Williams Home > Strategic Planning > Curricular Innovation > Phase II: Working Papers for Discussion > Formats of Instruction
Curricular Innovation/Working Paper #3
FORMATS OF INSTRUCTION
Overview
This set of issues concerns formats of instruction; its focus is on how we teach and how students learn, rather than on what we teach and what they learn. For this set of issues, indeed in the entire curricular innovation project, both our starting point and our bottom line are the following. As an institution, we want to offer the best curriculum possible, and within that, the best courses we can. Thus, the question is, can some attention to formats of instruction within the curricular innovation help us to do that? A number of proposals have argued, and we agree, that it can. Specifically, our attention has focused on experiential/ service learning and tutorials proposals.
Archive 3 contains all the proposals and comments the CEP has received on formats of instructions, and we are grateful to the authors for their permission to post the entire text of their messages. Below we pose questions for discussion and offer comments on each issue.
A note on class size and formats of instruction
We are aware that the issue of class size and class type (seminar, lecture, lecture/discussion) bears on the topic of formats of instruction and how students learn. Class size has been a topic of concern and attention for several years now; the 1998-99 CEP studied this issue and issued a statement to the faculty in March 1999 ("CEP Report on Class Size at Williams, March 1999")* The CEP wishes to make clear, first, that we do not believe that large classes are educationally inferior to small classes. Indeed, the CEP feels that not all classes need to be small or even should be small; it depends on the pedagogical goals and how they can best be accomplished. We are concerned that some students, depending on their choice of courses, spend a lot of their time and especially early in their Williams careers, in large classes and that for some students, depending on their choice of majors, this continues into the upper level courses as well. For those students, this is inconsistent both with their expectations in coming to a small college and with our goals of providing them with close faculty attention to develop skills and experience in critical thinking, writing, speaking, etc. Obviously this relates to many of the topics we are currently discussing, e.g., competencies, tutorial instruction, year-by-year proposals, as well as others yet to come, e.g., advising, course load reduction. This, then, is a reminder that whatever curricular innovation we seriously consider adopting in the end, we will need to evaluate its potential impact on class size from a "student-centric" perspective. Ideally, those innovations will help address this problem rather than exacerbate it.[* This statement and a set of data-rich related reports analyzing the problems by Richard Meyers of the Provost's office, can be found on the CEP web site (to access these, go to the Williams home page, link to Academics, link to Registrar, and type: /cep at the end of the address). The main conclusions of that study were that "class crowding" is a "real but highly localized" phenomenon, perhaps exacerbated by staffing policies that favored departments with high enrollments as well as by open student choices. Importantly, the report emphasized the necessity of considering not just mean class size across the college, but also the enrollment data from a "student-centric" perspective. It found that "over the past five years a typical Williams student has experienced a significant increase in the size of classes that he or she attends, from an average section size of 38.8 to 42.8. Over the same period, median section size has increased from 27-29. Perhaps more significantly, registrations in classes under 20 have declined, while registrations in large classes, those with enrollments over 35, have increased." (CEP Report on Class Size at Williams, March 1999, pp. 3-7).]
Finally, please note that in addition to class size, several of the "structural" curricular innovation ideas listed in the Phase I archive are also related to formats of instruction, e.g., the issue of whether to move to a credit hour system. We plan to address these later in curricular innovation discussions, as we are aware that these issues are related, e.g., a credit hour system might make certain kinds of experiential learning courses more viable. However, as noted earlier, we do not want to debate structural/ implementation issues in the abstract or at this time, but rather in the context of whatever curricular innovations we ultimately hope to adopt.
Questions and Issues
What is the role of experiential and service learning at Williams, now and in the future?
"Experiential" and "service learning" have become popular, widely and loosely used terms in higher education. Thus we begin with some definitions, however local they might be. By experiential learning we refer to learning by experience, i.e., learning by doing. This can include in-class exercises, labs, field work, practica, and internships. By service learning we mean learning while -- or as a result of -- providing help or service to others (individual people, an agency, or a cause). In certain cases, experiential and service learning might go on simultaneously; in other cases, not. For example:In short, experiential learning may, but does not necessarily, include service learning. For the purposes of the discussion, the CEP recommends using the broader term, "experiential learning." This is because, as elaborated below, we are most interested in those diverse "learning by doing" formats of instruction that will enhance students' learning and do not wish to imply that "service" is a necessary part of that.
