Heath Bros -

I will gladly share a teacher story that I reflect upon regularly. In graduate school, my most challenging class was led by one of the university’s most acclaimed professors. Despite the difficulty of the subject (Wastewater Treatment Process and Design), the classroom was packed on the first day. Standing room only. The professor’s reputation was known campus-wide and many came simply to “audit” the course, to take the course without credit yet still benefit from exposure to the professor and his teachings.

The lesson comes from what Dr. Lawler said to thin the ranks of the unregistered who filled the room. He said that anyone was welcome. Auditing students were certainly able to join the class. The requirements to do so were simple: each student must attend every class, do all the reading, complete each assignment, and take every test. Those terms were non-negotiable.

That thinned the ranks quickly. Students who “audit” do so because they want the exposure to the subject but don’t want to necessarily do all the work that comes with registration.

But from the Prof’s perspective, it was all in…or nothing. If students were not prepared to connect the dots - which he felt came from taking tests and doing problems - then there was no value to either party in attending.

This has been a leadership lesson for me ever since. We are all exposed to dots, ideas, concepts. But too many of us simply audit - in life, in our jobs, in the arena of ideas. We’ve got to be “all in” and force ourselves to do those things that connect the dots. For me this is writing. For others it may be teaching, public speaking, or volunteering to help solve a problem. Whatever it is, we cannot stand against the wall and watch the dots go by. We cannot “audit” all of our lives! Great stuff. Thanks Dr. Lawler.

Stagging the opportunity.

I was a new teacher,in my first few weeks then KABOOM! The towers came crashing down. We were glued all day to the classroom TVs wanting to know why and who. The answers came not long afterward. Over the next few weeks, the Church History class received probably the best set of discussions and lectures. Sticky really is a loose term for this, the proper description would be velcroed.

I decided to give a couple of days of lessons using Augustine, Aquinas, and the contemporary teachings of the Catholic Church via the Catechism of the Catholic Church to teach a bunch of juniors in highschool the history and development of the Just War Theory. Given the proximity of 9-11, I could have written the lecture in sand and it would have stuck. Timing is very important.

Timing is key in many deliveries: hitting a baseball, being a comedian, or in this case talking about a bunch of smart men from ages gone and the CCC.

jared, sounds like you did a great job of connecting the learning to your students’ concerns/fears/doubts in those times. thanks for posting!

Many years ago, when teaching introductory philosophy, I wanted to teach the students to think critically about arguments. One of the goals of the class was to teach them to criticize the logic of arguments that supported positions with which they agreed. This proved challenging. Few saw any reason to criticize something with which they agreed.

This problem came to a head in the philosophy of religion section when we studied the argument from miracles, i.e. the position that one can deduce God’s existence from the occurrence of miracles = “events we cannot explain.” Determined to ensure that the lesson “stuck,” I devised a confrontation that would force the students far outside of their habitual, obedient note taking.

Arrangements were made for a fellow graduate student to perform a magic trick that no student could explain. He would sit next to a student before class, strike up a conversation, and persuade the student to write something on a piece of paper he would appear to burn in an ashtray without reading. After the bell rang, he would announce to the class that he was God, and use the new evidence that could not be explained as proof.

Thinking about a new house to which she would be moving, the student wrote “New Home” on the paper. “God” cited as proof of his identity the fact that just before class, he planted in mind of one of their classmates his plans for us. He had created a “New Home” for us all.

Suddenly, we were no longer talking about other miracles: the Creation, the parting of the Red Sea, or other events that had never been observed. The event to be explained happened during that class period. No student was familiar with the magic trick. No one could explain what had happened in front of them. They saw it. They did not have to take anyone’s word for it. It happened right there. No one could explain it.

Had my fellow graduate student proven that he was God? No one seemed to think so.

Consensus was established on two points:

No one could explain what my friend had done.
My friend was not God.

Finally, we were able to evaluate the argument from miracles critically as an argument. This admittedly cheap parlor trick allowed us to begin criticizing evidence for positions with which we agreed.

My job as a teacher was not to facilitate memorization. When I could make the issues “real,” the students taught me far more than I dreamed.

The teacher’s challenge is to find a way to make the lessons real and engage the students. Perhaps this was the motivation of Plato, Galileo, and the handful of others who wrote in dialogue format: to engage readers.

I came across your page by chance, through a American based blog – Leadertalk, but while I am here I thought I would contribute, the reason for posting in fact ties in with the point that stuck.

Dont Take Yourself for Granted

I teach and coach in a small, post 16 College (16-19) Sports Department in Southampton, UK. I have always wanted to teach but have also coached, in fact when this sticking moment occurred I was hardly green, it was not a novices error. I had been teaching for 4 years and had been coaching football (soccer) professionally for 8 years, working with a number of professional football clubs part-time.

College has three soccer teams, and as the most qualified/specialised staff member of staff I have always coached the 1st team, although I did have some interaction with the other players, both coaching and teaching them, it was less than the 1st team. Consequently, on the rare occasion the 1st team didn’t have a fixture, I would go and watch the 2nd team play, and even more rarely the 3rd team, even if it was for just 5-10 minutes (spare time was precious), to pay a compliment, to show willing and to indicate that these players were within my 1st team radar. Incidently, the 1st team carries some status amongst the students, as with any sports team really.

