows, and especially in the case of course coordinators, they can expect too much in the way of administrative duties. I think the program should encourage a mentor/young colleague relationship between faculty and fellows. Fellows have moved beyond the student level and they need to be valued for the experience they bring to the position, but fellows can also benefit from the advice of their more established colleagues. 4. Subject matter from fall courses does not often come into the discussions in the winter/spring, since the students have had a wide array of experiences. However, I often tried to build on more general skills in oral communication and writing. I think the pedagogy sessions are really important in this regard. Ideally, the students will be building on critical thinking and writing skills throughout the year, and by the end of three quarters, they will have made progress in meeting consistent standards. 5. I think it works well. I taught for one quarter in the CIV program, and I feel that focusing on concepts and themes works better than the survey model. Comprehensive coverage seems virtually impossible to achieve now that the traditional canon has been called into question, and I think the students really benefit from courses that introduce them to new ways of thinking about the humanities. 6. This is a big and difficult question. I think IHUM courses could look at more works outside of the canon. Since Stanford is working toward diversity in its student body, I think that diversity should also be emphasized in the curriculum. Students certainly expect to see works by people of color and women on the syllabi, and when they do not see those works, they often ask why they are not present. The faculty designing the courses should be able to respond effectively to students when they raise this question. 7. Student writing is not always considered when courses are being designed, beyond the basic decision to include at least two papers on the syllabus as assignments. However, a great deal of energy goes into designing assignments for the students to develop their writing skills. I think this is one of the strongest aspects of the program. Fellows and faculty are equally committed to designing assignments that will allows students to improve their writing over the course of the year. 8. I think this mandate has been followed, and students do learn to read more deeply and critically. I thought [Course A] fulfilled this mandate especially well, [...] The core stories in the course stayed with the students, and they learned a great deal by looking at the variety of ways in which those stories could be told. The students had an incentive to re-read the original texts. I’m not sure they would have done so if they had not been comparing media. 9. Yes, I think it can expose students to diverse views. This needs to be well planned. Students can come away confused if they sense that the faculty have different views about a text, but they don’t know what is at the root of those differences. 10. Sections have many functions. They allow students to express their opinions about the texts and the material presented in lecture. They allow fellows to model close reading for students and to help students become more articulate. They clarify and expand on material presented in lectures. Students generally seem to get a lot out of sections, and I think they are fulfilling their functions. 11. This has worked pretty well, although occasionally sections have expanded a bit in size. I think the 15 student limit could be enforced a little more rigidly, and 17 should be the absolute limit. 12. Yes. My teaching skills improved dramatically in the course of three years and many hours in the classroom. I also took advantage of the funds IHUM made available for conferences and classes, and I don’t think the program could possibly do more to help fellows in their careers. 13. Yes, the pedagogy workshops provided adequate training, and I really don’t have any suggestions for improvement. I really enjoyed the workshops. 14. It has been a terrific experience! Challenging at times, but I wouldn’t have wanted to spend the last three years any other way. 15.
FELLOW 19 1. The quality of lecturing is very high. Lecturers focus on the material read and consider it from different perspectives. As the course progresses lecturers refer back to the previous material so that the course builds a coherent whole. All the lecturers I have worked with use visual material (transparencies, PowerPoint) as a way to engage the students and make their lecture more accessible to the students. In [Course A]the lecturers often hand out outlines of the lecture. In [Course B], the transparencies are posted on the website before class so that students can bring a copy to class or check terms later on. All of these factors combine to make the lectures useful and effective for the students. 2. We all try to make section and lecture mesh. Lecturers suggest questions or issues to be discussed further in section and I try to open section with a discussion of the lecture. I also have one student each class facilitate a discussion question based on the lecture. If the faculty have too specific an idea for section or mention that something will be explained in section and they just announce this during the lecture it can put a lot of pressure on the fellows, especially those teaching right after lecture who may not have time to do the research. It can also mean that a fellow's lesson plan has to be rewritten. Talking more about how to integrate lecture and section in staff meetings helps. It also lets fellows have time to follow up on an idea or plan out a suggested activity posed by the faculty. 3. I value a relationship with the faculty that is collaborative and thus allows for a discussion of essay topics, assignments and even readings (to a certain degree). I enjoy meeting weekly and even prior to the course so that the entire team can voice their ideas and preferences. I work best when the faculty see me as a colleague, but are also able to act as professional mentor. I value their input on my teaching and also on issues related to my research or job hunting. The latter two, of course, depend on our respective backgrounds and disciplines. For example, I discuss these issues more with faculty in the winter and spring courses. 4. I try to adhere to IHUM's one-two structure. In the fall, I devote quite a bit of time to discussing skills necessary for success at university and in IHUM (e.g. note taking, four categories, reading a text closely, what makes a good thesis, how to write an argumentative paper, how to cite properly, why it is important to cite, how to lead a good discussion…). In the winter and spring I focus more on content, but remind them of the skills learned in the fall through handouts. I expect them to be building on these skills though, and try to design exercises that will facilitate this. 5. It has the potential to work very well, but I am not sure that everyone follows it. It may just be that some students take longer to "get it" though and not that their past fellow did not cover these issues. 6. It should depend on the type of course and the expertise of the faculty. For example, in [Course B] we have the students read selections from the [Text T] and to consider [non-western ritual practices]. In [Course A], the issue is more complex. Still, the students are exposed to texts of the ancient world that are not commonly read [...] and look in depth at authors that are sometimes skipped over in undergraduate education. To me, the more important issue is not simply the text, but the types of questions imposed on the text. We can look at a traditional text and think about it in new ways by thinking about gender, class and audience. 7. Student writing is integral. They do a lot of paper writing and with each new paper they improve. As stated above, we discuss the different steps of paper writing in section. Assignments could reflect the various stages of writing more though (e.g. have the students hand in an outline as one assignment and then a paper based on that outline as another). I have had students address this through peer review, or even required them to hand an outline in to me that I comment on, but the latter has been too hard to sustain given the shortness of the quarter and the number of other assignments that require comments and grading. 8. Our fall course does more than this, but some of the pieces are very short and address a common theme (so they are almost like one text). I do feel rushed though with all the skills I want to cover and the number of new texts and issues to delve into. This year has been better as some of the texts from the first year have been cut and so the variety of texts has been reduced. 9. I like the interdisciplinary approach of the fall courses. We tend to pair a discipline with a particular set of readings, rather than look at a single text from different perspectives. Our course does frequent commentary sessions though that bring out the various methods of each discipline and point to the differences of each discipline as well and attempt to show how a scholar from a different discipline would approach that text. I'm not sure students see the benefit of it. If the course is weighted more to one discipline they tend to see that discipline as more important or authentic some how. 10. To Discuss! I see section as an opportunity for students to develop their oral skills and be active participants in learning. I also see it as a stepping-stone towards questioning rather than passively accepting the ideas of an expert. They need to respect a person's knowledge and expertise definitely, but also realize that they are capable of evaluating and thinking about the issues themselves. Some students are uncomfortable with this and really want section to be another lecture, or to provide a definite answer, but in general most students understand the reasoning behind it and appreciate it. 11. I think 15 is a good cap. More than 17 makes it impossible for everyone to get a chance to speak. Too few is also a problem – I don't like to go below 13 either. The ideal is to have consistency between the sections. Students of course feel 3 hours is too long and want a break each section, but in general I think the amount of time we spend in class is necessary. I never run out of things to do or issues to address. 12. Yes – very much! I value the new contacts IHUM has enabled me to make. The financial support it offers for going to conferences. The orientation is a great way to think about teaching and how to approach learning. I also like seeing different people lecture and how that makes me think about my own teaching. The workshops have also been beneficial in developing other skills. Last year, for example, I really enjoyed the teaching portfolio workshop. Unfortunately I was away for the publishing workshop – but I assume it will be offered again this year. It might be worthwhile to have fellows suggest workshops as well. Certainly my computer skills have benefited and integrating technology into the classroom is something really important that I can add to my CV. I'm also looking forward to more of a discussion of our various research interests in a more formal environment. 13. The orientation really helps with this. In general, I felt prepared. I would also suggest that it would be helpful to have separate sessions one afternoon in the orientation exploring the various disciplines each fellow will be teaching in the fall. It could even be course based. It helps to see how individuals from different disciplines will examine the same text, but more of a focus on each discipline might help. We do this during the quarter, but it would be helpful to have some of this come earlier. 14. Yes – I feel I have greatly benefited from IHUM and consider myself very lucky to have had this opportunity. IHUM admin is very supportive and very helpful to the fellows. 15. Overall – you guys are doing an excellent job and the program is valuable beyond words! One small suggestion: I think a pool of conference funds would be useful that fellows could apply for outside of the regular allotted amount. This would help when a fellow is attending more that one conference.
