Mariam Abdelmalak's Blog: Teaching Graduate Students

Mariam Abdelmalak's Blog: Teaching Graduate Students: Educators of graduate students may need to explain the reasons for asking students to participate in an experience and expa...

Teaching Graduate Students

Educators of graduate students may need to explain the reasons for asking students to participate in an experience and expand their traditional role. Adult students, as Knowles et al (2005; 1998) and Grow (1991) argue, need to be given explanations and evidence that carrying out some activities carries benefits for them. Grow (1991) argues that adult learners will be motivated and encouraged when they are given clear explanations of why the experience is important.

 Educators of graduate students need to be willing to share power with students and to be guided by their interests and needs in such a way that encourages students’ input in the course content, the format in which the material is presented, and the manner in which their performance is assessed. The shift of content from being the instructor’s sole possession to something that is presented in response to the expressed interests and needs of students can contribute to graduate students’ engagement and ownership of learning. Educators of graduate students need to be flexible and sensitive to respond to students’ learning needs and the direction in which the students want to take the curriculum. However, students might not have enough or might not have the right kind of knowledge and skills to participate in curriculum design. Therefore, a move toward involving learners in curriculum decision-making requires flexibility and risk-taking, and entails a strong faith in the capacity of learners. Besides, faculty need to be willing to suspend their own judgments over the suitability or value of students’ suggestions and ideas for classroom work, in the spirit of drawing out and building upon the learners’ own capacity to create knowledge.

Graduate students, after spending so many years in traditional educational settings, have been trained to be dependent on teachers to teach them, which may make it difficult to invite them to determine what they would want to learn. Hence, educators need to consider possible difficulties that students may experience due to their familiarity with an education system where teachers have dominated the classroom. We educators and students need to challenge these habits and confront fundamental questions about the nature of teaching and learning. We educators need to engage in critical reflection to understand the dynamics of power in the classroom and to uncover the hegemonies that drive our practices. We must be alert to the presence of power in our classrooms and its potential for misuse. This may help us to be more aware of the effects we are having on students. As Brookfield (1995) argues, “Becoming alert to the oppressive dimensions of our practices (many of which reflect an unquestioned acceptance of values, norms, and practices defined for us by others) is often the first step in working more democratically and cooperatively with students” (p. 9). 

Meeting graduate students’ needs is essential. Having the opportunity to develop objectives and topics based on their perceived needs and goals can make the course meaningful, encourage students’ investment in the course, improve their motivation to learn, and enhance their sense of ownership of learning. This indicates the significance of creating a space for graduate students to develop learning objectives for themselves based on their felt needs and interests. Involving adult students in developing learning objectives for themselves is critical for their involvement and learning (Knowles et al., 2005; Mackeracher, 2004; Wlodkowski, 1999; DeVries & Zan, 2005; Auerbach, 1992). According to DeVries and Zan (2005), “Adults are often capable of constructive effort even when interest is at a low level [...] however, the absence of interest can prevent effective effort. When our interest is thoroughly engaged, our efforts are most productive” (p. 63).

Involving graduate students in designing course assignments can give them a sense of control over their own learning, which can encourage them to take responsibility for their own learning. The traditional role, in which the instructor has power to make all decisions relating to the education of students, needs to change into a partnership. In this partnership, students are encouraged to take some control of their education, including some control over their own assessment. Heron (1979) asserted that no relation of partnership between students and faculty would be complete without the consideration of giving students some control over assessment. Heron said, “If there is no staff/student collaboration in assessment, then staff exert a stranglehold that inhibits the development of collaboration with respect to all other processes” (p. 13). Therefore, assessment needs to move to a cooperative relation in which the assessment is “jointly owned by both staff and students” (Boud & Prosser, 1980, p. 26). However, inviting students to have some control over assessment does not mean that students no longer need the instructor’s help. Graduate students need some control of the assessment process, but also they need the instructor’s intervention through the process. They need the instructor as a facilitator who guides without telling them what to do. This suggests the need to achieve a balance between student control and the instructor’s facilitation in a way that does not undermine students from assuming responsibility in the pursuit of understanding and developing new knowledge.