This particular week the 1st team game was cancelled, and even though the 2nd team were playing on site at the College, and even though it would have only taken only 5 minutes to show my face, I didn’t go out and watch. Nor did I think it significant that I didnt go. In the corridor the next morning, one of the aspiring 2nd team players threw me a glance I will not forget. It stuck. In just a slightests a moments, just that expression, communicated more than I can ever convey to you in writing. I waited for a moment before I quizzed him, more to let me calm down than anything else. I asked him if I could have just “2 minutes,” of his time as I gestured him away from the group milling around between lessons at break time.

To summarise that conversation that followed, he was immensely angry with me personally, but more importantly hurt, that I had not at least popped out to watch part of the game. He felt that I didn’t value him, or indeed the 2nd team players, as much as I did the 1st team. Strangely, nothing nothing could have been further from the truth. Coaching the 1st team was considered important but it was in fact far less enjoyable than coaching the 2nd and 3rd teams. You see, the 1st team players were often over confident, almost arrogant, over stating their own ability whereas the 2nd team players were immensely satisfying to coach, eager to learn and to improve. So what had I not fully comprehended?

Well, its quite simple isnt it really. No matter how small your contribution to a students life, never take yourself for granted. It may have been only five minutes for me, but even the smallest gestures can have the most significant impact on some. My thanks to Steve Bennent, it has now been 5 years since I last missed an opportunity to watch the 2nds play and this year I gave up my post to coach the 1st team, and have thoroughly enjoyed my year coaching the 2nds.

Shoot -
Tauntons College,
Hill Lane
Southampton
UK
SO15 5RL - I leave this year at Christman knowing that the 2nd team have been outstanding to coach.

Love, love, love your book & understand that I’m not eligible for a copy as I’m outside the US but I’m happy to share my story

Several years ago I had the challenging task of teaching the ‘elements and principles of design’ to a group of young people (aged 15-25) who were long-term unemployed.

The elements of design (line, shape and colour etc) are quite easy to communicate as they are more concrete but the principles can be difficult to grasp. The reason I needed the group to understand the concepts was that I was teaching them graphic design and needed to give them some language for critiquing their work beyond the usual ‘that looks crap’.

The standard practice for teaching this subject is to get the students to create illustrations depicting the principle. I knew this wouldn’t work with this group.

Instead I provided the class with plain biscuits (cookies), two different colours of icing (frosting), licorice strips, mini M&Ms and an assortment of other edible decorations.

We went through the principles one at a time, discussed what they meant and everyone then created a biscuit that illustrated that particular principle.

The ‘what the?’ vibe at the start of the class when they saw all the ingredients got everyone curious about what we were about to do. The use of biscuits and icing instead of pencils and paper provided a great equaliser. No-one in the class was a wizz at icing biscuits so everyone was able to give it a go without fear of being knocked down by anyone else in the class.

I was reminded of the class when I ran into an ex-student recently (it has been several years since the class). We had an interesting conversation …

Ex-Student: ‘What was that biscuit icing thing about that we did?’

Me: ‘Do you remember any of the principles of design?’

Ex-Student: ‘Balance, Contrast, Harmony, Pattern …’

Me: ‘You remember - that’s what the biscuit icing thing was about.’

Dan -

This is a great idea. I can totally see you guys making a book out of it…

Not a teacher, so no book for me, but I have a couple of sticky teaching stories to tell.
I complained bitterly for years about how unfair it was that I had genetically high triglyceride levels, and that eating just a little bad fat made those levels soar.
I stumbled across a website one day (unfortunately, I can’t remember which one) which had advice for doctors to tell their patients with hypertriglycedemia:
“Tell them that most people have high efficiency, high power fat-burning engines - Cadillacs.”

“You have a Yugo.”

When I read that, I realized that fair or unfair was not the issue. It was a fact, to be dealt with or not, depending on the outcome I wanted. I changed my diet.

On a separate note, I do train people for a living, and I am always looking for the sticky phrase that replaces paragraphs of lecture/speaking. For example, when teaching aggressive behavior management, I sometimes find myself in long dialogues on the topic of aversive therapy (I oppose) vs positive reinforcement (I support), which brings up many moral, ethical, cultural, historical and societal issues, many of which are ingrained too deeply for short term persuasion to effect. One day I had someone in class give me my sticky phrase, which has given me a shortcut:
Aversive therapy only works when it is immediate, persistent and severe. Positive reinforcement can still work when it is delayed, random and varied.

Since, in human interactions, we can’t guarantee we will respond immediately or persistently, and we shouldn’t allow most people to be severe, then aversive therapy is a bad idea.

Example of Critical Thinking and Active Learning : Using the Video The Eye of the Beholder on the Topic of Eyewitnesses

For 35 years I have been teaching two sections of General Psychology each semester. In recent years my classes enroll 25 students with most under age 24. General Psychology at Howard Community College is a writing intensive course with an emphasis on critical thinking. Class meets for 80 minutes twice a week for 14 weeks with a final exam week. The class period I will describe takes place at the end of the 3rd week of classes.