- A winter study internship in an advertising agency would be experiential learning but probably not service learning.
- A sociology course in which students conduct needs assessments of people without health insurance would provide experiential learning and perhaps service learning opportunities as well.
- A psychology course in which students do a practicum in a mental hospital working directly with patients would probably provide both experiential and service learning opportunities; a practicum in which the student wound up filing charts in a mental hospital each time she went might be service, but it wouldn't involve much learning.
- An archeology course in which students spent time as apprentices on an excavation learning archeological skills would provide experiential learning but not service
- An art/architecture course in which students conduct community interviews with farmers, shopkeepers, developers etc. on "uses of the land" would provide experiential education but not service learning.
- A course in which students do oral histories with elders from the African-American community in Pittsfield for a term paper would be experiential learning but not service learning, although if the histories also were put to some community use it would be service learning as well.
The current state of experiential education at Williams
The CEP wishes to acknowledge that at present there is experiential learning happening at Williams in various domains. There are, for example, several courses that have been taught regularly which include some kind of field work or practicum within them: Applied Anthroplogy and Sociology, 2 Psychology Courses (Clinical and Community Psychology & Psychology of Education), the Practicing Feminism course offered by Women's and Gender Studies, and the EXPR course, "Service, Community and the Self." (Note: this is not an inclusive list, rather an illustrative one.) There are numerous other courses that include field work, labs, community interviews, and other mechanisms for helping students learn by doing. Various Gaudino program initiatives over the years have provided opportunties for curricular and extra-curricular experiential learning as have some Environmental Studies courses. In winter study, there are internship and "apprentice-like" learning opportunities, both locally (e.g., the pre-med program in which students follow local physicians) and in students' home communities. There is extra-curricular experiential learning happening in summer internships, and through substantial involvement of students in volunteer work.
We wish to focus discussion on the curricular opportunities for experiential learning. The question for community discussion at this point is: do we think there is something to be gained by encouraging faculty to offer more courses that include experiential learning, and by supporting them in doing so?
The CEP's discussion resulted in an enthusiastic and qualified, "yes."
First, the enthusiasm: Students who have taken courses with an experiential learning component report that they learn a tremendous amount in such courses. The courses are often overenrolled. Several students hoped that the college might offer more such courses, and expand them into new fields of study. The proposals by Diggs, Bacon, and Jackall offer compelling rationales for how learning can be enhanced by doing and for courses that might be especially suited to such.
Now, the qualifications: We feel strongly that learning can be enhanced by doing, but that the doing must be accompanied by reflective academic work in order to be maximally effective and to receive Williams College credit. We applaud and encourage the many volunteer service hours and paid internships and interesting campus jobs that Williams students do (where, we acknowledge, learning may often place), but are not suggesting giving course credit for these. We don't live in a world where you get "credit" for everything you do, or operate in a college environment where you get credit for life experiences.
Also, we do not feel that experiential education should be a graduation requirement. Unless Williams was to redefine its basic mission (a la Trinity College, for example) we feel that "learning by doing" should be at the discretion of the faculty who feel that students would learn more in their particular courses if they included experiential education, and at the discretion of students who choose to take such courses. In short, we think that some course naturally lend themselves to, and are enhanced by, a substantial experiential learning component, whereas many other courses do not. This innovation would provide resources and support for the former.
Two possible arenas for development of experiential education in the Williams curriculum
We discussed this in two domains, within the local community and "away."
Within the local communities. As noted above we might expand experiential education opportunities within Berkshire County and Southern Vermont. In this case, the experiential education would be a part of regular courses which students take on campus.
We recognize that if we go in this direction, this innovation might be strengthened and enhanced by the work of a coordinator. A couple of the proposals suggested that a coordinator could: 1) help faculty imagine such possibilities within their courses and to network with others who have experience 2) be a clearinghouse for requests from faculty (for experiential education sites) and from the community (for Williams student involvement in their programs), in essence, to build and nurture relations with community agencies, 3) provide nationally-available materials and support for faculty who request it. This is a matter for discussion during the implementation, once we have decided if we want to significantly expand the curricular opportunities for experiential education.
