Teaching Fellows Survey, Fall 2002 -- Summary

In fall of 2002, we distributed a questionnaire to all past and present IHUM fellows for whom we had contact information. We sent 78 questionnaires and received 34 responses. This summary presents an overview of the responses, indicates (where possible) the number of responses of a certain type, and offers representative quotations.

 

In order to preserve anonymity, we have removed any information identifying a fellow, course, or faculty member. We have also assigned each of the respondents a number (e.g., Fellow 1), in order to make it easier to locate the full response of that fellow in the attached appendix.

 

Note that numbers may add up to more than 34 due to multiple responses or less than 34 due to incomplete responses.

______________________

 

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?

 

Out of 33 responses, 18 were very positive about the lecturing in their courses (typical adjectives in this group included ‘excellent,’ ‘strong’ or ‘very good’):

 

Overall, the quality of lecturing for [fall quarter course A], was excellent. The professors were well prepared, engaging, and challenging in their lectures. [...] This was also the case for the spring quarters of [Course B]. It was a pleasure to work for these professors, and work with them. (Fellow 10)

 

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 rapport with the students and the IHUM instructors. (Fellow 27)

 

13 respondents noted that the lectures were of mixed quality:

 

Highly variable, even within the same course. Some have been among the best lectures I’ve ever seen, others among the worst. (Fellow 29)

 

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. (Fellow 30)

 

Only 1 fellow rated the lecturing consistently poor:

 

The lecturing has been very, very poor [...] I think [the lecturers] underestimate the sophistication and curiosity of these students for ideas that are more current than any of these professors are fluent with. (Fellow 21)

 

The fellows suggest that a successful lecture is pitched at a level appropriate for freshmen (15 responses); advances a complex idea, argument, interpretation, or question that can be further discussed and debated in section (15); connects with other lectures and with the theme of the course (8); gives adequate but not excessive historical background (8); is challenging and interesting (8); is well-organized (6); connects specific textual features to general ideas (6); is conveyed with engagement and enthusiasm (6); and is well coordinated with the whole teaching team and incorporates feedback from fellows (6):

 

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). (Fellow 4)

 

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 methods that then could be addressed in discussion sections. (Fellow 12)

 

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. (Fellow 16)

 

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. (Fellow 29)

 

Less successful lectures, in addition to not having the qualities just listed, were vague or off topic (7); presented tangential, unexplained allusions to ideas, movements, or authors (4); were designed with an assumption that the material is already intrinsically interesting to students (3); were too exhaustive, leaving no room for discussion (3); and offered mere historical background or a gloss of the text (3):

 

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. (Fellow 4)

 

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. (Fellow 16)

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. (Fellow 29)

 

 

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?

 

Fellows were divided on this question, reporting that lecture and section integration was excellent (6), good (10), okay (6), or poor (4).

 

Successful integration occurred under the following conditions: lectures posed provocative questions and offered interesting arguments or interpretations that could be taken up in section (14); teaching teams met regularly (12); faculty were open to fellows’ input (10); fellows worked to draw the lecture into section (8); faculty gave fellows lecture notes in advance (5).

Here are a few representative quotations:

 

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. (Fellow 4)

 

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). (Fellow 10)

 

Lectures have connected well 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. (Fellow 31)

 

Less successful integration was brought about by poor lectures that delivered only facts (6), pitched the material too high (6), made no connection to the text (6), or left the students feeling as though the important questions have all been answered (3). Contributing to the lack of integration were faculty who suggested topics for discussion during lecture with no advance notice to fellows (3) or who were unconcerned with the course (3).

 

 

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?

 

Most fellows (26 out of 34) have forged cordial, collegial relationships with the faculty, and believe that the level of interaction works well for the course.