FELLOW 20 1. I have found the lectures to be excellent and varied, and have learned much about different styles of lecturing. The most successful lectures are those which open up large questions for discussion sections. These are the lectures that leave a lot on the table at the end of the lecture. Some of the lecturers do this quite effectively and explicitly, giving enough background information to get the students thinking, and then provoking active thought on the texts. Other lecturers, however, are not very effective at this, proposing to answer all the big questions before the class has had a chance to discuss them. One lecturer in particular was extremely dynamic in style, but had a way of stifling discussion by anticipating large questions and then providing affirmative answers which the students were reluctant to challenge in section. Student reaction to lectures varies widely, and I have found that students sometimes resist some excellent lectures which for some reason are not on the students’ wavelength. 2. This has varied widely. Much of the integration of section and lecture depends on the TF, I think. Although at times lecturers propose exciting topics which energize discussion and at other times, the topics fall flat in discussion by not provoking student interest. When teaching section soon after the lecture (same day) I struggle to modify my own plans to accommodate lecture material. When section is the following day, the integration is much easier for me and more meaningful for the students (I think). 3. This has also varied widely. Only one lecturer so far has interacted as a colleague, the others more as supervisors. One faculty member tried consistently to turn the TF into TA’s, but, I think was successfully resisted. I have not experienced the mentor type interaction with any faculty members yet. The meetings have always been once per week, and have ranged from a “here is what I would do if I were you” lecture to interactive discussion on how to engage the students with the material. In one case, the meeting is rather informal and provides little discussion of methods for presenting the material. In my view, all three types of interaction (supervisor, mentor, colleague) are appropriate at different times. For example, in the Fall I would rather see more supervisor/mentor type interaction because I am often encountering the texts for the first time and am far from a “colleague” in teaching or discussing them. To this end, I would like to see faculty giving more advice/examples of effective ways to tie the material into the course themes. For the Winter/Spring, however, I prefer a colleague type relationship. 4. I make a consistent effort to tie the two together both by stressing the similarities and differences at the beginning of each class and highlighting throughout the skills both are striving to teach. I find the arrangement here excellent, although I am certain that the students do not always see the benefits of the one-two structure. It is very hard to “deprogram” the students when they come expecting a course just to give them a certain amount / type of information. Getting across the skills-based approach in both contexts is a challenge, but one I think that IHUM has trained us to handle well. 5. Some above, but I will say that I would rather have new students every quarter rather than having the same ones for the duration of the winter/spring sequence. 6. Varies. Nearly all of [Course A] texts were outside the canon. [Course B] used a variety of texts within and without the canon. [Course C] is more “canonical,” although not entirely. So long as the skills-based approach is foregrounded, and the texts are chosen with specific themes in mind (made clear in lecture), it makes little difference to me if the text is/was part of the “canon” or not. 7. Student writing has not been central to the design of any of the courses I have taught. And this makes teaching writing in this context a special challenge. I have yet to see a course which treated student writing as something other than the thing you have to do in a humanities course. I would like to see a more central place to teaching writing in the course structure, the lectures, in the assignments, and in the weekly meetings. I would also like to see more discussion of teaching writing in the workshops. I do not wish IHUM to be primarily about writing (leave that to PWR), but if writing could flow more naturally from the assignments, lectures, etc. I think that it would be easier to justify to students. 8. Faculty have followed the mandate with a few exceptions (a course reader, for example). Using five texts is a bit much in the class I am now teaching, and the students are learning to read “quickly,” but the “critically” part has been a special challenge at this speed and with the difficult texts with which we are working. For [Course A] the emphasis was on synthesis of social scientific ideas and the texts were means to that end. Few if any texts in that class could profitably be read “closely and critically” in a literary sense. 9. I have seen it work at time in [Course A]. For [Course C], however, the approach is bi-disciplinary and not interdisciplinary. And I have not yet seen effective exposure to different views on humanistic texts (the lectures are excellent, thought). I sure would like to see it working effectively. I really do not think that the interdisciplinary mandate is coming across in the lectures. And I would like to see more discussion of this in the weekly meetings as well. 10. The main function of section is to provide a space where students can engage critically with the texts as guided by the course themes highlighted in lectures. It accomplishes this through sustained discussion and questioning – of the texts and of all members of the section. I think that sections are fulfilling this purpose well, with much variation among sections. 11. Section size and time has worked well. I have found that when a section is oversized it is often my own fault in not being rigorous or quick enough in kicking students out who are not on the official role. As to the time – the students think it is too long, but I am content with it and, actually, find that 1.5 hours per class is rarely even enough time. The key, I think, is varying the structure of the class(es) in a meaningful way (i.e. not just for variety’s sake) in order to keep students engaged with the material. There is never enough time to even begin to exhaust the discussion on these texts. 12. Absolutely. It has taught me the value of reading and approaching texts from different perspectives. Much of this has come through informal discussions with my fellow TFs over how they approach the material and teach it. I have learned an incredible amount about lecturing from the faculty lecturers. My limits have definitely been pushed while trying to keep extremely bright and eager students engaged and challenged. I do not think that there is a single part of myself as a scholar and teacher which has not been productively challenged through my experience with IHUM. 13. I have found the IHUM training to be extremely valuable. It is comprehensive and practical, and has left me unprepared in very, very few areas. The only thing I would ask for is more specific training on teaching writing. It is an area I struggle with constantly. 14. Yes, very satisfied. And if it helps me land a tenure-track job somewhere, I’ll be even more satisfied.
FELLOW 21 1. The lecturing has been very, very poor. I work with [Professors X, Y, and Z]. [Professor Z] is the only one who puts together an argument that is reflective and challenging. The other professors are just very weak intellectually. I think they vastly underestimate the sophistication and curiosity of these students for ideas that are more current than any of these professors are fluent with. So this is an important problem: an aim of IHUM is to get "full professors" teaching undergrads, but when they are so out of touch with the students, a kind of time warp results. In some ways this is productive. I just tell the students that they are getting 3 generations of knowledge: the professors', mine, and the students. But mostly the students are angry that there is so little content in the lectures ([Professor Z] excluded -- though his ideas are so out of date it does the Humanities an injustice.) Much of the time in the Winter / Spring courses, we get less than half, sometimes down to a third attendance in lecture -- and I can't blame the students because the lectures are boring and there's nothing there for them to use in their papers. This seems such a terrible, terrible waste to have these bright students cued up to take a Humanities course -- and to have the experience be so dull and mediocre. 2. When we get ideas that are interesting and provocative, then there's integration. But see above: 95% of the time in my W / S classes section goes by without any mention of the lectures, even though I start class by asking students to amplify points that were interesting to them. 3. I've always had one one hour staff meeting per week. Since what the faculty talks about is usually not interesting to the students, I haven't pursued things with them. It would be ideal if faculty engaged fellows at the level of course content and perhaps integrated suggestions into their lectures. [Professor X] has done this, but [Professor Y and Z] use lecture notes written decades ago, so that creates the sense that nothing's going to change. 4. Yes, there's a shift from skills to content. But often it seems that in the Winter I need to teach the same thesis-making skills I worked on in the Fall -- that is, I need to do that with students I didn't teach. It's clear that there are very different notions of what a thesis is, and some fall courses allow for much more independence than others. So when students come into a straight literature course in the winter, many are not ready for the independence and assertion that our theses ask for. 5. I actually like it pretty well -- in theory, anyway. I know there are real problems with the mixed discipline fall courses. I'm also bothered by the pace of the W / S courses: a book per week (and more) is just too rapid to get students interested in the Humanities; many learn to skim more than they learn the content. 6. I don't believe every course needs to include non-canonical works. Sure, IHUM should offer a broad range of kinds of courses, but forcing courses to include the non-canonical, especially when the professors would be unable to do a good job with them, seems silly. Students know that one can do non-canonical things with very traditional works. 7. Straight ahead literary argumentation (mixed in with history and theory) is what we've built our assignments around, and we've made the assignments progressively more sophisticated as the year goes. a problem occurs, though, when professors insist on final exams, and the motive there clearly is to "catch" those who haven't been attending dull lectures. This skews the focus of the course, especially problematic in the fall, which is supposedly about the multiplicity of interpretation! 8. [Course A moves] too fast for the aims of the fall IHUM courses. I also have to add that [Text T] much as I love it, is just inappropriate for fall freshmen. I think IHUM needs to have more say about what professors propose, though I know that doesn't work within university politics. Not to be too harsh on the professors, but my mantra about IHUM is "we always defer to the weak link." 9. It's a good idea but so hard to make work out when the faculty aren't particularly good working between disciplines. For example, [Professor Z] lectures directly about this mixture, but comes down on the side of [Discipline D] as most important, and this informs his approach in general. [Professor X] also talks directly about [Discipline E] and [other different disciplines] but not in a way that keeps the disciplines distinct, or not in a way that shows students how different disciplines lead to diverse views on texts. Again, it seems an age issue: it's hard, it seems, for professors not used to moving between disciplines to do it effectively. 10. Section brings the material to life by mixing history, theory, philosophy, and detailed literary interpretation -- not to mention connections to the students’ lives. When lectures are dull, everything needs to come from section, and what can get left out is the chance for students to mull through things on their own. But in general, thanks largely to the eagerness on the students' part, sections work. Still, I have had to wrestle with the resentment that comes from students being forced to take classes whose lectures are mediocre. 11. This seems to work just fine 12. I've taught for a while in seminar sections like these, and I describe IHUM as working in "weightless environment." That is, the combination of great students with all the institutional support has allowed me to do things in teaching that I had only dreamed was possible. I expect to get back into even more teaching intensive work, likely with high school students, so of course this experience has sharpened by sense of what is possible and what are goals that younger students should aim for. 13. There may be a little overkill in the training, but then I had run seminar style classes for a long time coming into the program. At the same time, I worked in IHUM with somebody who skipped out on the training, and he was a disaster -- though he probably would have been even with training. So hard to say. Much as I hate to admit it, it does help to have the experienced TF's attend those sessions in September. 14. Despite my gripes with the professors, I have loved working in IHUM. It's the weightless environment -- none of the hassles and limitations of working in most any other kind of teaching world. And if our job is to engage students, what a wonderful group to engage. I have also been amazed at the layers of institutional support, from [the IHUM staff]. 15. The use of "old" fellows as replacements is potentially a great gift, but it does cause some resentment as more experienced folks end up getting paid less than new people, even as the old folks mentor them. I'll just repeat my concern from earlier questions: I don't know how you get professors to participate in the program in best spirit. So much depends on them, and yet they aren't really accountable. Would you dare alter the program by hiring full-time IHUM faculty who are entirely devoted to the program?
