But, all that aside, today's Big Thirsty came in just that way, from Nicholas the Nervous. Please to, as they say, in the manner, like a boss, enjoy.
[+]
I write this from home after pulling a dirty trick on my class tonight, a 6-8 pm group of trad-aged kids and adults at a 2 year college associated with a mammoth and first rate state uni.
The class has been a fucking snooze all term. I have 4-5 good students and about 15 dullards. I hate the word "retard," I know just by saying it - or actually the variant "retarded," which is what I mean - that I'll come under fire, but most of my students just seem RETARDED, as if they didn't get a full brainpan when they came howling into the world.
I entertain, I cajole, I do groups, I assign presenters, I ask good questions, I move about the room, I get them up, we go to the library, the lab, even outside. They just slouch forward and follow me as if they were somnambulistic extras on The Walking Dead.
And today we were covering a part of the textbook that I really enjoy, a section written by a grad school proffie of mine, a brilliant woman who is still my mentor. Anyway, the work is a little challenging, and usually my students butcher it, get it wrong, think it's about the opposite idea, etc.
So before a full fledged discussion broke out (not likely), I told them I was going to put them in "random" groups.
But I didn't. I took my best 5 students and put them in a littlee cluster of desks right my chair. The other 12 who were in the room I scattered into other nearby empty classrooms down the hallway. (The place is a ghost town at 6 pm.)
And then for the next 75 minutes I sat with the my good students for about an hour, and I kicked 5 minute visits to the other pods. I LOVED it. I had such a great time with my good students. The conversation was like what you'd get with a bunch of grad school buddies. We laughed, made notes on the board, figured out some ways to unlock the text.
And when I visited the other groups, I just smiled at their vacant faces, asked one or two basic questions, and then said, "One group is really having trouble; I better go see them. Sounds like you guys are doing great!"
I didn't start to feel bad until I got home. Then I thought, "I gamed the system." Of course I enjoyed class. I only really taught the best of the group. The rest I stranded on little islands on their own. They'll never understand the text. I didn't give them any help. I just set them adrift.
So the guilt. I got it. But even now, as I think about it, what fun it was!
Q: Did I do something wrong?
Did you do something wrong? Yes. Should you care? No. It sounds like you needed it to restore your faith in students. You focused your energy for one class on those students who actually appreciate learning, giving them an opportunity to deeply engage without being dragged down by the deadweight.I can guarantee the other students don't give a shit about understanding the text, and likely enjoyed goofing off for most of the class.
ReplyDeleteWhat? You were expecting consensus? This is The Misery Dammit!
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, thank you to the moderators for removing the objectionable comment from earlier.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, to the point, I understand what Nicholas did, but could never support it. Maybe a one time thing to restoreth his soul, but you have to teach them all, dear.
Good luck.
To paraphrase Sam Kinison, I don't approve of teaching only the smart kids, BUT I UNDERSTAND IT!
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like you cared even less about their education than they did, which is actually a remarkable accomplishment. Don't cane yourself over this but try to put your enjoyment of discussing your mentor's work aside and teach them all.
It's not the end of the world, Nicholas, but you do need to take responsibility for everyone in your class. The impulse you had makes sense to me.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm going to tell you right now that over the years I've seen many proffies game their classes in another way, not deserting students to other rooms, but effectively shutting them out of the class by picking and playing favorites.
For me, the impulse to shuffle the worst papers to the back of the pack is similar. I want to enjoy the grading process as much as it can be, and the best papers keep me energized. The bad papers come at the end, when I hope my will is still strong enough to carry on.
I always grade the papers I know will be worst at the beginning. Then I know there's nowhere to go but up.
DeleteSame here. Problem is, don't know who those are until after I've graded a few assignments. Second half of the semester goes somewhat better when I shuffle the strong ones to the back of the pack and "reward" myself with the better papers at the end.