 

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. (Fellow 4)

 

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. (Fellow 26)

 

About one-third (11) saw the faculty as even more than collegial:

I have looked upon my faculty lecturers as friends and colleagues, and in the case of [Professor X], as a mentor as well. (Fellow 7)

 

I feel that I have been especially mentored by the faculty of [Course A]. [...Professor 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. (Fellow 33)

 

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. (Fellow 26)

 

The others (23) expressed some degree of dissatisfaction with the way they interacted with the faculty:

 

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. (Fellow 8)

 

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. (Fellow 32)

 

It would be great if there were occasions for faculty and fellows to meet and share discussions of their areas of research. [...] 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. (Fellow 5)

 

Of these 23, 8 thought that the relationship is too hierarchical (with fellows being treated as TAs rather than as junior colleagues):

 

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. [...] In my view, all three types of interaction (supervisor, mentor, colleague) are appropriate at different times. (Fellow 20)

 

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. (Fellow 15)

 

[F]rankly 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. (Fellow 6)

 

Most (22 of 24 who responded to the ‘how regularly do you meet’ question) reported that their teaching teams meet once a week; 2 of 22 reported more sporadic meetings.

 

Here are two additional representative thoughts on the nature of the interaction and the ideal type of interactions:

           

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. [...] One strong but flexible faculty leader and several ambitious but reasonable fellows makes the best mix, I think. (Fellow 17)

 

[The ideal faculty member should have 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. (Fellow 11)

 

In sum, the ideal faculty member is, at a minimum, respectful and collegial, interested in (but not excessively controlling of) what happens in sections, and open to fellows’ input regarding course development. Even better is one who serves as a mentor, providing guidance with teaching, scholarship, and professional development. The best are fully aware of the fellows’ unique and sometimes difficult status (not TAs, not full faculty) and actively work to incorporate the fellows into department functions.

 

 

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?

 

Just over half (17 of 32) of the respondents felt that the classes effectively taught and built on the skills in the ways intended by the one-two structure:

 

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 [....] Getting across the skills-based approach in both contexts is a challenge, but one I think that IHUM has trained us to handle well. (Fellow 20)

 

Students clearly advance from fall to winter/spring in terms of their oral and written communication skills and their critical thinking skills. [...] 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. (Fellow 2)

 

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. (Fellow 27)

 

The remaining fellows (15 of 32) felt that the structure was not working very well (the principal reason cited was that students have such a varied experience in the fall that it is unwise to assume that any specific set of skills had been taught):

 

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. (Fellow 7)

 

I found there to be little if any connection. One rarely encountered the same students and thus could not rely on uniform preparation. (Fellow 9)

 

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. (Fellow 10).

 

One fellow made a suggestion for alleviating this problem:

[If] you want to use the fall quarter to impart a given set of skills to the whole freshman class, and then shuffle the freshmen up into a whole new set of courses in the winter, you need to institute some uniformity into what and how they are taught in the fall. (Fellow 30)

 

 

5. In your opinion, how well does the one-two structure of IHUM work?

 

Out of 28 responses, 21 fellows reported that the structure worked well or very well:

 

I think it works well! How else could it be structured? 1-1-1? That would be too fragmented. And a year-long course would be too much of the same thing. (Fellow 4)

 

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. (Fellow 10)

 

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. (Fellow 22)

 

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. (Fellow 27)

 

7 thought that the structure is not working well, the chief reason being the variable quality and focus of fall courses:

 

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. (Fellow 5)

 

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. (Fellow 17)

 

From the responses to Questions 4 and 5, one gathers that the fellows in general feel that the one-two structure is theoretically sound but, because of the range of students’ fall-quarter experience, fellows find that they often need to re-teach some academic skills that were not picked up (or were taught differently) in the fall.

 

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?

 

Fellows were almost evenly divided regarding the extent to which faculty incorporate non-canonical works: 15 of 31 said ‘to a great extent’ or ‘to some extent’; 16 of 31 said ‘very little’ or ‘not at all.’

 

As a group, the fellows feel that there should be more texts from outside the traditional Western canon. Of this group, 3 felt that greater inclusion should be mandated, for example:

 

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. (Fellow 10)

 

However, all of the others (26 of 29) rejected the idea of having such inclusion be made mandatory. They acknowledged the importance of exposing students to non-western, non-majority viewpoints, but stressed that it is more important to have texts that fit into the course well.

           

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. (Fellow 4)

 

Certainly [Course A] could not be more dead-white-male dominated. The same pretty much holds true for [Course B] 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. (Fellow 7)

 

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. (Fellow 13)

 

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. (Fellow 21)

 

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. (Fellow 25)

 

In sum, fellows want broader inclusion, hope that faculty will honestly consider ways to incorporate non-Western, non-canonical readings, and want included in the IHUM curriculum courses that move beyond the traditional canon, but they also approve of some courses remaining predominately Western so long as some efforts to broaden the perspectives on these texts are made.