FELLOW 22 1. Extremely varied. Successful lecturing: avoiding abstract terms and defining those few you use; making an argument in lecture or laying out possible arguments or giving the kind of cultural background that allow students to interpret the text in a new light (all of these give us something to talk about in section); remembering that most of these topics are NOT inherently interesting to the students; providing models of how to read a text; Unsuccessful lecturing: doing the opposite of any of the above; providing random info or analysis that's interesting to the lecturer; mentioning an interpretation or argument that is interesting to the lecturer but can't be explained in lecture, for lack of time.... 2. Varied experience, depending on #1. 3. We usually have met once a week. I've generally felt like a colleague. I have found that most are open to questions and we've been able to have productive discussions about the material, which has been quite helpful for teaching. Also, I strongly feel that weekly meetings should include time for sharing strategies for teaching the material (this does not always happen at meetings). 4. In the Fall, I definitely try to take advantage of the interdisciplinary approach and the fewer readings to make them aware of various readings and give them the chance to try them. In the Winter/Spring, I can't assume a single FALL IHUM experience. So I usually just see where they are in terms of skills (perhaps assuming some basics), and move from there. The students, of course, bring up texts and ideas from the Fall, which I encourage. 5. Much better than the old CIV structure! You don't have students who realize two weeks into Fall quarter that philosophy wasn't what they thought it was and now they're stuck for the rest of Freshman year. I find the interdisciplinary nature of the Fall helpful for opening students up to the idea that there can be various, well-supported interpretations of a text. And I think that the students then enjoy going into more depth and having a more extended bond with their seminar-mates in winter/spring. 6. Very little has been incorporated. How much should be? If the text is tacked on, the students pick up on that. The most important thing is to read works that are relevant to the course and engage the students. 7. Usually quite important. We try to come up with assignments that progressively build on writing skills. And in seminar, I design exercises that work on those skills. 8. Less is definitely more. By assigning less, the students read more carefully. And with less text, we have the luxury of getting the students to go deep. Although some students resist at first, I think that most of them get the experience of discovering that there REALLY is more to be said about a passage. 9. I think this structure works very well. Students to get a sense that there are different approaches. One challenge is getting them to recognize that "more than one approach" is not the same as "anything goes." But that's always the challenge in humanities courses. 10. Giving students opportunities work out ideas together; practice the skills they will need in writing papers (close reading; developing arguments; etc.) ; learn how to communicate in a group (listening, engaging with others' views, responding constructively, etc.). I think the seminars do fulfill these functions. 11. My suggestion is to make sure that the sections don't go over 17. I find that 15 students and 3 hours works well. 12. Absolutely. I think I'm a much better teacher. The collaborative aspect of IHUM is great! I learn so much about teaching from discussions with my colleagues. And I now can approach my own work from a broader perspective--with questions raised by other areas within my own discipline [...]and questions raised by other disciplines. 13. I think the training on the whole has been quite useful. There are diminishing returns from attending the workshop in the fall. On the other hand, it is good to meet everyone and reconnect physically and mentally at the beginning of the year. 14. Yes, I've been very satisfied. 15.
FELLOW 23 1. Superb for the fall course. Great ideas, good teamwork, and very strong preparation work led to what I thought were terrifically successful lectures. In the winter/fall course, I think the ideas and teamwork were great, but that the course was still a bit conceptually fuzzy. I don't think that's a bad thing in and of itself, necessarily, but in this case it made it rather difficult to present a clear agenda and to formulate clear assignments. Which kind of confused students, I think. 2. I thought integration worked quite well in both courses. There were plenty of good and pithy texts to discuss, and it was easy to do so within the broader context of the lectures and the course as whole. I also had students do wrap-up sections for each of the course topics (we did one major text/issue every two weeks in both courses), and that was terrific. Gave the students a chance to learn from each other and to think about how to tie all these texts and ideas together. 3. I'd say a combination of all of the above. It was clear that they were leading the show--someone has to, after all--but that they also valued our input and took it seriously. In terms of how we went about doing what we were doing in the classroom, that was pretty much up to us--as I think it should've been. I think we met every week, if I remember correctly, though my IHUM time seems rather distant now.... Seems to me our interaction was pretty close to what it should be ideally, with faculty presenting what they want/hope to do and mentoring post-docs in the process, but also asking for and taking seriously post-docs ideas, additions, and even "corrections." 4. This unfortunately doesn't apply to me in my current position. We have no prerequisites here at [University U], and I can't assume that students know anything about anything when they come into my spring semester courses (we're also on semesters). In terms of IHUM itself, I remember doing far less "didactic" stuff in the spring, assuming that students would have had lots of that in the fall, but I also remember a fairly broad spectrum of students in terms of preparation for writing, argumentation, support, etc. Even if you do have a "step" plan of sorts, it's not likely going to reach all students unless they're literally in the same class together. 5. Well, I think it's great in theory and should be pursued--as it is, I think--in practice. It's really the best thing we've got going. I desperately wish we could do something like this at [University U]. 6. Certainly [Course A] course did this, and did so very successfully. But [due to the theme of the course], it was relatively easy to do so (whether in terms of what "the west" was doing to the "non-west" or, in some cases, what non-westerners were doing to each other). I don't think a focus on non-western works need be a requirement; if faculty want to teach a course on western liberalism, I don't see any reason they shouldn't do so. But even here, it would be easy to incorporate less standard stuff--add a section, for example, on how intellectuals and others outside the west have used liberalism to push their own agendas, or how they've fought against it because of the injustices it has enabled. I do think it's important that students get a sense of the bigger world out there, and again, this may be the only opportunity they have to do so. So I think it's a good idea to include non-western perspectives even if the focus isn't on them. 7. Extremely important. Particularly in the fall course, my post-doc colleagues and I worked very hard to build classes around particular writing issues and goals. I think we may have gone a bit overboard that first year, but the general direction was a good one. I continue to build seminar-type courses (and I think of the discussion sections in IHUM as seminar-type courses) around writing, building in multi-part assignments, using class time to practice ideas about how to build a strong thesis, argument, etc. and for peer reviews, and so on. And I still use [one of the former fellows’] quotes poker to great reviews! 8. 100%, in my case. We did five texts, and I think we all felt having two weeks to deal with a text was wonderful. I don't remember any of the students complaining about the time we spent, though I do think they were generally (not always) ready to move on at the end of the two-week period. 9. Love it, love it, love it! I can't think of any disadvantages when it works well (as it did in the case of the course I helped teach). Gives students an opportunity to think about the different ways scholars think about the same issues; gives them a chance to see "real" scholars engaging in what they do and even disagreeing with each other; gives students a chance to start thinking about how *they* think about the world and which, if any, of the faculty members' approaches most closely approximate their own interests and perspectives. 10. Section is where students go from being info receptors to analysts in their own right. This is where they learn to read, to think, to structure and support their ideas, to share their ideas with others, etc. Of course, they're doing all this on their own at home as well, but I think it's in section where everyone sees it happening--for themselves and for others. I think sections did do what they were supposed to do--to some extent, of course, it's sections that get students to do the work and learn the material in the first place, and that's a big first step. But what's really important is pushing students to do something with the info they've gleaned, and that's where sections are really valuable. 11. Drop the number of students to 12. 12 is perfect for small groups, group projects, etc. 15 is just a few too many for effective discussions. I think the 3 hours per week is just the right amount of time. It makes for a pretty intense course (and it wouldn't work very well at [University U], where students have to take 5 classes per semester), but it also allows for lots and lots of learning. 12. Oh, yes. For starters, I doubt I would've gotten the job I have without it. I'd shown that I could teach subjects that were far from my own field, that I enjoyed working with freshman, that I was committed to an interdisciplinary approach and to undergrad education, etc. In broader terms, though, I try to incorporate IHUM's bigger mandate of humanities learning through multiple perspectives/approaches, though a combination of analytical lectures and lots of face time with students, and through an emphasis on analysis/interpretation rather than info-stuffing into all my courses. Of course, these were issues I believed in before I came to IHUM (which probably helped me get the job there...), but IHUM helped reinforce them. I also borrowed the [Course A] approach for one of my service courses, [...] I love it because I'm a case study person: start small, build big. Students love it, too. 13. Yes, I felt I was adequately trained---although with some of the texts themselves, I felt a little overwhelmed. Especially for courses that have been taught more than once, it'd be great if faculty members could prepare a couple handouts for each section of the course--on key issues to be covered, their approaches and goals, suggested readings for those not familiar with the texts, etc. 14. Extremely!! 15. I can't tell you how often I think about how great it would be to have something like IHUM at [University U]. In some ways, our student body--very strong in academic terms and for the most part more interested in the humanities than many Stanford pre-med and engineering students--would be even better suited to such a program than Stanford's. It would mean all sorts of changes and commitments that will likely keep it from happening here (at least in the near future), but I think it's far, far preferable to the scattered and often less-than-effective general ed requirements we have here. (We do have freshman seminars, and those are great, but I really do like the idea of a cross-campus freshman humanities program that all freshman are involved in at the same time.) I just can't say enough good about the IHUM program in general or this particular version of it (or at least the version I knew in 1998-99). My only suggestion for improvement: why don't you start offering visiting fellowships for previous IHUM post-docs to come back and teach for a year....?
