Notes from Discussion about Defensive Climate

April 15 and 22

getting to know students' names

(notes submitted by Chris Waters for his group's discussion)

Tammy, Hannah, Doug, and I came up with the following strategies, in
case you are collecting them:

For a lecture, it might help for a lecturer to ask a student's name,
major, hometown, or the like to get to know the student a bit when the
student asks a question.

In section, instructors could have an ice-breaking session, where
students introduce themselves and state some "interesting" fact about
themselves.  Or, students can introduce themselves in counter-rotating
circles, much like a cocktail party introduction game.  Then the
circles introduce themselves in a group to their own circle.  A
picture makes this much clearer.

Using names to take attendance and in assigning groupwork helps to
familiarize instructors with students' names.

In the Social Work department, classes routinely have class parties,
or provide food if the class falls near a meal time or a snack time.
Their classes are quite cohesive, in my opinion.  I think that
providing food for classmates says: I care enough to be responsible
for you in this way.  I have found this to be a good way to build
class cooperation and trust.

______________________________________________________________________
on-line discussion area scenario (real!)

Dimitriy's informal description:

  ...here's something else to think about -- bboards.
 
  This quarter in 143, there've been some discussions about people
  building their own windows managers, about c vs c++ vs objective c
  vs java, and so on.  And then there was this post by one of the
  students:
 
  "One thing I wonder about is I am taking the class that full of
  experienced programmers. "
 
  I'm sure he isn't the only one thinking about this...
 
  So should this be a concern?  If so, is there something we
  (instructors) could do about things like this?
 
  Thoughts?

......................................................................

For each solution proposed in 590ET discussion, pros and cons raised
during discussion are listed.

separate discussion areas (e.g., "on topic" and "open forum")

  (+) could combat student perception that overachievement is
      prerequisite or equivalent to success in CSE

  (-) relies on students being able to choose appropriate discussion
      area for posting their mess

  (-) if "open forum" is not named carefully (e.g., "advanced"), could
      be perceived as official recognition of overachievement by some
      students (reverse of effect described above)

  (-) could damage cohesiveness of student community within class by
      separating groups of students

instructor moderation
 
  (+) assured effectiveness at eliminating unwanted posting

  (-) could be too restrictive, reducing student-initiated discussion
      and diminishing students' sense of ownership of discussion area

instructor sending message to author of unwanted message privately

  (+) avoids potential humiliation of publicly reprimanding author

  (-) doesn't communicate to other students that message was
      inappropriate or consistent with normal faculty expectations of
      students

instructor announcing ground rules for discussion, including
expectations of students and goals/purpose of discussion area

  (-) relies on students to enforce for themselves

  (+) relies on students to enforce for themselves, strengthening
      students' sense of ownership of discussion area

eliminate discussion areas altogether
 
  (+) discourages procrastination where student waits until difficult
      issues are discussed and resolved in the discussion area before
      starting work on an assignment

  (+) assured effectiveness at eliminating unwanted posting...and
      everything else!

  (-) fails to address core issue; unwanted communication (e.g.,
      posturing) likely to continue in other social contexts, other
      forms of communication

  (-) sacrifices potential for discussion areas to foster communities,
      engage in legitimate collaboration, encourage non-spoken
      participation (esp. critical for large lecture courses); i.e.,
      "throws out the baby with the bath water"

officially recognize certain postings as "key," "official" with a
stamp of approval.

  (-) no real effect; students already capable of distinguishing
      important postings from posturing and other unwanted postings