TEACHING PORTFOLIO
Sean Hendricks
Department of Linguistics
University of Arizona
It is my firm belief that the performance of students improves when they are allowed to take a more active role in their own education. Therefore, it is important that students be encouraged to participate interactively in the classroom. One reason for this is that students often feel more comfortable in a learning environment when they are able to help to create that environment. They are able, to an extent, to customize the exchange of information to suit their own needs. These needs can include learning styles, such as visual, auditory, and kinetic. The lecture-listen format might work well for primarily auditory listeners, but perhaps not as well for those students who are visual or kinetic. In the interactive setting, students are not only hearing the information, but are receiving the information from a variety of sources, such as other students, which may help visual learners. For kinetic learners, there is goal to accomplish (project, group presentation) which can give a sense of creation. Another benefit to this outlook is that students are able to work not only with their instructor, but with their classmates, as well. As part of a group, the students, in a sense, teach each other, hopefully augmenting the exchange of information from the instructor.
Teaching Methods
There are three main methods that I use in the classroom to help develop interactive learning. These three are group discussions, group exercises, and computer technology. The first of these is used most often, within most meetings. During a class session, I present the information in such a way as to encourage the students to go through the steps along with me, often coming to certain conclusions on their own. I do this by going through the information in a step-by-step fashion. As I progress, I stop periodically to ask the class if they understand the material thus far. I will perhaps ask for answers to specific questions, aimed toward discovering whether or not the information was successfully exchanged. When an answer is reached, I ask how that answer was reached. By doing so, others in the class who might not have gotten the point will perhaps be aided by their fellows' analysis of the process. Often, I ask if the class can extend what they have learned thus far, in order to foresee the next step. In this fashion, I encourage the group effort, allowing them to actively take part in their own learning.
The second method that I use involves group exercises. These exercises can either be done within a lecture period for smaller classes, or in separate discussion sections for classes with a large enrollment. Some of the exercises are designed to be similar to homework problems that the students will be required to complete on their own. This allows students to work through the argumentation necessary for the problems with each other, getting clarification from the instructor as necessary. The students are then better prepared to complete their individual homework assignments. Other exercises are designed to clarify and extend material presented in the lecture period. In either case, groups are often asked at the end of the course to present their argumentation and findings. In this way, the groups are able to get feedback from other groups, who might have found a different method of solving the problems, or to provide other groups with suggestions for their own arguments. Students are often more open to instruction from their peers than from the instructors, as the power structure between students is more level than that between students and instructors. Also, when students explain material to other students, they often clarify their own arguments.
The third method involves the use of computers and the internet. The use of computers in lectures allows for a more dynamic presentation of the material. For visual learners, the use of graphics and dynamic text can provide a much more effective learning environment. Another way in which the computer can be an effective tool is through the internet. In my own courses, I have developed web sites for classes that provide information germane to the course material. Such information can include the syllabus, homeworks and solutions, and links to further information (see individual course descriptions for examples). These web sites are available to students around-the-clock, and students can access them as needed, regardless of the instructor’s schedule. I also encourage my students to contact me through the internet if they cannot see me personally, so that they can get feedback. Course mailing lists or bulletin board systems are also useful classroom tools. Students who may not be able to have their ideas heard in the lecture period can present those ideas on the mailing list and get feedback from other students and the instructor. These mailing lists can often provide a forum for discussion of material that cannot be addressed directly in the classroom due to the constraints of the syllabus.
Individual Classes
INDV101 – Introduction to Language
Position: Instructor
INDV101 is designed to be an introduction to the study of language. The topics are not only related to linguistic theory, but language study in a broader sense. Topics include linguistics, language variation, language policy, historical linguistics, child language acquisition, and primate research. During the Fall 1999 semester at the University of Arizona, this course had an enrollment of 240 students, and I supervised 5 teaching assistants.
With such a large enrollment, it is often difficult to meet my goals of making the course personal to the students. Therefore, I worked with the teaching assistants to develop group exercises designed to make the most of the smaller discussion sections. I also maintained a mailing list for the students, so that students’ ideas could be heard, and students could discuss the material, as discussions in large main lectures are problematic.