FELLOW 24 1. Lectures were of good to exceptional quality; the best lectures were the ones which most clearly fit into the overall theme of the course, but still approached the topic in a critical manner. Students wanted to be wowed and impressed by the lectures, and often were. Lectures which were too off-topic, or which merely re-capitulated the reading, tended to be less successful. 2. The best meshing occurred when lectures provided a particular interpretation of the reading, an interpretation against which arguments could be formulated and discussion promoted during sections. Alternatively, the best lecture-section meshing occurred in [Course C] when the lecture provided a very clear chronological and contextual background to the reading, and section would thereby focus on a particularly controversial or important part of the reading without having to spend time on background and having been given a taste of what’s at stake. 3. I had very few complaints about the interaction between faculty and fellows. They were certainly not supervisors, but rather concerned observers who wanted to know what happened in section; they were mentors in the sense that they encouraged participation in their departments (particularly [Professor X]), although this was often logistically difficult. They were certainly colleagues. Weekly meetings are essential; the best interaction is an open discussion about the goals and purposes of the coarse, and communication beforehand about the content of the lectures so that sections (which often met that same day) could be planned accordingly. 4. I would have to say that in Winter/Spring courses, the only expectation I had of students was a certain foreknowledge about the kind of writing and argumentation skills which IHUM encourages, as well as discussion protocol. In the Fall, I tried to encourage students particularly along these lines. My common phrase in the Winter/Spring was that the general, broad issues discussed in the Autumn, and the argumentation/writing skills students learned then, would be forthwith applied to a more specific area of study. 5. Oh I think it works well, based on my experience. The bustling energy of first semester students is well suited to the broad issues discussed in the Autumn; in the Winter/Spring, it is nice to be able to trace the same themes and issues along an expanded period made possible by the two-semester setup. The [winter/spring] course I taught could not work in a one-semester course without leaving many questions and issues unanswered. 6. [...] In retrospect, I suppose the courses I taught were pretty much western. I would try to incorporate a few non-western sources (and I did, when I taught an honors seminar at [University U), though this would probably be more appropriate in the Autumn than the Winter/Spring. But I don’t think it should be a criterion, and I wouldn’t force it into the syllabus or make it obvious (“the token non-western source”) lest these ever-perceptive students dismiss it. I never had a student complain about the western/non-western perspective of the reading. What more concerned them was the appropriateness of the reading to the topic of the course, wherever it was from. A reading which didn’t mesh with the other readings in the course faced considerable fury from cynical and annoyed freshmen, and would sometimes require my awkward, improvised defenses of the faculty’s choices of reading assignments. 7. Student writing has been integral to the design of the courses I taught, to the extent that part II of [Course C] was, in many ways, geared toward student research papers. In the Autumn, small writing assignments were the discretion of the IHUM fellow, but there was certainly enough material provided in readings and lectures to time these assignments easily. I tried to get topics and assignments out as soon as possible, but this was sometimes difficult to coordinate with other sections. 8. Well, we read [texts A, B, C, D and E]. So I guess 3 of these were “primary.” However, the lecturers in lecture, and I in section, made sure to read [Text A] and [Text B] as primary texts, that is, to explore the biases and ideologies hidden within these authors. Students responded to this enthusiastically, albeit, at first, awkwardly. I think that the mandate should remain in place; first semester students are too accustomed to reading books for the purposes of gaining information[...]. It is thus a good exercise for them to look at texts in a different way, as a means for exploring the many contexts in which those texts were written. 9. Contrasting the difference perspectives of the two lecturers was a good way to promote discussion, and a good starting point for exploring controversial issues. The disadvantage might be that students are more likely to favor one lecturer over the other, leading to a polarization for one view during section (and a corresponding lack of attendance at lecture). It then becomes about the lecture styles and personality of the lecturers, and not the perspectives of their field. 10. The main functions of section are, in my understanding, to explore the texts and react to lectures in an interesting and creative manner, to understand and celebrate humanistic tradition, and to give students the ability to express their views orally and in writing, with appreciation of other points of view. I used to tell my students, “no question here is to big or small.” On the whole sections fulfilled this function. Contrary to a traditional university section, the role of the IHUM section, it seems, should not be to “explain the reading” or to fill in gaps in information not covered by readings or lecture. Of course, this occasionally had to happen, because of how little time there was in the course of the semester to cover large topics. For example, historical or cultural background was difficult to provide anywhere else other than in section, and in the Fall I sometimes had to give quick 10-minute “lets get everyone on the same page” introductions to historical periods or events. [Professors X and Y] in the Winter/Spring very wisely required [a general background text] to provide this kind of instruction, which nicely freed up section time used for this – if, that is, students did the reading. If they didn’t, it was detrimental to the whole section. 11. This worked fairly well. I did have exceptionally large sections (19 students) which made things difficult, and I also had tiny sections (8 people), which also made things difficult. I would just try to insure that sections be evened out. 12. Before I got to IHUM, the idea of leading a student discussion for 1.5 hours on truly diverse topics was scary. Now it’s easy and exciting. 13. The two-week workshop, with the role-playing and exercises, was a must. Other than that, it just requires experience at doing it. 14. Yes, very satisfied. 15. One thing that we did was swap sections occasionally (this was due to conference travel or other logistical concerns). But I think it was a good thing to do, because it gave students another perspective, and added to the unity of the course as a whole, since now students had exposure to other section leaders. I’m also a fan of fellows giving a lecture, since that boosts student confidence in and respect for their section leader, which is also a good thing. Also, I seem to recall a large predominance of male students in [Course A] course, so that in some sections there were as few as two women students in the class. I’d try to balance this out somehow.
FELLOW 25 1. The best lectures are those that state a clear argument - as an argument - at the beginning and then proceed to develop support for that argument, revisiting it at the end of the lecture with a clear restatement. Generally, quality of the lectures has been quite good. 2. My only real frustration with the meshing of section and lecture is the difficulty in having team meetings. In this course, a lot has to do with scheduling. There really is no time in the four-day week that is conducive to a meeting so it gets squished in. There is also some internal resistance to meeting, but I think the bigger problem is that schedules do not mesh. Should there perhaps be a designated meeting time planned into the schedules? 3. The faculty has certainly been professional and have expressed a genuine interest in our professional work outside the course - but only in the context of team meetings. I do feel that the faculty would be open to informal discussions of personal work if one of us made the effort and actually one is reading an essay of mine now. (they, however, are not inviting us specifically to come talk to them.) They have also been open to adding me to discussion groups, etc. This does not bear directly on the faculty for this course, but I would like to register a vague feeling I am developing. It's not clear to me the "place" of the IHUM fellow on campus. Maybe it is because not many IHUM fellows get involved in other campus activities, but when I attend reading groups, etc, I feel like I have this weird status - not a post-doc (and so not really affiliated with a department) and not faculty and not a student. This may just be a personal thing (something of an "identity crisis" perhaps, or just being new on campus). I do feel that the 'status' of the IHUM fellow could be better defined among the faculty at large. 4. Can't really answer this yet 5. Can't really answer this yet 6. Somewhat I don't think this should be a criterion for IHUM classes - although certainly it can be a consideration, and if it works, great. In my experience (here and elsewhere) students actually want or appreciate a grounding in the western canon which is, after all, the canon of the institutional system in which they participate. That canon can and should also be challenged, but it cannot be intellectually challenged if it is not covered. 7. Not known yet 8. We have six texts, including a very long novel. It's too much. 9. Yes. I like this structure a lot. The students are not yet versed enough in 'disciplines' to consciously grasp the differences, but I think the IHUM course shows them these differences (rather than just telling them they exist) 10. Still working on this. In an informal evaluation, students actually wanted less discussion of lecture (just really necessary clarification), so I’m working on the balance between connection to lecture and more independent work on the materials. 11. Keep them at 15. Be more careful about the times sections are offered. For example, we have three sections on t/r at 6:15 - none are full and they all drag. There could definitely be more morning sections, especially on the off-lecture days (wf). The sports schedules really make 3pm classes drop in enrollment. I think offering fellows the option of mixing days will help alleviate this. 13. Yes. Now it's just really figuring out what works for me in this situation. 14. Yes 15. I don't really know how it would/could work - but as above, some better integration with the academic departments - perhaps each fellow could choose an affiliate department (or two) as part of the appointment so that we are not isolated to the VPUE. I attended the [Department D] opening banquet but felt pretty awkward. I think it would be easier if we actually had an affiliation (like a post-doc?) With a specific department - not necessarily for our teaching responsibilities but for our research interests. I don't know how all this works at Stanford, but if we were somehow specifically integrated into the social fabric of a particular department, it might benefit fellows' professional development. (p.s. I hope to teach across many departments, so I would not want the department affiliation to determine teaching appointments.) I would be happy to discuss any of my responses further.
FELLOW 26 1. The lectures in this fall quarter have been of very high quality: intellectually challenging and well delivered. They have given the students a good knowledge base to discuss works in class, and have challenged the students to stretch themselves. My only complaint: at times, the lectures inform the students' readings a little too strongly, not leaving them enough room to evaluate a text on their own. 2. Integrating the lectures with the sections has been easy. Because the lectures are difficult (in a good way), questions about the lectures arise in section. Where the lecturers disagree on their reading of a text, or I disagree with one or both lecturers, is the most fruitful ground for class discussions about the lecture. 3. We have met weekly as a teaching team, fellows and lecturing faculty together. The relationship has been really collegial, with a lot of respect for the boundaries between the responsibilities and prerogatives of each. Both lecturing faculty have treated us as equal partners, as far as the design of an IHUM course allows, especially in front of the undergraduates. At the same time, I have received welcome encouragement of my own scholarly interests. Given the design of IHUM, in which the fellows are obviously junior partners, the faculty-fellow relationship has been excellent, nearly ideal. 4. I can't comment thoroughly on this yet. I'm certainly working toward helping the students develop skills they can use in any humanities class. 5. No basis for comment. 6. Four out of five of the authors in the fall course are white, European or Euroamerican authors. In the winter and spring, it appears to be much the same. I regard this as a significant problem. In the case of each course, there are intellectually and pedagogically defensible reasons for this bias, but taken as a whole--especially to the extent that it's representative of IHUM, it's indefensible. I'm not much on program-wide criteria--and I understand that this was partly the complaint against CIV but more thought from the faculty about the canon a typical freshman might be presented with in IHUM is needed. 7. There is some confusion over the extent to which IHUM is a writing course. It's clear that a significant number of students need instruction in writing the kind of paper that IHUM requires, but the way in which this need gets addressed is not spelled out. The courses are idea-heavy--as they should be--so there's not much time in the syllabus for writing instruction of the kind many students need. My experience so far has been that the writing support outside the course is higher in quantity than quality. Partly this problem stems from my own inexperience teaching an IHUM course; in the future, I'll be better prepared myself to incorporate the kind of writing instruction that the students need. 8. We're reading 5 primary texts this quarter, which seems about right to me. 9. The interdisciplinary structure is great, and the students get a lot out of it--perhaps more than they realize during the course. This fall's IHUM course has made room for each fellow to speak to a text from his or her own discipline which has heightened the interdisciplinary approach from the two lecturing faculty. The students get the most out of this aspect of the course, when I point out to them in sections how the different perspectives are informed by the disciplines of the faculty. 10. The main function of section is to acculturate the students to humanistic study at the college level. This includes learning to understand lectures; read difficult material closely; speak effectively and at some length on abstract ideas; write stylish, original, and persuasive argumentative papers; and incorporate historical and interdisciplinary perspectives into their own perspective. This is a pretty tall order, but I think in my sections we are succeeding, in various degrees with each student and with each goal, at filling it. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.