 

 

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?

 

All respondents judged student writing to be very important. Fellows reported that they taught writing both during section time and in one-on-one meetings with students. Specific details regarding the design of assignments can best be gleaned from the representative comments below:

 

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. (Fellow 31)

 

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. (Fellow 29)

 

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. (Fellow 33)

 

However, some (5) felt that there are some problems with how writing is approached. Some examples of this view follow:

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. (Fellow 13)

 

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. (Fellow 20)

 

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. (Fellow 26)

 

The overall sense from these responses is that writing is a crucial part of IHUM courses and receives considerable attention from teaching fellows, but in some cases it is not incorporated successfully into the course as a whole.

 

 

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?

 

Almost all (26 out of 31) of the fellows reported that the faculty followed the 3-5 text mandate (those that said otherwise reported that an exception had been made for their course).

 

Most (18 of the 21 who addressed this part of the question) responded that using 3-5 texts works because it imparts skills of careful analysis and also sets the right pace for first year students:

 

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. (Fellow 3)

 

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 [...] 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. (Fellow10)

 

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. (Fellow 22)

 

However, those who pointed out disadvantages said that the mandate fails when texts were not chosen carefully. 5 pointed out that the benefits were not reaped because the faculty pushed the upper limit (by selecting long texts and/or requiring course readers), and 4 observed that some texts simply did not require the amount of time given to them and students were ready to move on. A few representative quotations:

 

At times it's been good to have fewer texts [...] 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. (Fellow 15)

 

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. (Fellow 20)

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. (Fellow 16)

 

[T]here 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. (Fellow 17)

 

In sum, most fellows think the mandate works when it is properly applied. Students pick up the desired analytical skills, have more time to prepare for and perform well in section, and become properly acclimated to academic work in the humanities. However, when courses either try to squeeze too much in or else linger too long with a text that does not reward close reading then the beneficial effects are lost.

 

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.

 

Most (20 of 33) of the fellows felt that the interdisciplinary structure is effective in exposing students to diverse views on humanistic texts.

 

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. (Fellow 8)

 

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. (Fellow 13).

 

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. (Fellow 23)

 

6 reported that the structure is somewhat effective, or more effective some times than others:

 

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. (Fellow 6)

I have seen it work at times in [Course A]. For [Course B], 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, though). 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. (Fellow 20)

 

7 concluded that the interdisciplinary approach was ineffective, as elaborated in this response:

 

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 discipline 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. (Fellow 16)

 

In sum, the fellows seem enthusiastically supportive of this feature of the program and direct criticism not at the idea behind the interdisciplinary structure but at the failure of some courses effectively to implement strategies that make the structure work.

 

 

10. What do you see as the main functions of section? Do they in general fulfill those functions?

 

Fellows in general agreed about the role of sections, the following being among the most commonly reported (in roughly descending order) functions: to build on material in lectures by going into greater detail; to facilitate discussions among students; to model and develop reading, speaking, listening and writing skills; to encourage students to develop and grapple with the ideas of the course; to clarify lectures; to help students learn from each other; to help students adjust to college-level work.

 

Most (22 out of the 27 who responded to the second question) of the fellows believed that sections were meeting these goals; 4 said that the sections met some goals but not others.

 

Some representative quotations follow:

 

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. (Fellow 1)

 

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. (Fellow 4)

 

Sections should be the sites of creativity, where students grapple with new ideas. (Fellow 9)

 

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. (Fellow 16)

 

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. (Fellow 19)

 

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. (Fellow 26)

 

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?

 

Nearly all of the fellows (25 of 33) thought the current system works just fine, but many stressed the importance of more strictly regulating the section size (suggestions for the maximum ranged from 12 to 18; suggestions for the minimum ranged from 9 to 11). 22 of the 26 who responded to the duration question thought the length of time for sections was good; 4 thought shorter sections would be better.