In main lectures, I used computer presentations to enhance the lectures, using Microsoft Power Point. These lecture slides were also made available on a web site devoted to the course. This website (http://www.ic.arizona.edu/~indv101) included not only the lecture slides, but also homeworks and solutions, study guides, reading guides, research paper information, results of in-class group exercises, syllabus, and related links. This website is currently accessible.
During Winter Session 1999-2000 and Summer Session 2000, I taught this same material as a 15-day and a 5-week intensive INDV101 course. As with the larger course, there was a web site, mailing list, and group exercises.
Linguistics 315 – Introduction to Phonology
Position: Instructor
Linguistics 315 is a course designed to introduce undergraduate students to phonological theory, the branch of linguistics devoted to the sounds, sound patterns, and sound structures of human language. During the Spring 2000 semester at the University of Arizona, I taught this course as primary instructor. The enrollment of this course was approximately 30 students.
As with other courses, this course had a webpage devoted to course material. This webpage included the syllabus, homework assignments and solutions, solutions to midterm exams, and related links. As this course had a relatively small enrollment, the students were given the opportunity to take part in discussions about the material. Also, I was able to provide students with handouts that contain relevant data and representations to enhance their ability to follow the presentations in lecture. I have also designed group in-class exercises to allow students to help each other in becoming more familiar with the material.
Linguistics 210 – Native Languages of North America
Position: Instructor
This class is designed to be an overview of topics relating to the languages of North America. Topics such as theoretical linguistics, bilingual education, language preservation, translation of literature, and language relatedness are all applied to Native American languages. During the Spring 2000 semester at the University of Arizona, I taught Linguistics 210 as the primary instructor. I was aided by two graduate teaching assistants. This class was supplemented by a set of webpages at the URL (http://www.u.arizona.edu/ic/ling210), which includes the syllabus, information on language relatedness, exercises and solutions, and links to further information. These pages are currently accessible. Although the content of these pages is the result of a collaborative effort between Dr. Langendoen and myself (while working as a teaching assistant for the course), the majority of the design and HTML code was done by me. One unique feature of these pages is the inclusion of exercises. The exercises are placed on the website after being assigned, and the solutions are linked after the due date. This allows the students to have access to the exercises and solutions for study throughout the semester.
Another feature of this course was developed in collaboration with my teaching assistants. On selected Fridays, the Ling 210 staff lined up speakers who are currently working in Native American language communities. These speakers came into the classroom and gave a 20 min. presentation on the community in which they work, and some of the work in which they are currently involved. These presentations include not only language data, but also information regarding the culture, practices, and beliefs of the people of those communities. These presentations give students first-hand exposure to the communities that they are studying about during the course.
In the past, I have been both a teaching assistant and a summer session instructor for this course. As a teaching assistant, I have been supervised by Dr. Ofelia Zepeda, Dr. Richard Demers, and Dr. Terence Langendoen. During the summer session, I independently designed and taught the Native American language course, for which I received complimentary feedback from student evaluations of my performance. This was a 5-week intensive course, with in-class exercises, a weekly quiz, midterm, final, and a term paper.
Linguistics 101 – Introduction to Language
Position: Teaching Assistant– Supervisor: Dr. Cecile McKee
Linguistics 101 is a class designed to be an introduction to the study of language, and is essentially the precursor to INDV101. This class included some group projects, to allow the students to be more directly involved in their learning. One major project was a panel discussion on human vs. animal language. The students in each discussion section were divided into two groups, one on each side of the question (Do non-humans have language?). The groups worked on their own questions in the debate and were given an opportunity to directly debate with their opposing group.
Dr. Mckee and I both feel that the Internet is a resource that can be helpful to the managing of a class, and one of my responsibilities for this class was to design and create a page on the World Wide Web, accessible to all the students. This webpage was in many ways a team effort between me, Dr. McKee and the rest of the Linguistics 101 staff. Information such as the syllabus, an outline of assignments and their due dates, contact information for the instructors, and suggested sites for further research was available. Also, I helped to manage an on-line bulletin board system to give the students an outside forum for discussion.
Linguistics 320 – Language and Social Issues
Position: Teaching Assistant– Supervisor: Dr. Diane Ohala
This course is designed to teach subjects topics related to language and social issues. Topics included were language and politics, language policy, dialect variation, language and gender, and language in advertising.