FELLOW 27 1. I thought that in both IHUM courses that I taught the lecturing was outstanding -the lecturers were at all times well prepared and had an excellent repore with the students and the IHUM instructors. All the lecturers in [Course A] gave an excellent reading of the texts according to their own expertise which both complemented each other and taught students the true meaning of analyzing texts according to a certain discipline - the lecturers were enthusiastic and dynamic speakers. In [Course B] both lecturers invited the students the students to delve even deeper into the meanings of the texts - the lectures were not only polished but delivered with incredible energy and enthusiasm that was certainly contagious. I think most of all the students and TF's were impressed by the fact that they never read their lectures both talk through the material. They also provided ample room for students to ask questions and also for students to actually give mini-presentations to their classmates [...] 2. I think that in [Course A] the lectures meshed very well with the sections - Mostly due I think because of the coordinator - we met constantly and talked about what we were each doing in our sections - the lecturers were also very involved and met with us in order to anticipate the upcoming week (materials) - they also visited the sections and participated actively in them. What seems to work is collaborations between all the teaching team - through meetings and discussions of texts and materials. I think that in [Course B] this was not well executed - we did not meet often -(this was not due to the lecturers) and I felt many times that [Fellow F] was leading her own classes - apart from both my own sections and the lectures. There was a lot of disparity between what happened in my sections and lectures and what happened in [Fellow F]’s sections and the students noticed this. This year in order to avoid this we are meeting often and discussing the lectures and sections with each other - TF's and lecturers. 3. This is hard to answer at this point -partly due because I have only taught one year and most of my energy and time was spent trying to learn the material in order to teach it. The lecturers have been helpful in terms of helping with the material -answering questions etc. In [Course A]- since the teams was large and people were busy most of the time was spent talking about the course and logistics - the coordinator ran the meetings -going from one thing to another. I found the lecturers very nice and cordial -not really supervisors or mentors or even colleagues but rather nice people to get along with. In [Course B] - again this is hard to tell - an overbearing coordinator did not permit a lot of collegiality between TF's and Lecturers - we did not meet a lot and when we did meet the meeting consisted of drilling the lecturers for information -there was not space for anything else -once again I think this was due to the coordinator rather than the lecturers. I think that I will have more comments on this question after another year of IHUM - 4. Yes, I think it works well - I noticed in The Winter/Spring that students did not make the same mistakes that they had done in the Fall IHUM courses - especially in terms of writing. They did seem more prepared in the Winter and much better writers and even public speakers by the Spring -- teaching Fall quarter class is much more work -I think - because they are new to these type of course but by the Winter and Spring they have become more demanding readers and writers. 5. I think it works very well - and the students do get it. That is, the transitions from a Fall quarter IHUM to a Winter/Spring IHUM is evident to them - the fact that they are in Winter/Spring encountering lecturers who are now experts in material presented - how differently they experience both the style of lecturing and the way the different people approach the texts at hand. Once again, I think that it works very well. 6. Well, citizenship should include more texts outside the Western canon - perhaps they should read more works by women? [Course B] is all about the non-western canon - I think students were drawn to this class because of this - 7. It is hard to fit in writing within what is expected in the course - many times I felt rushed I could not take a day - to go over simple writing instruction - it is very hard to deal with all the texts and material and then fit writing into the equation. We need more time for this and more talk about it between TF's and even lecturers. In [Course A] the lecturers did read sample of students essays which was good - but we should perhaps all sit down and look through some papers and actually have a section designed by all (since we all use the same criteria) to talk about writing - this should probably be added in the syllabus. In [Course B] even though we met for grade norming we never really talked about giving a section about writing - I think this frustrated students - when they received their grades. I did do some workshops on papers in sections- but again I think this should be done by the whole teaching team. 8. I think that the faculty did follow this mandate - few books but they did not read more deeply or critically into the material in lectures - because most of the time they spend to much time with background information - which is needed but not to the extent of what they gave - this may be avoided by more handouts or websites - For example, all the lectures on [Text T] were about the author and not the text - this left the TF's essentially teaching this text in sections. 9. Yes, see question number 1 - it worked very well - they had a good repor with each other and the students enjoyed the different approaches/styles - I think this was very evident in this course since the faculty came from very different disciplines - and they (the faculty) really played with this idea. 10. The main functions of section is to facilitate - understanding of the texts and lectures - a place were students can be able to talk about the texts and lectures with each other and with me - to give readings and presentations about the texts - to be heard and listen to others _ I think this does happen in sections - specially in [Course B] where the students really discussed the texts - debated and presented their points of view - I loved by sections in [Course B] and learn so much form my students. This was a bit harder in [Course A] - I think partially due to being their first IHUM course - they put a lot of pressure on themselves so sometimes the discussions were a bit forced and in one particular section like pulling teeth. It is hard first quarter for them to learn that section - is mediated by the TF's and not given by them - they wanted to be lectures by me. 11. I think the time works well –1.5 hours each section works well - we have plenty of time to discuss lecture and the texts -and they have time at times to give presentations - I think that the sections have to be no more that 15 students - this never works out - My sections in [Course B] both Winter and Spring averaged 50 students total - which is way too much for both holding section and correcting papers. 12. Yes, extremely - I have learned more about teaching in one year of IHUM than in 7 years of grad. school - This is due to the fact that we teach three sections - which are so very different from each other -I have also learned a lot about other disciplines and in turn more about my own. 13. Yes, and also one learns when one teaches - so no matter how much training one has one is never prepared until you actually do it! I think what is important then is to have a support system to be able to talk about your teaching experiences and this is there in IHUM -the peer evaluations is a great asset to the program. 14. I am more than satisfied with the IHUM program -it is a great program 15. I think this is a great program both for us TF's and for the students. I have learned immensely in this my very very intense years of IHUM and I will sue in the future.
FELLOW 28 1. Excellent lecturing in both courses. Successful lecturing derived from: A. Good organization B. Understanding the limits of a 50-minute class. C. Humor D. Deep analysis and the willingness to push the students to think during that 50 minutes. E. Connecting a lecture with previous topics to make a course coherent, particularly with more than one instructor. 2. I thought that the lectures and sections meshed well. The success rate depended on the TFs and their willingness to take time to discuss the lectures. Moreover, it depended on the lecturers' willingness to keep the readings, pace, assignments, etc. in mind as they lectured. Any disjuncture that did occur was often due to pacing rather than the material itself. 3. I had an excellent relationship w/ the lecturers. We met weekly in both classes. [Course A] meetings were a bit more fluid and open-ended because the course was new and we were all finding our way. [Course B] was more established, which meant our meetings usually had a straightforward agenda. In meetings for both courses we thought about the main ideas for sections, paper topics, exam questions, how the lectures were going (we gave feedback to the lecturers, which I thought was crucial), etc. I think the ideal interaction is formed through giving the TFs enough input so that they don't just feel like TAs. 4. Teaching the fall course I felt the main goal was to impart such skills as critical reading and thinking--questioning in all senses, writing, discussion, etc. Focusing on those skills made the class a great deal of fun, and I think it also took a bit of pressure off of the students. The winter-spring course moved at a much more rapid pace, so one did not always have a chance to focus on skills. It was often the case that our discussions focused on interpreting the texts and lectures more so than how to write a paper, etc. Of course, most students had improved a great deal by the spring term, so we didn't need to emphasize skills as much. Nevertheless, I felt that it might have been good to be able to step back a bit more frequently and take a significant amount of time to work on writing as we did in the fall. 5. I think it works quite well, although at first I was skeptical. I really enjoyed the interdisciplinary aspect of the fall, and I think the students got a great deal out of that--especially in the sense of having them discuss such questions as "How does a philosopher approach this differently than someone from comparative literature or law?" These were great opportunities. 6. In the fall we read a work by [Author A], which the students hated at first but then ended up loving. In the winter-spring it was the Western canon writ large. I don't know if this should be a criterion if it does not make sense in terms of the course structure, but if it can be incorporated smoothly then it is a good thing-- 7. Writing has been very important, and the students know that. I think in [Course A] at first we were a bit too casual w/ designing the assignments, but we learned by the middle of the quarter. In [Course B] the papers were pointed and focused on important themes and analytical techniques. Grade norming, though, is still quite a challenge. 8. We followed that mandate, and I think it's a good one. It was great to have a couple of weeks to spend on a relatively short text. This allowed us to work on critical reading and questioning skills, which the students then applied in the winter-spring when we read a text per class. I think it's a great mandate, and if I remember correctly, [Course B] this fall was going to reduce the load by one text to give students even more of a chance to focus. 9. See comments above. 10. Discussion, clarification of lectures, student presentations, tutorials on writing, reading, thinking, etc. Yes, they definitely fulfill those functions. 11. No suggestions; they worked fine, although sometimes they're a bit larger. 12. Yes, by forcing me to learn how to teach texts that I may have read on my own but not taught. It definitely made me think about integrating a wider range of ideas and texts into my own teaching and research. 13. I thought the training was more than adequate. 14. Absolutely. 15. I think it might be useful to work w/ in the university to try to counteract the negative and--in my opinion--unfounded opinion of IHUM among the undergrads. As we all know and repeat, they often say that they hate it, but many or most really enjoy it and appreciate what it has taught them. Maybe a student presentation during orientation or a booklet handed out to students in their preregistration materials that includes testimonials about how useful IHUM was to them, etc. Good luck w/ the review!
