DFaye Anderson
Professor B. Gleason
ENGL C0862 Teaching Composition and Literature
October 2014
One
Night Only
An
Observation of a City College Instructor
As part of Professor Gleason’s class Teaching Composition and Literature, students are required to
observe another instructor here at CCNY, and to write up the observation. I
believe Professor Gleason wanted to give us a chance to move beyond our
readings to actually watch an instructor putting the theories into practice. I
chose Michelle Joseph-Matthews’ (Ms. Joseph) class, English 110. The class
meets from 6:30 to 7:45, Tuesday and Thursday. I contacted Ms. Joseph and made
arrangements to sit in on Tuesday, September 16th. She was kind enough to email a copy of the syllabus.
I arrived fifteen minutes before class began and found two
students already present. There was seating, individual chair-desks, for about
twenty-six. The room, NAC 4/210, was
clean, but windowless, and smaller than the conference rooms where I have had classes.
Other students entered. Several took out
their notebooks or books. “Are we having a test today?” someone asks. “I
doubt.” “She said we’d have a quiz next week.”
Ms. Joseph arrived just before 6:30. Her dress was no
nonsense and professional – navy blue dress with a complimentary sweater. Her
jewelry was also modest, small earrings and wedding rings. Ms. Joseph’s
teaching style matched her dress. Her demeanor was low key, but confident, with
flashes of warm humor. She spoke slowly, clearly and evenly, standing near the
desk while lecturing, but moving around and amongst the students to conference
with them while they wrote. Presentation
is important, and I believe Ms. Joseph’s dress and manner set a serious tone.
She began class immediately with a five minute writing
assignment, “Dear Diary.” She told the students that the exercise “…won’t be
seen or read by anyone.” While students
were engaged in this activity, Ms. Joseph wrote the day’s agenda on the board.
This was a smart use of time. The quiet time helped students focus and
transition from their lives outside the classroom, into an “educational frame
of mind.” Once they completed their diary entry, they read the agenda, and took
out the necessary materials.
When the five minute period expired, Ms. Joseph directed
student attention to the agenda and reminded students of the due date for the
next assignment, a draft of a literacy narrative. Two students arrived after
class had begun. One of them had to go back outside to find a chair (Sorry!).
Ms. Joseph was aware of the late arrivals, and continued teaching. She moved from the front, near the desk, to
stand closer to the students and passed out a handout for the next assignment. As
she interacted with students, I was impressed that she knew their names! I
checked the calendar and found out that this was the sixth time the class had
met. Still, I was impressed (Weekends can wipe out memory!).
At 6:41 Ms. Joseph askedor volunteers to
speak about one of the short stories they’d been assigned to read. Actually,
students had the choice of three stories. Jeffrey summarized his choice (“Mother Goose…”). Ms. Joseph questioned
and probed: “Why did you choose that story?”
Another student replied that he’d learned English by watching cartoons (Scooby Doo!) and movies, and several
others laughed and agreed. Ms. Joseph
queried the class as to who had learned English as a second language, and of
the twenty-five students, English was the first language for only eight.
Always Living in Spanish
is the name of the story the next student chose to summarize for the class.
Someone else asked a Chinese student about the Chinese alphabet – “You all
write backwards, right?” The student responded, but I couldn’t hear her whole
response. Though interesting, this was clearly off-task and Ms. Joseph called
on other students in order to refocus our attention. One woman began, and Ms.
Joseph asked Hector, in the rear corner of the room, if he could hear and he
replied that he couldn’t. There was
laughter and then the speaker increased her volume (I imagine that Hector is
asked this question quite often and that’s why the students laughed.). The third piece, Proficiency, was the story that most students read. Ms. Joseph
asked if they’d read it because it was the shortest. Again, the class laughed.
One student, Angel, was vocal about
not liking to write. Then he clarified himself. He thought it was unfair to
grade someone’s writing on a Regents, ACT or SAT. He protested that the
judgment is subjective. Ms. Joseph responded that the grading was anything but
arbitrary, and that it is in fact based on a rubric, on standards. Another student complained that “it takes time
to write.” Ms. Joseph asked him to repeat himself. I believe her point was that writing requires
engagement. It requires energy, and effort and time. It is not something that one can ‘drive by’.
Ms. Joseph then asked her students what could be taken
from their readings and utilized in writing their own literacy narratives. After a brief discussion, at 7:05, she gave
students a few minutes to work on the narratives that they’d already started.
She asked if everyone was clear about what they should be doing. While most
worked with hard copies, one young lady had her narrative on her cell phone! I also
noticed that students often responded to questions all at once, so that all you
heard was white noise. When this happened, Ms. Joseph asked for clarity by
asking for a “show of hands.”
While students worked quietly, Ms. Joseph moved around
the room, stopping to talk with students about their narratives. Steven asked
for clarification of the elements of rhetoric. Ms. Joseph responded – purpose,
audience and stance. One of the late arrivals reminisced about her high school
days. She said that she had never really attended school, had shown up for the
Regents and scored a 98. The class was quiet, either in awe or disbelief. Steel
fist in a velvet glove, with humor, Ms. Joseph made it clear that the student
wouldn’t get a 98 in this class if she were to absent herself in a similar
manner.
Ms. Joseph continued to confer with individuals while they
worked on their narratives. When she heard talking she asked, “Are you
discussing the story?” The students responded that they were, but they stopped
the talk and went back to writing.
At 7:15, she began to pair students up, in order to read
and discuss their narratives. Some students continued writing and others began discussing
their work with a partner. Though there were different activities going on
simultaneously, the students never became loud or boisterous. They used their library voices. Those doing
peer editing were encouraged to “ask questions for clarification” and make
suggestions.