DeleteI can't do that. It's too much concentrated misery at once. The first time out, I make an educated guess based on contributions to classroom discussions. Most of the time I'm right, but occasionally I get a surprise (even a pleasant one once in awhile!). I have to space my papers out so I put the ones I'm almost positive will be crap across the queue or else my head will explode. Conversely, putting the ones I think will most likely be B or better in spaced intervals is like giving myself a treat for putting up with the mediocre and worse along the way.
Delete"I have 4-5 good students and about 15 dullards."
ReplyDeleteI can empathize with this. This semester I'm TA-ing for the same class that I TA-ed for last semester. Last semester when I explained the solution to a problem they would at least understand and see their mistakes. This semester I swear they're all fucking retards. I'll explain the solution 3/4/5 different ways in ways that a 13 year old would be able to understand and I'll still get a blank look. Last semester the ratio of good:retard was inverse to this semester's ratio. Maybe dumber kids are going to take a Fall class in the Spring.
I'll actually try to only grade the students who I know know what they're doing and let the other TA's grade the shitty ones. It's so much better than having to grade someone who only has half the homework done and what they did isn't even very good.
I don't think you did anything that wrong. Your class has already proven to you their value. You took an opportunity (and a creative one) to reward those students are interested with some real intense time to study a topic. You didn't tell the students in the other rooms NOT to read and discuss the text.
ReplyDeleteWhile I know I'm supposed to teach them all and teach them happily, there's a point in every term when some of them just need to be told, "You haven't earned any more of my time and effort."
For one classroom session? Hell no. I bet the smart, engaged students were thrilled and grateful -- they deserve something too.
ReplyDeleteSadly, it's not something you can do more than once a semester.
Yes - but just this. Why move the slow, less engaged students out of the room? Keep them there. I've seen this spark a little competition. I believe there is some research that shows that groups made in this way can actually function better for all students. I use groups a lot - sometimes I stick all the angry negative students together so they don't pull down other students.
ReplyDeleteAt my school, I would have received great accolades. The dullards would have been encouraged and allowed to slack off. You know they didn't work much when you left the room, but did the perfunctory filling in of blanks. But the good students no doubt learned a great deal.
ReplyDeleteI am close to telling them that there bullshit is correct, giving them a B and making them go away. Here it is not about how much they learn or what they take away, but their "impressions," what they feel is going on. If the little dears feel like they are learning, things are great, otherwise the shit hits the fan.
I did this one term for all group work. Put the motivated students in one group, the weakest together and guess what, they all rose to the level. Somehow the weaker ones 'knew" and they did more and better work than if they had been mixed with the top ones. I didn't have to deal with group issues. The weak ones figured out that they could do the work if they worked.
ReplyDeleteNot sure about totally abandoning groups in empty classrooms but you know your students best.
I was skeptical that it would work this way but it does.
The only thing better would have been if you'd just let the "dullards" go home. Then they could do laundry or study for another class.
ReplyDeleteThey've already decided how much they care about your class. It's an evening class, presumably a requirement, at the end of a long day. Your taking it personally won't change their minds, not at their age.
Non-trads might appreciate your effort because they know what real work is like and won't want to make it worse for you. But to those kids you're just part of the system, the one that makes learning a miserable process and pummels any natural curiosity out of them by the age of seven or eight. You're not even a real person to them, just like they're not people to you. Just "dullards" who are forced to be in a night class to achieve their real goals, like getting a soul-sucking job so they can eat.
You don't need to waste money (or time) on a college education to get a soul-sucking job so you can eat. Nobody's forcing them to do anything.
Delete"They've already decided how much they care about your class." Yep. Therein lies the problem. GIGO. (Garbage in, garbage out.)
Don't we already kind of do this in a class without even segregating them into groups? I focus on the students who are engaged in a class, even if they're spread out. I see nothing wrong with at least getting to enjoy the one chapter you felt passionately about rather than getting angry and souring it for yourself and everyone else. You didn't do this all semester; it was one class period where you felt those at least engaged deserved to get your energy and effort. The others hadn't shown that they deserved any attention.