FELLOW 29 1. Highly variable, even within the same course. Some have been among the best lectures I’ve ever seen, others among the worst. The best lectures were attentive to a common “story line” or set of problems that the course as a whole was to shed light upon. They highlighted the importance of the new content to the guiding questions, and to the approaches or insights presented in other lectures. The worst lectures were usually prepared in isolation from the other lecturers and the other content in the course — they stood alone as islands with no clear (or even suggested) connection to anything else. Professors who viewed themselves as “guest lecturers” responsible for a certain percentage of the content rather than as members of a team who shared responsibility for the entire course were most at risk of giving bad lectures. 2. Again, highly variable. Some lecturers were very good at showing TFs the “big picture” up front, sharing their lecture notes with us, highlighting the pieces of texts they would focus most attention on and the ones they were expecting we’d devote the most attention to in section, etc. Others promised, in lectures which ended less than an hour before section began, that we’d reconstruct difficult arguments, give primers on methods of proof, etc., without telling us ahead of time that they were expecting us to do so. Courses where the lecturers had the clearest vision of common storyline or guiding questions seemed also to be the ones where they were attentive to issues of coordinating lecture and section, and responsive to our questions about good ways to achieve this coordination. 3. Somewhere between supervisor and mentor. Frequency of meetings ranged from biweekly to a few times a term, depending on the teaching team. Meetings were sometimes extremely productive and interesting, other times futile and silly. I think there is a lot of room for the faculty lecturers to view TFs more as colleagues, though it would probably require more dialogue for us all to determine how a TF’s areas of expertise and interest bear on the subject matter and the teaching challenge of the course. 4. Definitely focused on skills in teaching Fall courses, and was mostly able to assume that those skills were in place by Winter. (One thing that was difficult W/S was defending grading within official grading guidelines if the Fall teaching fellow hadn’t taken them seriously.) 5. Just fine (variability of grading standards aside). 6. Usually the absolute minimum, which is a shame. ([Course A] was the one exception of the courses I taught.) Indeed, [mainstream author A who happens to be female] was the only attempt at breadth in the latest Spring version of [Course B]. What a joke! It seems like one thing an introduction to the humanities ought to show is how questions that matter have mattered to people in different cultures and different strata of society. If the course can’t do that, maybe the questions it focuses on aren’t as big or enduring as the faculty think they are. 7. Absolutely central (at least from the point of view of the section leader). We almost always had full-team meetings to discuss paper format, topics, and approaches. Many of us also did writing exercises, made our students write outlines and drafts, ran peer-reviews, etc. 8. Pretty well. Occasionally there’s some disagreement about what counts as a text (a work of Nietzsche’s or selections from his corpus? A set of artworks? Ethnographies?), and about how many secondary texts can be piled upon the primary ones. Fall does seem to be the time when the students can engage most seriously with the texts, and with the larger issues of the course. 9. Like it a lot. There seems to be an optimal balance, though, which shows the students different disciplines bringing different tools to make progress on the same problem. The alternatives (which I’ve seen in each fall course at various times) are showing different disciplines as almost indistinguishable, showing them talking past each other, or showing them having absolutely no use for each other. 10. To look at the texts in-depth, develop discussion skills, focus on writing skills. They seem to work pretty well in fulfilling these functions. 11. The reality is that some sections are way too big (17+) and other are way too small (9 or fewer). Both of these create significant problems for participation. 11-15 is optimal. The 3 hours/week is close to just right, despite the students’ complaints. (When a section really gets going, it always seems like there’s never enough time to fully pursue all the interesting threads; when it doesn’t, the time just drags.) 12. Experience with a diverse collection of freshman non-majors helped me convince state schools I had the skills (and interest!) to deal with their student populations. 13. Training was fine. 14. Yes. 15. Having some combined workshop sessions for faculty lecturers AND TFs at the beginning of the year might help to make clear the shared responsibilities to the course (as well as to make the TF job description clearer to faculty lecturers).
FELLOW 30 1. The quality of lectures was highly variable: sometimes right on the mark, sometimes very intelligent but over the heads of the students, sometimes irrelevant to the texts being read or to the themes of the course, sometimes insultingly ill-prepared, even to the point of getting many facts wrong. The most important factors in successful IHUM lecturing were recognition of the audience-level, relevance to the text at hand and to the themes of the course, and professional preparation. Given that the profs were asked to do nothing more than prepare two 50 minute lectures a week, it struck me as remarkable that some of them found it difficult to actually accomplish the task. 2. In some courses, more often than not, lectures and sections meshed very well. A major factor was a syllabus that was not was absurdly overloaded with reading, so that we actually had time in section to discuss both the lectures and the texts. A major hindrance to successful integration, obviously, was lectures that were incomprehensible to the students for one of the reasons mentioned above. The fact is that I sometimes felt like the boy who follows the elephants in the circus parade: one of my tasks was cleaning up the mess made by the lecturing professor. One would think that faculty-fellow consultations would be an important variable in the successful integration of lectures and seminars, but in my experience, this was not so. In all of my courses there was ample consultation, but as I have suggested, the success of the integration was quite variable, apparently for other reasons. 3. In all of my courses there was ample interaction, as I have said. This was always prompted by the faculty members before the course began, often took place in an informal setting, and was usually recurring through the quarter. Syllabus was always discussed (with fellows having some input, or at least the illusion thereof); conversely, when grading structures were discussed, faculty input was always solicited. In all cases I felt the relationships to be entirely collegial, though I know that certain fellows with whom I worked felt that they were being treated as "second class scholars." Subsequent to leaving Stanford, I feel close enough to one faculty member to rely on him for a recommendation, and remain in regular correspondence with another, which I think allows me to claim him as a friend. 5. As my previous answers suggests, I have some reservations... 6. In only one of my courses was there any work from outside of Europe or America. Since this course ([Course A]) was predicated on the issue of intercultural activity, material from outside Euro-America was an inescapable and appropriate part; indeed, there could have been even more. I would not require the inclusion of "works outside the traditional Western canon" in all IHUM courses -- and I say this although my field is world theater history, and I have been (professionally) annoying people for some years now to expand their notion of theater history to include the theater of India, Japan, China, etc. I do not like categorical requirements and I would not want to tie lecturing professors' hands in regard to the design of their courses. A requirement such as you suggest would make impossible (or at least extremely awkward) courses that focus on the national histories, literatures, or arts, of European or American lands, and I see little gain in the loss of all such possible courses. On the other hand, I would certainly recommend that faculty consider works such as you suggest when designing their courses. Indeed, I imagine you could go further than a mere recommendation: as I learned from talking to faculty in my own IHUM courses, a major reason for the failure to include non-Euro-American material is their sheer ignorance of what material might be appropriate for the courses they are designing. The faculty a) did not know what primary texts to consider, and b) did not know what secondary texts to turn to for guidance. I suggest, therefore, that if you are serious about pushing non-Western works, you find a tactful way of providing some support for your faculty. 7. I paid a huge amount of attention to student writing; I consider writing the act in which the student distills reading and lecture and seminar discussion and his/her own reflection into a coherent and concentrated argument. To the chagrin of some of my fellow fellows in a couple of courses, I refused to give in-class tests, insisting instead on take-home exams requiring fully-composed essays: I didn't want to test memory, I wanted to exercise thinking and writing. 8. In my fall course [Course A], this mandate was followed; 5 texts were read. I felt that having the time to get into the texts in depth was generally useful, although for one or two of the texts, the students burned out on it a day early. Perhaps this was a function of the texts, and a 6th text could have been snuck in with no harm done. Just as likely however, the failure was mine, and that I simply did not succeed in introducing enough variety into the format of the seminar to keep things fresh. On the whole -- as I've suggested above -- I found the pace of the fall quarter was preferable to the breakneck speed most professors fell compelled to maintain in the winter-spring. 9. I'm a big fan of interdisciplinary stuff, and my own work has been resolutely interdisciplinary, but in [Course A] the interdisciplinary aspect struck me as overrated. The strength was in the lecturers, not their disciplinary backgrounds. Although it was fairly often clear that one was from Theater, he spoke often enough of literary matters that his background soon became nearly irrelevant. The disciplines of the other lecturers were almost entirely irrelevant to their lectures. Clearly the backgrounds of the lecturers had some bearing on the texts that were chosen for study, but as lecturers, their disciplinary backgrounds made little difference most of the time. Perhaps this course was unusual in this respect; I can certainly appreciate the principle of the interdisciplinary structure... 10. a) Expand on and discuss lecture; b) clarify and develop understanding of text through discussion; c) writing about texts, with regard to lectures & discussion. More broadly, d) teaching scholarly techniques of d) critical listening, reading, & writing. And, even more broadly, e) enacting humanism. I think section CAN fulfill those purposes; whether a particular section does or does not depends on the course, the section, and the leader... 11. I had no problem with the size. Once I had 12 students; 6 times I had 20. As it turned out, the larger classes were better, but that might have been because they were in my third year instead of my first, and I was a better teacher then. 3 hours a week was fine. 1 1/2 hour meetings are tiring for all involved. I always took a 5-10 minute break halfway through each session. It was a shame to lose the time, but it kept everyone awake and alert and earned a ton of good will, which seemed to me an excellent tradeoff. 12. If you mean "Did IHUM made me a better teacher?," my answer is, Yes, absolutely. First, I got to see lots of lecturers, good, bad and indifferent, and then talk about them with students; this gave me a students'-eye perspective on what a lecturer looks like, which has helped me see what I look like to students -- which has helped me adjust my self-presentation to be somewhat more effective (I hope). Second, I got to spend loads of time with other fellows talking about teaching, about strategies for dealing with this or that situation, and I realized there were a million things I had never even considered before. Third, I got to try out each class three times: to see how something worked in my first section, to change it a bit with my second, to try something entirely different with my third, then to "compare notes" on the drive home. This was less a conscious strategy than a simple attempt to find something that worked, but the effect was the same: I learned both about teaching and about myself as a teacher. 13. The intro workshops that IHUM provided were as ample as one could possibly have hoped for. 14. As the foregoing will have indicated, I have some misgivings about a few of the lecturers with whom I worked: I think their syllabi were not well-designed and/or their lectures were too often unsatisfactory for the given audience. Aside from these misgivings, I was extremely satisfied with my participation with IHUM. More than anything else, I was deeply impressed by the seriousness of purpose and the unceasing good will of everyone associated with the IHUM program itself. I found it a pleasure to be involved with IHUM. 15. I think that's enough, don't you?