  

Combining different delivery modes with inviting graduate students to choose their mode of participation can accommodate a face-to-face class to students’ different needs and life situations. This in turn can enhance students’ motivation to learn, engagement, and participation in the course. This indicates the significance of flexible delivery with giving students the opportunity to choose their mode of participation. Graduate students as adult learners need flexible instruction that extends the boundaries of learning so that learning can occur in the classroom, from home, and in the workplace. The goal is to provide quality-learning experiences through a consideration of the learners’ personal characteristics, work responsibilities, learning needs, and personal circumstances (Espinoza & Pannell, 2002; Casey & Wilson, 2005; Iqbal, 2011). Educators of graduate students are actively encouraged to find effective and flexible delivery models to provide all students with more convenient access to quality learning experiences than is possible with traditional on campus offerings alone.

Blending multiple delivery modes with the choice of how students can complete course activities during any given week or for any given topic can offer a way to differentiate instruction to meet students’ different learning styles and strategies. Educators of graduate students need to consider the learning needs of individual learners and focus on producing learning with every learner by whatever means work best for them. This requires that instructors of graduate students value providing participation choices to students more than they value forcing everyone into the “best” way of learning a set of content. Educators of graduate students are highly encouraged to find ways to supplement traditional classroom-based classes by alternative instructional delivery methods to provide all students with more convenient access to quality learning experiences that match their preferences, schedules, and professional goals.

The flexible approach toward participation can give graduate students some control over the time and place of their participation, thus a feeling of being more in control of their own learning approach. This suggests that educators of graduate students need to develop courses and instructional activities in a way that allows learners to take some control over their learning environment. Allowing graduate students to control (or at least influence) the pacing and specific activities in a learning environment can improve their learning experience (Beatty, 2010) and increase their motivation and engagement in the learning process (Wlodkowski, 1999).

Mariam Abdelmalak's Blog: Critical Pedagogy and Democratic Education

Mariam Abdelmalak's Blog: Critical Pedagogy and Democratic Education: Critical pedagogies (e.g. Dewey, 1938; Freire, 1993; Shor, 1992; 1996) criticize the imbalance of power between educators a...

Critical Pedagogy and Democratic Education

Critical pedagogies (e.g. Dewey, 1938; Freire, 1993; Shor, 1992; 1996) criticize the imbalance of power between educators and students. Freire (1993) criticizes the “banking” model of education in which the relation between an educator and students is described as a “A over B” relation. In the banking model of education, educators are the primary decision makers and sole deliverers of knowledge. Freire describes the banking approach to teaching and learning as follows:

a) The teacher teaches and the students are taught; b) the teacher knows everything and the students know nothing; c) the teacher thinks and the students are thought about; d) the teacher talks and the students listen-meekly; e) the teacher disciplines and the students are disciplined; f) the teacher chooses and enforces his [her] choice, and the students comply; g) the teacher acts and the students have the illusion of acting through the action of the teacher; h) the teacher chooses the content and the students, who were not consulted, adapt to it. (p. 54)

Freire argues that in the “banking” model of teaching and learning, educators control students’ thinking and action, leading to students’ passivity and inhibiting their “creative power” (p. 58).  For democratic education, Freire (1993) argues, “Education must begin with the solution of the teacher-student contradiction” (p. 72). The contradiction that Freire meant is the hierarchical relationship between the teacher and students in which the teacher is seen the expert who owns the knowledge and knows everything and students know nothing. Rather, Freire emphasizes the partnership between the educator and students. He describes such partnership as one in which both students and the educator learn from each other in a way that “they become jointly responsible for a process in which all grow” (p. 61). To accomplish such partnership, there should be a horizontal relationship between the educator and students in which the role of the educator is “to create, together with students” the conditions of learning (p. 62). Freire argues that dialogue has the power to break the vertical relationship between teachers and students and transform it to a democratic relation in which both teachers and students have a voice. He emphasizes, “Through dialogue, the teacher-of-the-students and the students-of the-teacher […] The teacher is no longer merely the one who teaches, but one who is himself taught in dialogue with the students, who in their turn while being taught also teach” (p. 61).

