Micro Pedagogy? Or: so HOW does this WORK?

Find a real 'piece of pedagogy' (an assignment, one sentence from a 'teacher's guide,' a chunk of your 'lesson plan' for a class (see below--way too big), a page of a textbook—whatever.  Just small and interesting), and explain how it works.  Or doesn't.  Or why we can't tell.  Or, or, or.

Our guide here is our focus on the ways all texts, actions, interactions, relationships, spaces, material features (of classroom and materials, but also of teacher and students—clothes, shapes, colors, say) set relationships among each other, and thus—inevitably—'teach.'

Sometimes they teach what we want and intend.  But in many interesting, scary situations they teach exactly what we didn't want: the 'hidden curriculum.'

In brief: this project asks us to bring concrete examples to what we theorized and discussed so elegantly, if abstractly.

___________

Robin Takes a Shot 

Background: 3331 Science Studies course.  Working on, roughly: 'bio-politics': exploring how science / technology are both informed by, and create possible 'new forms of life' (good and bad).  We started out with an article by Minnesota's Carl Elliot called 'A new way to be mad,' in which he explores to rise in incidences of apotemnophilia, a fascinating condition in which people declare that they have 'always seen themselves as amputees,' and go to gruesome lengths to make it so.  Intrigued?  Here's the link to the Atlantic source.  Is it a paraphilia?  Is it a brain disorder?  Is the web making it worse? Who's going to pay for the handicapped ramps?  Is it like trans-identity?  Is it like gay? Can you fix it with Prozac or RET? 'Oh isssh!'  Good material for teaching; always works.

At Issue:  The 'Tim Lensmire' phenomenon—how to sequence activities so that the change-ups do good pedagogical work—on the content, but on the relationships and what they teach as well—relationships to the material, of students to each other, of teacher to student.  An 'archeology of knowledge' (and power) enacted.

Activities:  

1.  Thursday was a 'Formal Debate'  (a Ben Fink invention—guidelines handout available on the 3331 course Moodle) in which I set a 'Proposition' with as much ambiguity in the terms as possible, and let them have at it in teams of 2 (with a week's prep time).  The proposition:  Resolved: apotemnophilia is best described as a disorder.

Power issues / hidden curricula / articulation:

1. They get to make meaning out of the many, contradictory readings. I don't direct the order-making / structure defining. What emerges is theirs, and they 'own' it.
2. They're the 'experts' (Gina used her psych terms).
3. They control the interaction: call on people, mediate, refute, expand. I'm minimally active (debate instructions operate without intervention).
4. 'Theory' (or content, or terminology, etc.) comes ahead of time--from preceding discussion and activities, readings, from the class list of 'keywords' in play).
5. Looks back to material covered; looks forward to next topic / problem

2.  After the debate, including a lot of  discussion (student led; teacher moderated), we moved into 'brainstorming a list of "conditions" that allow / require technological intervention, and which might plausibly construct a "new form of life,"'  EG: 

• bariatric surgery / obesity
• Ritalin / ADHD
• cochlear implants / deafness
• SSRI's / depression
• all cosmetic surgery / uh----not-cute-ness

Power issues / hidden curricula / articulation: 

1. 'Tests' comprehension of themes emerging from debate, etc.  Feedback / boardwork provides feedback, reinforces (and often modifies) our growing collective list of concepts
2. Prefigures next topic (Bio-ethics--what can we / should we / shouldn't we do to and with our bodies?  And what happens?
3. I'm NOT 'lecturing'; conducted right, the ideas emerge in dialogue.
4. Try to stick to requests and questions ('can you explain...?')

3. 'Good or Bad?'  Group-based discussion with goal of (1) selecting a condition / treatment (2) defining 1-3 reasons why it might have good or bad bio-ethical consequences (with attention to the political and economic).  After 8 minutes in groups, representatives slap their summary sheets on the document camera and present their collective thinking.  They take questions.

The primary teaching objective in all this:  Robin keeps his mouth shut and lets the structure teach.