FELLOW 31 1. Fall Quarter: Excellent Winter Quarter: Good Spring Quarter: Excellent A Good lecturer connects with the audience; they give a contentful presentation without pitching it too high. It's important to start with a review of last time, in order to connect the day's presentation with the larger thread of the class. After a review, then an outline of today's presentation; an articulation of the key points that will be covered. Then, 3 to 5 meaty ideas, allowing time for questions. Pacing of lecture is very important; not too fast (students want to take thorough notes) not too slow (students need to be pushed and held captive by the power of the lecturer's presentation). 2. Lectures have connected will with my sections. I use the lecture as a text. We discuss its argument, key concepts, and relevance to the day's reading. We entertain questions about parts that were unclear or dubious. The connection between lecture and section is applied when the lecture directly engages some relevant section from the day's reading. 3. Each course I've worked with has had weekly staff meetings with the faculty instructor. We discuss the lecture, what should be covered in section, progress/problems with the sections, assignments and grading. I've had good relations with the faculty I've worked with; we primarily talk about the class, no real discussion of our own respective projects. 4. In fall, I definitely try to impart/develop skills that students can take and use elsewhere. In winter/spring, I start be reviewing the aspects of their last quarter; generally, students have not had a common experience, since they are all coming from different tracks. I try to establish what is our common ground, and then build from there. In general, my focus is on writing an analytic, argumentative paper, as well as oral presentations. Small group conversation is also an important part of the section; giving them an opportunity to talk to each other and listen/critique their peers in a compassionate way. 5. I feel as though I'm in no real position to comment; I suppose I'm indifferent, since it’s a part of the current I-HUM program. Conceptually, it makes sense to me; start students with a quarter of 'methodologies' with respect to approaching texts humanistically, then move them into a sequence that allows them to apply these methods within a particular discipline. In my case, I think the implementation of this idea has been a success. 6. My faculty have not. In general, this is another programmatic concern. I believe in the import of the 'western tradition'. However, I would hope that if there was a class on 'gender and the novel' that an instructor would see fit to include zora neal hurston right next to virginia wolfe. 7. Student writing is important. In terms of assignments, we start with a close reading assignment, one text and one primary passage. Next, a close reading assignment that makes use of two texts, forcing students to compare and contrast and work between authors. All this builds toward an argumentative assignment, with the defense of a clear and compelling thesis claim. My grading tries to prepare the students for the former sequence; I stress: exposition, analysis, and interpretation. 8. The faculty in my course abided by this mandate. I think its a good idea because you can spend more time on each text, providing a context for a closer reading. Sometimes things might drag a little, but in general students appreciate the careful attention paid to the text. The key is to hold their interest and keep them excited; the faculty must have inspiring things to say over 2-3 weeks on the same book. 9. I think faculty need to highlight the particularities of their disciplinary approach, that way students can really see the competing perspectives on the text. Also, faculty must avoid privileging one perspective over another. These should also not be afraid to articulate their own views; students are hungry to know what the professor REALLY thinks. The more honest they are about their disciplines and their own views, the more clear it will be to students that their are diverse ways on viewing humanistic texts. 10. Functions of section: in depth discussion of material; development of students written and oral skill - close reading, argument, critique, engagement the ideas of others. My sections meet these learning goals. 11. Fine. Improvements? I can't think of any. I believe that 90 minutes is a good amount of time for a discussion seminar. The class size is great. 12. Yes. As a teacher, you can never have too much in class experience, though working exclusively with freshman has its drawbacks. The quarter of research leave has helped in the development of my own intellectual agenda, so I think that I-HUM has helped in my professional development. The travel fund is also a great help. 13. Yes 14. Very satisfied 15. Consider the relationship between students and faculty that teaching their I-HUM course. I believe the student/fellow relation is strong given the sections, but more attention should be paid to student/faculty interaction.
FELLOW 32 1. The lectures were in general strong. Obviously classes taught by a single professor had much more coherence. It seemed to me that lectures worked best when they either offered straight data ([Author A] wrote in 1670) or clearly defined readings ([Author A’s work] is about colonialism); students were less impressed by vaguely humanistic cheerleading ([Author A’s work] is a wonderful work that will enrich your life). 2. Well, they had to mesh—that’s what the fellows did, work to match what the professor lectured, not in a vacuum, of course, but the faculty set the texts and the lectures and we taught them. The fellows are, in this sense, teaching assistants, neither more nor less. To be honest, this does not seem to me to be the best use of the fellows, but that is the way the courses are (or were) designed. The success of the integration to my mind depended most on the personalities of the parties involved, and some groups worked very well, others with greater tension. 3. My sense of most of the lecturers I worked with was that they were supervisors. I would never have asked any of them for professional advice, for instance, or even for a letter of recommendation. They really had very little opportunity to get to know the fellows even as a teacher, much less as a researcher. The program is not really designed for them to be colleagues, although almost everybody is quite affable. But it would be silly to deny that there is a clear hierarchy and that faculty lecturers are doing very different things than fellows. This too I found very unfortunate—by grouping all the fellows together and giving them no departmental affiliation, there is very little opportunity, I felt, to be integrated into the life of the departments, where one might develop mentors or even colleagues. While I have good relationships with some members of the Stanford faculty, I did not develop most of these through IHUM. 4. This is tough to answer! I think I had the sense of teaching new first-years in the fall and more experienced ones in the spring, but I don’t know that I saw them as specifically cumulatively linked in the sense that I expected spring students to have particular skills or to impart particular ones to fall students because they would need them in the spring. 5. I think it works well, and probably better than either a one-year course or three completely distinct one-quarter courses. I think students like the feeling that if the fall isn’t what they are looking for, they have the chance to pick again in the spring, and I think the two quarter linked classes in the spring do allow for more continuity. 6. The syllabuses I taught were, if I recall, entirely Western, and pretty traditionally canonical. 7. The structuring of the writing assignments for these classes is probably what I was most pleased with. As we developed the classes, especially in the fall, they were essentially classes in composition for literature course. While the lectures were structured around the texts we were reading, all our assignments were designed primarily to teach writing skills. 8. The faculty I worked with followed this scrupulously. I think there is much to be said for a narrow focus and against a book-of-the-week club model, especially for first years. I don’t think students necessarily reread the texts as we had hoped they would. 9. The fall course I taught was largely literary, and while the faculty members were from different departments and had different fields of expertise, each of them was a literature scholar, so I can’t really address this. 10. Tough call. As I said above, as IHUM stands I think the sections are there to further explicate the texts that are read, to re-cover confusing materials from lecture, and to develop assignments. We were discouraged from doing anything that hadn’t been covered by the whole class, which may have changed now—we were not supposed to bring new texts in, for instance. I think the sections fulfill those functions well—as well as sections for lectures ever do. 11. This seems to work. 12. I enjoyed the other fellows and the administrators tremendously, but for anyone who has experience designing their own classes, there is not a lot new. The fellows are an excellent group of young scholars and it is a privilege to work with them, but on the whole I think their skills are underutilized. The teaching load is not light enough to permit fellows to do much research of their own and I at least did not find that teaching at Stanford gave me much access to the extraordinary faculty. The ways in which I benefited from IHUM are unfortunately the crassest: I think it helped me in the job search to write letters on Stanford letterhead, and I think that “Teaching Fellow in the Humanities” looks very impressive on a CV. This, for better or worse, is a real benefit. But I did not learn very much while I was at IHUM. 13. Yes, the training was quite thorough. But again I am not sure that what fellows are asked to do is especially challenging. While I think it is ridiculous how many universities throw unprepared grad students into teaching, and while I felt that the training at Stanford was helpful as a way to get to know other fellows, the teaching fellows do is not substantially different than what is done by second- and third-year grad students at most universities. 14. Here an anecdote may say more than a fuller explanation. After teaching a year in IHUM, I decided to leave the profession rather than return for two more years, because I felt that I would get so little from it. Later that summer, as it turned out, another university hired me as a lecturer to a one year contract, which I accepted and got back into teaching. It seems to me that the IHUM program was more fulfilling for both students and faculty in its earlier incarnation where fellows (although we weren’t fellows then!) developed a syllabus jointly, invited guest lecturers from the faculty to speak weekly, and had sole control over their own sections. It is not clear to me that anything has been gained in the new IHUM over this earlier program except to now be able to say that first-years are taught by Stanford faculty—although the faculty, as before, only lecture and all the classroom teaching, as before, is done by the fellows, but now with much less freedom to teach in their own way. 15. I’ll put this here since I don’t know where else it belongs. As you can see from my comments, I am strongly critical of the IHUM program as I experienced it. I hope that things seem different now. But I do want to record the practical benefits of the program. The pay is good compared to comparable lecturing positions (given the teaching load and the limited input in course design, these are the positions to compare IHUM to, not things like the Societies of Fellows at Michigan, Harvard, or Princeton, as was sometimes suggested when I was a fellow), and the possibility of a longer contract than a single year is a huge benefit. And as I said, “Stanford” looks great on a CV. When graduate students ask me if they should apply for a position at IHUM I tell them “yes” for those reasons.