Much in line with Freire’s ideas, the critical educator Ira Shor (1992; 1996) asserts that students’ meaningful participation in their learning provides an important basis for constructing the fundamental imperatives of a strong democracy. Shor (1992) argues that democracy is a process of open communication and mutual governance in a community of shared power, where all members can express ideas, frame purposes, and act on intentions. Shor (1996) further argues that democratic principles can be fostered and realized in the classroom community when power in the classroom is shared so that students are able to actively participate in the learning process. For Shor, without student active participation in decision-making, the classroom will be a place of undemocratic transfers of information, and students will develop as authority-dependent subordinates, not as democratic citizens. In contrast, Shor explains, when higher education seeks to maximize students’ participation in decision-making, they develop intellectual curiosity, scientific thinking, cooperative relations, social habits, and self-discipline. Sharing the decision-making power with students can serve as an important means to help realize the vital goals of democratic education. 

However, teaching democratically by involving students in the decision making power does not mean that faculty abdicate their authority (Schultz & Oyler, 2006; Weimer, 2002; Oyler, 1996; Brookfield, 1995). Kreisberg (1992) agues, “‘Power with’ is not a zero-sum proposition where one person gains the capacity to achieve his or her desires at the expense of others” (p. 71). Rather, the “power with” relation, Kreisberg explains, manifests in relationships of “co-agency”, in which “individuals and groups fulfill their desires by acting together” (pp. 85-86). Therefore, as Oyler (1996) argues, sharing power with students does not mean that the instructor “moves out of the students’ way to the soft place of abdicated authority” (p. 24). Rather, Schultz and Oyler (2006) explain, the instructor should remain a member of the classroom as decisions are being made. Also, Shor (1992) argues that sharing power with students does not mean students can do whatever they like in the classroom, neither can the teacher do whatever she or he likes. What it does mean, as Brookfield (1995) explains, is that educators make an effort to create conditions under which all voices can be heard, and in which educational processes are seen to be open and genuine negotiation. 

Mariam Abdelmalak's Blog: Dewey and Democratic Education

Mariam Abdelmalak's Blog: Dewey and Democratic Education: MODERN life means democracy, democracy means freeing intelligence for independent effectiveness-the emancipation of mind as...

Dewey and Democratic Education

MODERN life means democracy, democracy means freeing intelligence for independent effectiveness-the emancipation of mind as an individual organ to do its own work. We naturally associate democracy with freedom of action, but freedom of action without freed capacity of thought behind it is only chaos. (Dewey, 1903, p. 193). 

Democracy for Dewey means freedom of mind in discovering and proof; it is a free capacity to think for one’s self. For Dewey, democracy entails finding conditions to “the development of individual mental power and to adequate responsibility for its use” (p. 194). Students’ meaningful participation in their learning sets up the conditions for freedom of thought. Dewey argued that the growth of freedom of thought entails that students participate in determining the conditions and the aims of their own work. Dewey explained:

Until the emphasis changes to the conditions which make it necessary for the [student] to take an active share in the personal building up of his own problems and to participate in methods of solving them […] mind is not really freed. (1903, p. 201) 

Accordingly, students’ meaningful participation in their learning is another fundamental principle of democracy (Dewey, 1903; 1938). When it came to democratic education, Dewey (1938) was clear about students’ active participation in their learning. Dewey emphasized participation as the point at which democracy and learning meet in the classroom. For Dewey, participation is democratic when students construct purposes and meaning, carry out plans, and evaluate results. For Dewey, learning material supplied by others is a denial of democracy. He argued, “To subject mind to an outside and ready-made material is a denial of the ideal of democracy, which roots itself ultimately in the principle of moral, self-directing individuality” (Dewey, 1903, p. 199). From Dewey’s perspective, the external and ready-made material “tends automatically to perpetuate the very conditions of inefficiency, lack of interest, inability to assume positions of self-determination” (p. 198). In other words, by creating the environment and learning experiences that bring student to actively participate in making decisions in the learning process, faculty can develop the skills needed to make democracy a reality with their students. Dewey (1903) asserts that the process for reaching democratic education principles should be participatory and inclusive; the student has “a share in determining the conditions and the aims of his own work” (p. 179).