 

12. Do you feel that working in IHUM has contributed to your professional development? If so, how?

 

All respondents (33) pointed out that they derived some form of professional development from being a fellow in the IHUM program. Fellows report that their teaching has improved (23); that their intellectual interests have broadened due to IHUM’s interdisciplinary approach (12); that they have benefited from IHUM’s research support (funds and leave quarters) (8); and that they have made fruitful professional contacts (6).

 

Although the responses were all positive, 5 were tempered with a few points of criticism:

 

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 [...], I have not been able to participate in many of the IHUM social activities, computer tutorials, etc (Fellow 13)

 

Yes and no. It certainly helped me as seminar leader. [...] 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. (Fellow 11)

 

It remains a bit frustrating to be in basically a 'teaching assistant' role without overarching control of the course—but I’m hoping to take advantage of the benefits of this by using the time gained for my own pursuits. (Fellow 25)

 

For the most part, yes. I have gained a great deal of teaching experience, which I did not get in graduate school. [...] 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. (Fellow 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 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. (Fellow 32)

 

The other 29 responses were more unambiguously positive:

 

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. (Fellow 2)

 

Yes. Most importantly, the pedagogical brainstorming sessions we had for three years in [Course A] taught me practically everything I know about teaching writing and about teaching first-year students. That part was *great*. (Fellow 6)

 

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. (Fellow 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. (Fellow 18)

 

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. (Fellow 20)

 

2 fellows specifically questioned the long-term value to their job search:

 

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. (Fellow 8)

 

I've learned a great deal in each of the courses I taught [but] I don't think it made much difference in the job market. (Fellow 9)

 

But 5 former fellows reported that IHUM helped them land their current position (three examples follow):

     

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(Fellow 23)

 

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. (Fellow 17)

 

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. (Fellow 6)

 

 

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?

 

All of the fellows felt adequately trained, from prior experience, from the pedagogy workshops, and/or from interactions with their peers. Specific suggestions can be found below.

 

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. (Fellow 2)

 

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. (Fellow 17)

 

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. (Fellow 23)

 

 

14. Overall, have you been satisfied with your participation in IHUM?

 

Of the 29 responses to this question, only one reported a strong sense of dissatisfaction with the program:

 

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. [...] 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. (Fellow 32)

 

7 of the 29 stated that they were satisfied with their participation, despite a few points of criticism (most often related to the subordinate role of the fellow):

 

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. (Fellow 2)

 

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. (Fellow 13)

 

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]. (Fellow 21)

 

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. (Fellow 30)

 

The other 21 expressed a more clearly enthusiastic sense of satisfaction with their participation:

 

Yes, I have been. It’s a great program for both the students and those teaching in it. Thank you! (Fellow 10)

 

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. (Fellow 17)

It has been a terrific experience! Challenging at times, but I wouldn’t have wanted to spend the last three years any other way. (Fellow 18)

 

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. (Fellow 19)

 

Extremely!! (Fellow 23)

 

I am more than satisfied with the IHUM program—it is a great program. (Fellow 29)

 

 

15. Do you have any other comments that you think would be useful to the IHUM self-study?

 

The responses to this open question ranged widely. Some respondents focused on improving the status of the teaching fellows and thereby better utilizing their talents:

 

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. [...] 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 8)

 

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 29)

 

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. (Fellow 34)

 

Two fellows specifically stressed a point (made by others elsewhere) that faculty need to be held to higher standards:

 

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 [...] 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... (Fellow 7)

 

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 21)

 

Three fellows suggested that a better system be developed for paying the adjunct fellows who do replacement teaching for fellows on leave. For example:

 

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. (Fellow 13)

 

Three fellows focused on the relationship students have with the program, pointing out the need for more course choice, more work to reverse the negative opinions some undergrads have of IHUM, and more contact with faculty:

 

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. (Fellow 3)

 

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. (Fellow 28)

 

Many respondents either offered no suggestions, or offered words of support instead:

 

Overall – you guys are doing an excellent job and the program is valuable beyond words! (Fellow 19)

 

I think this is a great program both for us TF's and for the students. I have learned immensely in my very very intense years of IHUM... (Fellow 27)

 

I just can't say enough good about the IHUM program in general or this particular version of it. (Fellow 23)

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 17)