Included in this class were a number of in-class group projects, designed to get the students to talk with each other about the material. I particularly enjoyed this aspect of the class, as it falls into my philosophy about teaching. In-class group projects are particularly effective, as the instructor can be there to guide the groups’ work and offer suggestions.
During the section of this class in which the material related to language policy, I designed an in-class group project for implementation within the discussion section. I created a fictional setting in which there were many language contact situations that were similar to those that the students had been studying in class. The class was broken into small groups each representing the various language factions of the fictional country. The groups then worked independently to bring up some of the problems inherent to their language situation and offer some solutions to the majority language faction, represented by me. I believe that the students enjoyed this exercise, and were not only entertained but also became more familiar with the material. This exercise has gone on to form the basis of a larger project, An Interactive Model for Teaching the Study of Language, described below.
Linguistics 201 – Introduction to Linguistics
Position: Teaching Assistant/Grader– Supervisor: Dr. Andrew Barss
This course is specifically directed towards an introduction to linguistic theory. Some of the topics in this course were phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, pragmatics, language variation, language change, psycholinguistics, language acquisition, and language and the brain. This course was designed in a bit more unorthodox fashion, as the discussion sections were not discussion sections per se, but rather extended office hours. This allowed the students direct access to their teaching assistants for an hour-long period. The students were able to ask for reiteration and clarification of the material presented in the lectures. On occasion, new material was presented to the students in these sections.
Linguistics 300 – Introduction to Syntax
Position: Grader – Supervisor: Dr. Andrew Carnie
This course is directed primarily towards undergraduates in Linguistics. The students are presented with material designed to introduce them to the study of syntactic theory. Students were given material on such topics as the syntactic view of parts of speech, thematic roles and theta-marking, constituency, X-bar theory, and movement.
Although I did not run a discussion section for this class, I did grade the homework and was given the opportunity to present the answers to the class and some guidelines for the solutions. I also held office hours for students in order for them to get more individual attention as needed. At one point, when Dr. Carnie was unavailable, I presented the material for the lecture period, allowing me to gain experience in teaching syntax.
CURRENT TEACHING PROJECTS
An Interactive Model for Teaching the Study of Language
This project is an extension of a group exercise designed for Linguistics 320 (see above) for use during the language policy module. The goal of the project is to design an interactive web site that includes a model of language communities. The model will be a fictional world in which the team members will have constructed a number of fictional languages that will be placed in different language contact situations.
This interactive web tool is designed to be used in different language courses as a model to illustrate topics in linguistics, language variation, language contact, language policy, etc. Students will be given assignments that make use of the model, in order to familiarize them with the tools of language study. After completing these assignments, students will then be shown how those tools can be used in conjunction with actual language situations and data.
This model allows students to focus on the arguments and tools used in language study without the preconceived notions about languages and language communities that students often bring with them into the classroom. Once they are familiar with the tools, then they will be better prepared to extend that knowledge to real-world situations and will be able to see such situations from a much more objective standpoint.
This project has received funding from the General Education Teaching Teams Program at the University of Arizona as a Faculty-Student Curriculum Development Grant. During a four-week period, a team including myself, a graduate student, and an undergraduate student, developed the first stages of a website for this project. It is still under construction, but you may view its progress at http://www.ic.arizona.edu/~indv101/Development/newterra.
Sounds of Contemporary American English: The Language Samples Project
The purpose of this project is to develop standardized course modules focusing on the sounds of various dialects of contemporary American English, with the goal of making these modules available through the web as supplementary course materials, and as CDROMs for distribution to distance learners. The LSP courseware would serve a multitude of classes and enhance teaching and research efforts in units throughout the univeristy. Because of the ethnic, gender and class diversity as well as the historical importance of our language samples, departments in both the humanities and social sciences would find these materials useful. Specialized linguistic modules would be aimed at teaching students about sounds, sound perception, and sound production, while anthropological modules would address social differences in speakers. The modules would be classroom-ready, and include instructors’ guides to the resources.
This project is a collaboration between myself and Dr. Norma Mendoza-Denton, from the department of Anthropology. We received funding from the New Learning Environments and Instructional Technology Grants Program at the University of Arizona for this project. Currently, the website (under construction) can be found at the following url:
http://www.ic.arizona.edu/~lsp