At approximately 7:25 Ms. Joseph broke up the duos. She
again reminded students of the typed draft and the due date for the draft. She
told them, “Don’t focus on the grade. Focus on the work (No drive bys!).” She reiterated “the need to avoid
procrastination.”
Then Ms. Joseph told the class to, “Put away your
writing,” and the class shifted to work on grammar and mechanics. She wrote
several homophones on the board:
Their/There
Who’s/Whose
She also explained the
rules for “To who? (subject) and whom? (object=direct). Even though we were
nearing the end of the class, students paid attention, asked and answered
questions. Research has shown that students tend to remember the first and last
things said in the classroom, so it was a wise move to save the grammar lesson,
something that can be a bit tedious, for the end. The mini lesson didn’t try to tackle a complex
topic, but tackled something manageable, that could be explained in a short
period of time.
A student asked a question about the assignment and
others began to put away their books and notebooks, making noise, and mentally “checking
out.” Ms. Joseph asked all to be still
for a moment, so that they could hear the answer to the question. After
answering, she asked specific students to stay behind to speak with her,
including the student who had aced the Regents with a 98. The other students began to pack up and leave.
In simple words and an even tone, Ms. Joseph informed the student that she was
missing an assignment. The student insisted that she’d emailed it, and Ms. Joseph
responded that she hadn’t received it. The student insisted she’d sent it, and
verified the instructor’s email address. Ms. Joseph asked that the student
forward the same email to her address. Finally, she advised her to get to class
on time because she’d be closing the door to late arrivals in the future (The
syllabus clearly spells out the attendance and lateness policies). The student
apologized, agreed and left. Other students stayed behind to ask questions:
“Was it wrong to choose the Mother Goose
story?” Jeffrey asked. Ms. Joseph assured him that it was the right choice for
him, and that she was glad that he hadn’t made his choice based on the length
of the story. “I’m not sure about my thesis,” another student told her.
After
she advised this student of his options, he left, leaving us alone. We chatted
for a few minutes, and I found out then that most of her students were studying
to become engineers. They appeared to be 18, 19 or 20. Perhaps five could be
classified as Caucasian. There were, at most, two African Americans and five
females. The majority of her students appeared to be of either Middle Eastern
descent, from the Indian peninsula or Asia. I thanked Ms. Joseph once more for allowing me
to observe her class. She closed by
asking me to be honest in my observation. “I’ve got tough skin,” she said, and
she welcomed the opportunity to see herself through someone else’s eyes.
Commentary
Besides my admiration for Ms.
Joseph’s memory, I was also impressed by the syllabus. Hers was the most
detailed and thorough that I’ve ever seen. Seven pages long, it covers
everything I could imagine, including ways to contact her, her office location and
hours, learning outcomes, grading and attendance policies, assignment and
assessment dates, expectations for behavior, the academic integrity policy and
required materials. It closes with a calendar of the due dates, readings and
even days off. Though the tone of the
syllabus is serious and forthright, Ms. Joseph used it to encourage students to conference with her at least twice in the semester,
once, early on, to assess strengths and challenges, and later, about mid-term,
to discuss progress and further direction. “Classes are collaborations between
teachers and students, but in the end, you are responsible for your own
education,” she wrote in the syllabus.
After class, I thought about some of the challenges of
working with students from different cultures and traditions. I wondered what
it might be like, especially as a woman, to teach a class where the majority of
the students are young males. I expected some macho bravado, some posturing,
but I saw none of that. Students seemed
comfortable, with each other and with the instructor. It was evident that she had
done some community building and commanded their respect. They stayed engaged
and, for the most part, on task.
I
want to close this section with an observation about the physical space. The
classroom was located in the North Academic Center, room 4/210. I was surprised
at the size of the very small room and the number of chairs squeezed into the
room. Without a window, I had a sense of being penned in. If the students were uncomfortable though, it
was not clear. The chairs weren’t arranged in neat rows, but were grouped instead
towards the back of the room, close together. It may have even facilitated the
comfort the students had with one another. It certainly facilitated peer
editing.
What
I’d Steal
I think writing the
day’s agenda on the board is a tool I can use. People tend to cooperate more
readily if they know where you’re leading them. As mentioned earlier, Ms.
Joseph’s syllabus is a document a student can depend on to answer most
questions. I want that kind of clarity
and thoroughness in my syllabus. She also gave students choice in the selection
of readings, but provided clear structure and support. I think the pacing of
the class was dynamic as well. She spent the right amount of time on each task,
mixing things up (individual work and partner work, whole class discussion,
opportunities to think and write and a grammar class to close), to keep things
interesting. If a student wasn’t certain
on some point, Joseph provided opportunities to raise questions, and checked to
see that any confusion was cleared. There was no time to get bored, yet nothing
felt rushed. Research shows that students tend to remember the first thing you
say in class and the last thing you say and Ms. Joseph’s last task was the
short grammar lesson. She reminded the students again of their deadline for the
next assignment. As a matter of fact, she mentioned the assignment three times,
near the beginning of the class, midway through and at the end. Some might
suggest that that is overkill, but I’d disagree. The repetition is helpful, and the kind of
support some freshmen need.
Initially,
I didn’t believe Ms. Joseph should have told students that the “Dear Diary”
entry was not going to be graded. Grades are great motivators and, with nothing
at stake, I feared students might “slack off.” Upon further consideration
though, I’m on the fence now. Ms. Joseph’s students did not “slack off.” For some students, writing is so wound up in
defeat and angst, the opportunity to get the writing started, and not have to
worry about being judged, might actually free them up. I think that you have to
know your population, and decide how to approach, depending upon the level of
maturity of the students.
Acknowledgements
Thank you Professor Gleason for arranging this assignment.
I dreaded giving up any of my limited time, even though I knew it would prove
beneficial. Thanks too, to Ms. Joseph for your help and hospitality.