FELLOW 33 1. I rate the quality of the lectures generally high. I feel that the lecturers who are able to provide an argument about the text we are reading are the most successful at reaching the students and keeping them motivated. Students notice and do not appreciate pure plot recap or avoiding actual contact with textual material during lectures. So there needs to be a balance between historical background of the material, close readings and argumentation in lecture. No matter how fabulous the argument, if lecturers avoid interacting with the text, students get frustrated. 2. I feel that sections have meshed very well with lectures. We generally have quite a lot to discuss based upon lecture material alone, and when we have exhausted lecture content, we move to things like close readings and student led discussions. Again, having a complex argument about an aspect of the text to work with, really helps to get the section off to a good start. At minimum, a professor’s opinion about the text will help in this regard. I find that students are very concerned about the stakes that their professors have in the course material. They especially like to see differences of opinion. For example, having [Professors V and W] openly disagree about which literary tradition [...] is more revolutionary is always a big hit. 3. I feel that I have been especially mentored by the faculty of [Course A]. [Professor X] is a young scholar who knows how difficult balancing teaching, research and job searches can be. [Professors X and Y] have been very supportive of my career on many levels. They have served as job references for me (even making phone calls on my behalf), they have coached me on job related issues, and have been very supportive of my research. They have promoted an egalitarian and respectful atmosphere in the course by encouraging the teaching fellows to lecture and participate in roundtable panels in front of the entire class. [Professors X and Y have also done a great deal to bridge the sometimes painful gap between the IHUM teaching fellows and the rest of the Stanford scholarly community by inviting their teaching fellows to participate in a [workshop] [...] Many of us are attending the workshop, reconceptualizing our own research projects and meeting all sorts of other Stanford professors and graduate students. 4. Fall quarter always seems a bit hurried in my opinion. Students are struggling to keep up with all of the new information they are experiencing and trying to keep pace with the quarter system. I think that the fact that the Winter and Spring quarters seem to run more smoothly for me is a reflection of the increased confidence that students feel as a result of improved writing, close reading and general academic coping skills. So yes—I feel that there is an important progression in learning that happens in the one-two structure of IHUM. My only regret is that I do not get to experience the close bond with my students in the Fall quarter that comes with the two-quarter sequence and the more generous time allotment to one literary tradition (or historical period). 5. I think it works well. If the course were a three-quarter sequence, the overall classroom bond might be tighter, but you would run the risk of students getting bored with the subject matter or burned out on the group. Fall quarter, as it is organized currently, is important because it gives students a reference point from which either to change their IHUM interests altogether, or commit to further study along the same general lines. 6. In the courses that I taught, most of the texts and lectures concerned the traditional Western canon. It would be difficult to bring in non-canonical sources given the short period of time we have to work on the [central] texts. However, non-canonical perspectives were definitely brought to bear on the texts (in the lectures and section discussions) in all of the courses that I was a TF for. 7. Writing has been a fundamental part of my courses. I have stressed ways in which the process of writing is an ongoing one which allows students to access texts on a deeper level than they experience in reading the texts and talking about them in class. Writing assignments for my courses have stressed argumentation, comparison, and complexity. Most of the assignments have been created with a nod to current events as a way of getting students personally invested in the material. For example, this week we created paper topics around issues of war, leadership and family in several of the texts we are reading as a way to get students to use the texts as tools for understanding the stakes of modern day political rhetoric. 8. All of the professors that I work with have followed this mandate to the letter. I believe that students definitely learn to read more critically and closely when presented with challenging primary texts. I think that they appreciate being allowed to process the texts on their own without the interference of excessive secondary material (especially in the Fall quarter). I enjoy participating in classroom conversation in which student perspectives emerge. Especially when they surprise me with a new way of looking at the texts (which happens often) 9. [Course B] is a highly structured course that is organized around a comparative, rather than strictly interdisciplinary, theme. You could say that [Field F and Field G] are different disciplines but the angle of the course is decidedly literary, so disciplinary difference doesn’t play as prominent a role as say, historical difference. The professors do, however, present different types of strategies for reading texts in their lectures. One professor offers fairly complicated arguments which help to contextualize the texts historically. The other focuses less on complex argumentation and more on the beauty of the text and a discussion of the plot. It would be very interesting to see two professors from different disciplines comment on the same text from their disciplinary perspectives. 10. In my view, the main function of section is to facilitate student engagement with the texts on a more personal, intimate level than they have access to in large lectures. Section should be a space in which students’ voices are heard. It is also a place in which strategies for effective argumentation are discussed and a space in which many students get ideas for papers through conversations. In their smaller section groups, students can talk to each other about the texts and experience the texts outside of the hierarchical space of the lecture hall. They also get experience as public speakers in section when they lead discussions and design questions for the colleagues. I think that sections do fulfill the above mentioned functions, and [should] be held for 3 hours per week. 11. At first I was worried that 3 hours might be too much time to spend with such a small group per week. Now, I think that it might not be enough (not that I want to increase section time). I think that the 15 person section is ideal and functions well. We seem to go over the section time parameters often, so students apparently have plenty to say. If the section groups were larger than 15 students, some of the quieter students might have even less opportunities to speak out. 12. Definitely. I have grown as a teacher simply by being able to teach the same material for two years in a row. I have been able to refine my teaching strategies by assessing what worked and didn’t from one year to the next, and have greatly benefited from sharing ideas with other fellows. Contact with primary texts has been a welcome change from the more theoretical courses that I taught before coming to IHUM and I have had the opportunity to refine my classroom close reading skills. I have also been generously supported in my research endeavors with the IHUM professional development funds. I have taken advantage of the funds to attend conferences and workshops over the last three years that have benefited my growth as a scholar tremendously. I have also benefited professionally from contact with Stanford professors and other TFs. As I mentioned, I am currently participating in a workshop in [Department D] that is helping me to rethink my dissertation for publication. 13. I think that the orientation presentations in the summer are wonderful pedagogical tools. I honestly can’t think of a way that I would improve them. I have been in several orientation situations (where teaching is concerned) and I feel that IHUM’s orientation is well-organized and extremely helpful, even if you are in your third year of teaching. I like the way in which it is designed to encourage us to discuss teaching issues as a group and through panel presentations. 14. Yes. I feel that I have done my best to be an excellent TF and to approach teaching with compassion and an open mind. I have also participated in the IHUM orientations and as an editor for the Boothe Prize. I have thoroughly enjoyed each of these opportunities to experience IHUM from a perspective outside of the classroom. 15. Not that I can think of.
FELLOW 34 1. The quality has been very good. The lecturers are prepared, knowledgeable, and entertaining. One consistent problem is audibility. 2. This is really up to the fellows, and it has been enhanced by the emphasis placed on it in the orientation. However the faculty have helped by visiting our sections, and holding one lecture as a discussion [...]. 3. We meet once a week to administrate the course. Since they are in other disciplines, they are not good candidates for supervising or mentoring me in ways that extend beyond the course. Ideally, they would either be in my discipline and therefore be more suitable as mentors, and/or they would be interested in helping with pedagogy and would offer to write teaching letters for our job portfolios. 4. I feel that preparing students for future work sometimes takes a backseat to covering all the course material, because the course is trying to convey so much. 5. Can't say yet. 6. The course does a good job of including [non canonical] works, but it is still a really Eurocentric course. That said, I think the faculty would be open to hearing ideas on how to diversify it. I think IHUM still looks fairly outdated, a lot like western civ., precisely because it doesn't make the faculty include non-European cultural elements. 7. Fairly important -- second only to conveying the ideas of the course, I think. 8. I think it's fair to say this mandate has been avoided in favor of a "unit" approach in which we read multiple texts but think about them together -- so this does actually enact the repetition function IHUM asks for. I think it achieves critical thinking in a much more imaginative way than simply rereading would. 9. Working with people from different disciplines is really hard, especially on collaborative tasks like designing paper topics. The only way the different disciplinary perspectives can be conveyed to the students is through lecture, and I don't think the lecturers dramatize it explicitly. Actually, it probably is emerging implicitly through the course material, but it's too much to ask to foreground this on top of everything else. 10. Sections give students a chance to form their own knowledge through dialogue with their peers. They help them practice becoming humanists and citizens. 11. I am over the average. I have 18 students in one of my sections, and it's too many. I think you should make 15 a more iron-clad limit, and add more sections if you have to. Three hours per week is fine. 12. We'll see after I go through the job market this year! Primarily through the interdisciplinary teaching experience and the Stanford brand on my cv. 13. I really needed training for my specific IHUM course. I am teaching materials to which I have had no previous exposure or relationship and it is really hard!!!! If the team could have met for 2-3 days so that the profs could explain the course in detail, summarize all the lectures, and give more resources for teaching unfamiliar stuff, that would have been better. However, the problem could also have been that although I thought I was going to teach this course, based on phone conversations [...] in May, when my acceptance letter came it said I was teaching something entirely different. I didn't find out until the IHUM orientation that I really was teaching this course. If I hadn't been confused about this, I might have spent some time over the summer familiarizing myself with difficult unfamiliar material, but because of the letter, I didn't. 14. Yes. 15. You should consider a way that fellows can design their own courses in their own discipline -- this would be a benefit on the job market. |
Stanford University, 2003
http://www.stanford.edu/group/vpue/ihumrev