ReplyDeleteI think your approach was perfectly fine. As you said, you've been encouraging them and working with the non-responsive students for the whole semester so far. At some point, we've got to just allow the ones who refuse to/can't get it and work with the ones who are actually participating in their own learning.
ReplyDeleteThis is the point in the semester where I've started saying to students, "I can help you, but I can't learn this stuff for you. If you continue to put in this amount of (non)effort, you're going to fail or scrape by with a D or C-. That will be for you to decide. I've done my bit. Now it's your turn.
Of course, we are unionized and I am protected (for now) from being fired for this kind of blunt statement. I recognize that not everyone can freely say this sort of thing. But we can all surely do what Nervous Nicholas did. The slackers can slack to their hearts' content and the engaged can be engaged.
I don't know that it was wrong to split them that way, but IMO it was wrong to completely disengage with the "dullards"--because you've dismissed the possibility that any of them will rise to the occasion, as ^Dr Tivo pointed out above.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm with ^aemilia--I'm at midterm just now, and I will be handing back a lot of papers with Cs and Ds, at which point I will tell them: "I gave you directions that you chose to ignore. I gave you the rubric which told you how you'd be graded, and you chose to ignore it. I have office hours every day of the week that none of you bother with. You may have skated through high school, but essentially, TBSH. I will not pass you if you do not learn, and I cannot learn for you. It's your choice." Then I will teach the ones who want to be taught.
I'm totally on board with putting all the stronger students together now and then, especially later in the semester when you know who's who; that seems only fair to them (though I have to admit that the way I do groups in my classes, I don't have much chance to do that -- except, perhaps, on the days when so many less-engaged students skip that I end up reshuffling groups if the exercise is one that allows it). That's especially true if "stronger" includes a mix of very bright and not quite as bright (at least in your subject) but very hardworking (and successful in getting things as a result of that work) students. It's also a good check for yourself of what *is* possible from strong (but not so off the charts strong that they don't even belong in the class) students. After all, you *should* be teaching to that cohort, at least some of the time (and in an ideal world, they, and only they, would be getting As and A- s as final grades).
ReplyDeleteI agree that exiling/abandoning the weaker groups is more problematic, and definitely the part that can't/shouldn't be repeated. You should be teaching to them, too, at least some of the time, and, while I see no problem with forcing them to work on their own, I do see a problem with expecting them to work on their own *more* than the stronger students (who could probably have accomplished as much or more with you there less of the time).
Still, for one day? If this approach got you through the day, and back into the classroom with a renewed energy for the rest of the semester, its sounds to me like it did some good.
Once a semester I give a pop quiz on the reading at the start of class, and I say to my students "if you haven't done the reading, you have a choice: you can try to bullshit your way through, or you can leave and have me at least think you are honest."
ReplyDeleteThis has the effect that the more redeemable of the lazy assholes are shamed into doing their reading for the next couple of classes, and I am left with the ones who cared enough to bother, and we have a productive discussion.
I don't think you did anything wrong. Of all the gifts the gods bestow upon humans, none are as unequally parceled out than intellectual ability. I benefited greatly from having AP classes when I was in high school, and being in the honors sections in college, even though it's unfashionable nowadays among pedagogues. I would have been bored to tears, if I'd had to be confined with the jocks. The jocks, after all, got their own varsity team, on which I never had a snowball's chance of qualifying, didn't they? Why should it be different for me?
ReplyDeleteThis way, everyone gets what they want. The smart kids get a good education. You get stimulating discussions with the smart kids. The dumb kids get to jerk off, without anyone bothering them. There's a lot to be said for educational triage, particularly for large classes.
Of course, triage implies a middle group. These are the ones who might be helped, if you help them. Keep an eye out for these. I was always on the fast track, but I do have sympathy for the kids who aren't very talented but are still trying. They might turn out to have talent, if you help them develop it.
> The dumb kids get to jerk off, without anyone bothering them...
DeleteDo mind to step out of the way, when the boys get finished.
Ah, this reminds me of my favorite Vic Mackeyism:
Delete"God creates all men equal. Once they get out of the womb, he starts playing favorites."