Adapting My Philosophy of Teaching
to Varying Instructional Modalities & Environments
While effective teaching strategies have changed very little over the ages—Socrates understood inquiry and the need for dialogue; Comenius understood the power of visual images—the technologies by which we deliver those strategies has changed immensely. It no longer is necessary for students and teacher to occupy the same physical space nor even the same moment in time, and students have greater access to information almost instantly. My responsibility is to adapt effective teaching strategies to varying instructional modalities, thereby providing students with comparable learning experiences in face-to-face, hybrid, and online learning environments.
Face-to-face environments allow students to interact more holistically with each other and with the instructor. Nuances of facial expressions, body language, and intonation convey shades of meaning not immediately evident in online discussions and provide immediate, if subtle, feedback. Conversation flows more naturally as participants overlap statements, add asides, and combine voices. Embodied teaching strategies, which I use, include role-playing, tableaux, sensory-specific demonstrations, and embodied surveys. Such tools combine visual, aural, and kinesthetic modalities, and the energy generated in the immediacy of the moment is difficult to replicate online.
However, not everything about a face-to-face environment is positive.
Either way, many face-to-face strategies can be adapted to online environments:
Face-to-face environments allow students to interact more holistically with each other and with the instructor. Nuances of facial expressions, body language, and intonation convey shades of meaning not immediately evident in online discussions and provide immediate, if subtle, feedback. Conversation flows more naturally as participants overlap statements, add asides, and combine voices. Embodied teaching strategies, which I use, include role-playing, tableaux, sensory-specific demonstrations, and embodied surveys. Such tools combine visual, aural, and kinesthetic modalities, and the energy generated in the immediacy of the moment is difficult to replicate online.
However, not everything about a face-to-face environment is positive.
- Interpersonal conflicts can arise and cliques can form more readily in face-to-face settings. Because I believe students benefit by interacting with as many other people in the class as possible, I use first-day icebreaker activities and, later, speed-dating techniques for students to share their work briefly with each other. While students usually can choose groups for out-of-class assignments, I sometimes assign students to random groups for in-class activities (e.g., birthdays in January-March, etc.). Such activities tend to refocus attention, disperse negative energy, lessen tension, and allow new collegial relationships to form.
- Attendance and participation requirements can provoke resentment among students juggling multiple responsibilities who don’t always grasp the benefits of in-person courses. Within the parameters of official policies, I usually build into my assignment schedule, one graded activity per in-class session, and I do not allow these activities to be made up or to be excused for any reason. I keep the point value low enough that the only students penalized in terms of a letter grade are those who miss many classes but complete other assignments in an acceptable manner. Depending on official policies and expectations, a student might earn an A- instead of an A or a B instead of an A. This rewards students who do come to class without totally discounting the work of those who don’t or can’t attend on a regular basis.
- A cramped classroom can cause discomfort and can prohibit using more active teaching strategies. Most activities can be modified—using puppets, for instance, instead of embodied role-playing—but I also have taken classes outdoors or found other unused spaces in which we can meet. While I am not shy about using appropriate channels to request a room change, I also recognize a sense of humor goes a long way toward making the best of things that can’t be changed.
Either way, many face-to-face strategies can be adapted to online environments:
- Instructor-narrated, animated PowerPoints, Prezis, or videoed demonstrations provide virtual, multi-modal opportunities for students to experience content. Many topical Web sites offer videos, Web quests, games and other activities that can be used alongside textbooks and other materials. For example, I may ask students to analyze a short video using the criteria discussed in a textbook passage or to create a presentation or video demonstrating a concept found in a textbook passage.
- Discussion boards, Google Docs, class blogs, Twitter feeds, and Facebook pages allow students to connect around a topic, to expand each other’s thinking, and to form collegial relationships. Quieter students sometimes have more opportunity, than in a face-to-face course, to offer input and to receive feedback. I also learn, from monitoring such tools, how students perceive content and activities, what questions have yet to be answered, and what misconceptions have arisen. Based on this information, I then can shape future modules or sessions to correct or augment students’ thinking.
- Skype, Facetime, and Elluminate offer virtual meeting spaces for groups of varying sizes. Skype and Factime allow students to see facial expressions and hear voice intonations; Elluminate’s combination of live-stream chat area and voice participation allows students two methods of participating in sessions. Using any of the three tools, students and I can share text and drawings (held up to the camera or posted on Elluminate’s whiteboard) and can hold group conversations in real time.