Outside the local community. Here we discussed the "Williams in NYC," "Williams in Washington," and "Williams in Chicago" program proposals. We were particularly enthusiastic about the "Williams in NYC" because of the proximity of NYC to the campus. We thought that it had a great deal of potential for enhancing the educational value of courses in various disciplines, such as Art History, History, Political Science, Sociology, Environmental Studies, Economics, and others, and that the location might also provide a home base for experiential or field work within regular courses. A Williams in New York center would be close enough to permit quality control and oversight by Williams faculty as well. It might help offset the way in which Williams' rural location, while wonderful in many ways, is limiting in others. While we love the log metaphor (which at once intones close student-faculty interaction and the rural setting) we are all aware that there is a wider world out there which, for certain educational purposes, might be brought closer to home with such a program. We are interested to hear what the community thinks about a "Williams home base" in New York where students could take the equivalent of two tutorial courses (taught by faculty approved by the program, as in Oxford) and do a half-time related internship. This would be akin to a "study abroad" semester but with more direct involvement of Williams faculty and closer quality control.
Should we expand the tutorial program?
Tutorials are almost unanimously considered a high level educational experience by the students and professors who have been involved. Proponents argue that they teach critical thinking, reading, and writing skills as well as skills in presenting and defending one's ideas orally -- competencies that we as a community have identified as critical to a liberal arts education. They are typically highly successful formats for training students to think for themselves. On the one hand, that alone justifies devoting more resources to the tutorial program (students say there are too few and want more tutorials offered in a wider range of topics).
At the same time, there are a few issues of concern about the tutorial program as it has evolved. First, departments are sometimes reluctant to allow faculty to offer them due to enrollment concerns, as tutorials are typically capped at 10. In fact, the records show that tutorial enrollments are often lower than 10, which the CEP sees as an under use of this resource. Second, there has been some diversity in the way in which this format of instruction is designed and carried out. Based loosely on the Oxford model, the classic ingredients are as follows: weekly meetings, by pairs of students with a professor; the students prepare for these meetings by working individually with a set of readings or problems. One student's work, typically a 5-7 page paper, is made available to the professor and the partner the night before their meeting. In the meeting, the student makes an oral presentation of his/her work and the other student provides a critique followed by a joint discussion. In some courses, the work might involve taking a stand on some controversy or question posed by the reading and arguing that position. In other courses, e.g. computer science, the work might involve reading research papers and critiquing algorithms and proofs contained therein. Highly successful tutorials at Williams have been offered in all three divisions, with such modifications. However, should the tutorial program be expanded, particularly if substantial resources were directed to it, we should work to ensure that all involved understand the purpose and definition of "tutorial," i.e, that it is something quite different from a very small seminar, or having students do independent study in the lab. We are interested in hosting broader discussions about what the essential, defining parameters of the "tutorial" format of instruction should be especially if there is enthusiasm among the faculty for expanding this program.
The only curricular caution regarding tutorials is that some faculty have persuasively argued in the past that they are not useful formats for conducting certain courses in certain areas, such as mathematics. Therefore we are not suggesting forcing them on anyone. Rather, if we as a body think there are intellectual and pedagogical reasons for expanding the tutorial program, we would be seeking ways to encourage students and faculty to participate.
In addition to the question of whether to expand the tutorial program or not, we would like the faculty to discuss the merits of offering tutorials at an advanced level, i.e., in more specialized courses, as is the case now, vs. expanding the program into the first or perhaps more appropriately, the sophomore year, as several proposals have suggested. The latter would have the advantage of capitalizing on the tutorial as a format of instruction well suited to teaching critical thinking, writing, and speaking competencies, and to doing that early in students' academic career. We note that discussion of this question dovetails not only with our thinking about competencies and how to promote them (see Working Paper #2), but also with considerations of the experiences and educational needs of students in each year, i.e., the proposals and issues raised in Working Paper #4. We look forward to an integrative discussion of these topics and perhaps to some final proposals that will meet multiple curricular goals.
Archive 3 - Formats of Instruction