Guest Blog by Bruce Reider, DJIMO Faculty/CGSC
Kevin Drum, blogging in Mother Jones on 16 June, writes provocatively about the links between teaching, critical thinking, and writing (“Public vs. Private Universities: A Reply from the Trenches”). Link below.
In my opinion Mr. Drum describes precisely what CGSC ought to expect from its faculty. “For students to really engage with the material they’re reading in books and hearing about in lectures, someone smart and knowledgeable has to lead a small-group discussion. For them to learn how to make an argument and defend it against objections, they have to write lots of papers, be able to work on them with someone who knows how to write and also knows the subject matter, and have them graded by someone in a position to make serious comments so they can do better next time.” Mr Drum makes four key points. First, the teacher must be able to lead small-group discussion. Leading and facilitating a small-group discussion is an art. Second, the students need to develop and hone their critical thinking skills and ability by writing, lots of writing. Writing forces the student to put their thoughts on paper and to purposefully chose the right words to make a point and defend it. Third, the teacher must not only know the subject matter but also how to write. Writing is hard work; most of us improve only through practice. If the teacher is not a good writer, how can they help the student become a better writer? Finally, Mr. Drum points out the importance of feedback. Feedback is more than simply putting a grade on an assignment. Feedback should provide the student a critique of their work that focuses on the logic and reasoning of their argument.
Bruce
Link to blog: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/06/public-vs-private-universities-reply-trenches
One Comment on "On Teaching and Writing"
As a licensed teacher in the State of Ohio with one undergraduate and two graduate-level degrees in education, I was very pleased to read the recent blog entries by Mr. Drum on 16 June and Mr. Reider on 25 June. I have included both blog links below for reference.
As an officer, I had the honor to serve as an education officer/curriculum developer at the United States Military Academy/West Point as well as a military science instructor for Army ROTC at a well-known university in northeast Ohio. I am very passionate about education. I want to comment on Mr. Drum’s statement: “For students to really engage with the material they’re reading in books and hearing about in lectures, someone smart and knowledgeable has to lead a small-group discussion.”
While I do not disagree that small-group discussion can be a very effective classroom teaching method and that a smart, knowledgeable person must lead the exercise, I offer that the students’ or audience’s preparedness is equally important. As pointed out by Dr. Joseph Lowman in his book, Mastering the Techniques of Teaching, “The largest constraint on the use of discussion is time” (pg. 175). To combat this constraint, the facilitator and the audience must be adequately prepared for discussion.
CGSC does a great job framing lessons by providing advance sheets to students that provide each lesson’s scope, learning objectives, reading assignments and guiding questions to reflect on in preparation for discussion. Preparedness comes from reflection—reflection on the assigned readings and the individual’s past experiences. To make classroom discussion effective, students must come prepared to discuss. The facilitator’s role should be the “guide on the side” versus the “sage on the stage.” He or she must be able to gently shape and steer the discussion and ensure the lesson’s objectives are accomplished, but the students should be doing most of the talking.
As officers, NCOs, or contracted instructors, we are charged with the responsibility to teach, coach and mentor our subordinates. This is accomplished through a variety of formal and informal learning opportunities and experiences. Some of these opportunities and experiences include initial entry training, professional development classes, counseling sessions, OPDs and NCODPs, training exercises, real-world deployments, sergeant’s time training, staff rides, and annual training. Through reflection and discussion, our experiences shape our overall understanding of the environment.
Different experiences present different levels of understanding. In my opinion, the key to learning and growing, is taking something new—reflecting on it—and then applying it in some fashion to something I already know. This deepens my understanding and allows me the opportunity to pursue the topic even further through reading and/or conversation with others.
In academia, there is an obvious difference between training and educating. Some have defined the difference as the “know how” (training) versus the “know why” (education). Through preparedness (i.e., focused reading, reflection and discussion), we can get at the “why.” There is no guarantee that all students will benefit from small-group discussion; however, with individual preparation on the part of the facilitator and the students, the opportunity is greatly increased.
MAJ Chad DeBos
ILE Student, Class 12-002
Redstone Arsenal
On Teaching and Writing:
http://usacacblogs.army.mil/arguingtheoperationalenvironment/2012/06/174/
Public vs. Private Universities: A Reply from the Trenches:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/06/public-vs-private-universities-reply-trenches