Good list of formal practices for classroom discussion which can get students more organized and more broadly participating in class. I was particularly taken with the URL for this page, which calls them "speaking-listening techniques".
Terrific way to frame technology use and non-use in the classroom. "Instead of imposing restrictions about what they can't use, invite them to have an experience that can't be had through the use of technology." Also a very good rundown of other writing about the pros and cons.
There's a basic point here that it's useful to have a set of quick prepared remarks to encourage students to buy in to a new teaching approach. And perhaps some of Dr. Felder's specific language might be useful to you.
"By carefully considering what our syllabi are for, what they should include, and - most essentially - what they really communicate to our students, we can create a document that does a significant amount of heavy lifting for us. That document articulates a set of promises about what the course can do for students when they accept our invitation and take ownership of their learning in this collective enterprise."
The AAUP has published some guidelines for understanding what is and is not protected classroom speech when addressing political issues and student comments.
As we prepare to welcome new colleagues and students, remember that even the simple gesture of showing that you're working hard to learn a person's preferred name makes a big difference.
Some interesting thoughts here about the differences between "shyness" and "introversion", and the way your classroom participation practices can help or hinder students. Also an interesting reflection on participation in the scholarship of teaching and learning, as the author deals with resistance to her original article.
We spend a lot of time thinking about how to make course material "interesting" - what if we spent some of that time looking for ways to make it "affective"?
"Survey of literature and arts professors finds 60 percent see the practice as harmful to academic freedom -- although many favor general descriptions on a syllabus, even as they avoid labeling particular works."
The author addresses some of the criticisms of flipped learning, including student resistance and how to overcome it. The key is thinking about how face-to-face time is used to reach higher-level learning goals than otherwise possible.
"Our real goal is to improve how students integrate new information. We want to change them. While what we have to teach our students may get them a first job, it will not on its own get them a second job-especially one that may not yet even exist. We want our students to be able to learn new things, analyze new knowledge, integrate it into their thinking, and change their minds when necessary." Jose Bowen argues that we should treat both technology and disciplinary content as tools, in pursuit of the larger cognitive changes we try to create in the liberal arts.
Interesting thoughts in this article (and in the comments section!) about how we present ourselves in the classroom. I was taken by the suggestion that trying on new teaching styles ought to require a serious reflection on what we're good at (or not yet good at) as teachers. Thoughts about the "teaching persona" over time, and across different classes, also seem important.
Good tips, not just for new faculty (though that's who the author is preparing to address), but really for anyone in a new job or life stage or just ready for a prompt to reflect on their teaching.
If we want to help students take risks and cope with failure, we're going to have to make it transparent when we're doing that as scholars and teachers too.
We want independent, self-motivated learners, but we also know clear expectations are key to teaching disciplinary modes of thinking (and avoiding basic errors). How do you balance that tension?