Grading No-Grade Discussion Groups
Mark Edwards
Last summer some colleagues and I were talking about how to
connect better with students in new, non-coercive (no grades!) ways. I got the idea for a joint student-faculty
discussion group based on a shared interest—in this case, religion and politics. Since my friends in Theology and English were already doing this for topics
like just war, Wendell Berry, and so on, I decided to give it a shot. Turned out to be the highlight of my
2012-2013 academic year (Ed's "Jesus Jokes" lecture a very close second).
Regarding membership, I decided to limit the group to ten
people and make it invitation-only. I
thought that, beyond what could fit at a standard conference table, we’d start
to lose some people in discussion.
Turned out we still lost one or two people along the way, although they
did tell me they benefited from just “listening in.” By invitation-only, I only wanted faculty and
students with a strong personal interest and investment in the subject; no
extra credit, no merit plan steps (for faculty), only laying up treasures in liberal arts
heaven. For students, I first approached
my former religion and politics class and then my current national government
class. We settled on four faculty and
six students and started meeting in September.
Finding a topic for discussion, in the Fall of 2012, was
easy: The elections. Finding a method
for discussion was much more consequential than I had realized. The chief challenge, of course, was getting
past the “teacher-student gap.” How to
establish the equality of all discussants?
How to encourage student ownership of our discussions? What names to use (Mark or the default “Dr.
E”)? How to (for faculty) shut up
and allow for real exchanges? God knows
how or why, but I decided that everyone should bring a typed anonymous question
they wanted to take up, we’d put them all in a “bag ‘o fun,” draw one out at a
time, and then spend ten minutes on it.
That way, we could get through 5-6 questions in an hour, and everyone
had a shot at framing our conversation without fear of looking stupid. The end result was just what I had hoped for:
We had a wonderful time thinking alongside each other about substantive issues
that we really cared about. And, the
question of whether Obama is or is not the anti-Christ didn’t come up once, so,
mission accomplished!!
This semester, we decided to read a book together (copies
graciously paid for by our President).
Although everyone was supposed to submit suggestions to a
faculty-student “steering committee,” only one person (me) recommended a
title. We went with David Sehat’s
award-winning The Myth of American
Religious Freedom (2012). Although
personally a stimulating read, Sehat is even better in good company. Lots of thought-provoking questions, praises,
and critiques from students and faculty.
To be sure, it’s been more challenging to get everyone together and to
get my colleagues to read all the assigned chapters (at our March meeting, it
was just me and two students). I’m
hoping we can end well tomorrow at our last meeting. I hoping as well to continue the group with
new people and topics next year. We’ve
talked about hosting a campus-wide event on our subject, but who knows. For me, it’s just been great fun.
The point of all this: Does anyone do anything similar with
their students? If so, how do you do
it? Any suggestions you might have for improving the discussion group format?
Comments
I have not done this as a faculty member yet, but I was part of something similar as a student. It was technically an independent study group (so that the organizing professor could get credit for all the work invested), but we basically read books and discussed them, and then went on trips to meet historians and other interlocutors of the past (the theme of this group was Ella Baker and the Black Freedom Movement).
I think you touch on something really important about college that both students and professors miss too often--the fun of interactive learning in an intimate setting, with no tests or evaluation attached. It' so great to see that you have made this dream a reality in at least one significant way. I wish opportunities for this were more widely available given everyone's institutionally-structured-priorities for publishing.