Before class, students read a one-page study preview and then a four-page article on eyewitnesses. Their written work is to answer five questions about the article which they turn in at the start of class. At the beginning of class I indicate that we will be dealing with the first goal of psychology which is description which involves accurate observation. I ask students to look around and observe their environment. I am wearing a suit and tie, which is rare for me. In leaderless small groups (4 to 5 students) students discuss the main ideas of the article on eyewitnesses. I then ask if there are any questions about the article and usually answer one or two questions.

Before showing the video The Eye of the Beholder (1954, black and white), I ask students to turn to the two page video guide in their course handout (about 400 pages) which has five learning objectives to answer about the video. I then tell students three times to watch very carefully. The video is about an artist who is viewed by five different people who have five different reactions. The 10-minute video tells a story about the artist and how he might have killed a woman. I ask students to get into their groups and brainstorm answers to: “How would you describe the artist?” for three minutes. I put on the board all of the different answers from the five groups. We then vote as a class on which characteristics we think describe the artist. I place a check by those receiving votes of most of the class.

I next ask questions about who saw what and why they drew their conclusions. I also ask some very specific questions about details which are usually observed by only one or two students. I end by asking if they think he killed the women. Almost all do not think so. I then indicate we need to get some more information, because things may not be as they seem. They suggest we talk to the women and the artist.

I show the second half of the video (about 10 minutes) which is from the viewpoint of the artist. Parts of the video remain the same but key parts are different. During the showing of this section of the video I sit in the back of the room and take off my tie, change my wristwatch to my right arm, and change four other things about my clothing. At the conclusion of the video the women gets up and walks about and says the artist is a square. Again I ask students to brainstorm how they would describe the artist and each group comes up with a second list. I put up the new ideas and we again vote. There are changes and we discuss as a class why there are changes.

I then ask: “Do you think he killed the women?” 100% say “No” because she got up and walked away. I say that I don’t see how they can be so sure. During a period of some confusion someone says, “We saw her walk away from the artist’s perspective. Maybe he was lying.” I support that view and tie in how we can be misled by con artists who create a fake reality.

I then ask them to carefully observe and not say anything but to raise their hand when they know what is different about me from the start of the video. After most have raised their hands I go around until we have all the things that were changed. I then say: “During class a crime was committed in the hallway with a tie that I am going to show you. You have to decide individually if it is the same tie that I was wearing at the beginning of class. ” About 10% are sure it is the same time, about 10% think it is the same tie, about 50% think it is not the same time, and 30% are sure it is not the same tie. “It is the same tie.” Students walk about buzzing. Some will stop and say it was a great class! In summary, students read about eyewitnesses, write several short answers over the article, are asked to observe their classroom, see two excerpts from a video, brainstorm twice, interact twice with the instructor and the whole class, and then are asked to report their own eyewitness: an example of active learning.

Morris Massey was a popular teacher at the University of Colorado who made the concept of a “significant emotional experience” stick in one lesson, which I’ve borrowed many times.

Massey taught that “who we are now is where we were when” that our values were formed by the age of 5. These values change with a “significant emotional experience.” What’s that? To explain, Massey told this story:

“I was Dean of the business school at the University of Colorado when we build a new business school building. It was beautiful, with wood paneled halls on the main floor. Students at CU had developed a habit of bringing bicycles into class, and it was quickly clear that 1) the bikes were ruining our wood paneling and 2) students ignored the “No bikes” signs and verbal warnings . So I decided to create a significant emotional experience.

“When classes were changing, and the hall packed with students, I tore a bike away from a student and stomped out the spokes of both wheels with the hiking boots I was wearing. As you can imagine, seeing and hearing this happen gave me the full attention of all the students who packed the hallway around us. I picked up the bike and gave it back to the student as I said in a very loud voice, ‘If you don’t respect my property, I’m not going to respect yours. Don’t bring your bike in here, it tears up my beautiful new home.’ This immediately stopped the bike problem.”

I very often tell this story in training workshops to make my point about the importance of emotion in change, the story seems to make the point very sticky.

John S. Wren, MBA+
Business Consultant & Adult Educator
www.JohnWren.com
(303)861-1447

If you still have one of the 100 books, would you please send it to:
John Wren
960 Grant St. #727
Denver, CO 80203

Thanks for the very Good Work you are doing!

As a fourth grade teacher I’ve taught Virginia history each year. As we near our study of the American Revolution I (and the other teachers on the team) begin taxing our students. They earn money (in the form of paper tobacco leaves) and can be taxed for any reason I see fit - as I am the king. Initially the reasons for paying taxes seem pretty reasonable, but quickly get out of hand. They have to pay taxes for getting drinks of water, going to the bathroom, sitting in a chair, talking in class, etc. Some end up owing money to me. It doesn’t take long for some students to become frustrated with all the taxes. They complain about it to me and to each other. Eventually, they take action. In some years we have actually had students write a ‘Declaration of Independence’ but they always come up with some way to revolt. It helps them better understand the concept of ‘taxation without representation’ as we continue our study.