Introductions

I have been struck by the ways instructors begin their courses, in other words, by what happens the first day of the graduate-level course. I'm pretty certain that in all of my courses, two things have happened in that first session:

1.) a form of "getting to know who is in the room" and
2.) getting to know the content of what the class will engage.

I am curious about the ways in which this first day shapes subsequent interactions and relationships in the classroom and outside. Below are three different ways I've seen this happen, all with instructors who are versed in critical pedagogy. The courses had between six and twenty students, and in all of them, everyone sat at tables in a square, with the instructor at the "head" of the table.

What teaching is occurring in how this takes place? How conscious are these choices? How do they help to shape what happens for the rest of the semester?

Example One: The instructor asks students to each fill out a paper with various questions about themselves, including past experiences with the topics, what they are studying, why they are taking the class, etc. After collecting these papers, she introduces the course. Students then pair up and "interview" each other, asking questions about life in school and out of school. They introduce each other, with the instructor going last. Then everyone goes over the syllabus together.

Example Two: Students introduce themselves, giving their program, research interests, and why they signed up to take the class. The instructor goes last, also introducing the course, its content, and goals, and then handing out the syllabus.

Example Three: The instructor outlines his view of what he hopes will happen in the space of the classroom, in terms of environment and interactions, in the process debunking some standard tropes about grad school (e.g., it is a competition to see who can prove their knowledge). He then introduces the course, including the texts, syllabus, etc. After a break, students introduce themselves and talk about one thing they hope to get out of the class or one thing to which they look forward.

While the syllabi for all of the courses were set, asking students what they are interested in opens space for both student investment in the course and each other and gives the instructor a sense of what students are hoping to get out of being there. Being introduced to each other also personalizes the space, making the class about who is in the room, not just the texts or the syllabus. Introducing the syllabus helps demystify what the course will cover. This is also a lot of information to take in, so I like the idea of example one, where the instructor had students record this info (privately) and could take it with her.

On the other hand, example two made me quite uncomfortable. Because not all students really knew what the course was about before having to say why they were interested in it, two things occurred: 1.) there was a little "one-up-personship" in which people could demonstrate (or not) their already-existing relationship to the presumed course content and 2.) when students weren't clear on what the course was, they either talked about things that the course wouldn't cover or about their understandings that were then "corrected" by the instructor's course introduction later. Rather than being positioned as knowers and learners, it created a weird hierarchy (or at least felt this way to me). In contrast, in example three, by going over the course content (including texts and assignments first), students could say something in which they were interested, even if they didn't know when they walked in the room, and were thus positioned differently.

I'm also curious about the differences created by having students introduce themselves versus having someone else do it. In the first, you talk once and spend the rest of the time listening (or trying to). In the second, you begin with more of a conversation, or at least an interaction. You also, however, have to try to present someone else fairly and accurately from a short interview--and this almost always means interpretation and differing emphases.

Finally, another curiosity is that I can generally remember what happened (in vague terms) in each of the first days of all my classes--and perhaps the last as well. In itself, this probably says something about the importance of these interactions. And, being a student now, I think it is important to think about so I can figure out my own philosophy before being too far removed from the experience of being the student.