Teaching as Community Property
The communal nature of university education and the sense of belonging to a teaching community
Introduction
In an influential address, Pat Hutchings of AAHE argued for Making Teaching Community Property.
Her message, embodied throughout this website, was that teaching is a professional activity and that peer review is an essential and valuable component of the process. She envisioned teachers interacting with each other, not just with students. See also CETaL's series on Peer Review (Spring, 1999, led by Sandra Hurley in Education and Ron Weber in History).
The essay below is designed to address two critical factors: the sense of belonging to a teaching community and the affective sense of having one's work evaluated. It may provoke thinking and discussion about how a person's sense of self and identity is bound up in teaching and what implications this may have for evaluations of teaching, both personal and institutional.
Egoless Teaching?
How would you feel if another faculty member dropped in to observe your class unannounced? Can you imagine your colleagues' reactions if you did the same?
This image, I hope, provokes a number of questions, which I address below: What attitudes govern our teaching? How do we interact with our peers concerning teaching? What is the nature or meaning of teaching for a scholar?
Ultimately, I want to use such an encounter to portray teaching (as others have) as a profoundly scholarly activity that occurs within a community. Moreover, I contend, teaching involves an important -- but too often neglected -- affective dimension that subtly shapes the potential for fruitfully evaluating and developing teaching. I claim that we should embrace the ideal of egoless teaching as a way to underscore both the collective nature of education and the value of open and constructive criticism among teachers and students.
Attitudes: On Feeling Awkward
What does the teacher feel when an unexpected visitor enters a classroom? (What would you feel?) I suspect that the typical teacher (though certainly not all) will feel awkward or uncomfortable, perhaps vulnerable, even mildly anxious or apprehensive. What might this mean? First, I want to note that the most salient response is likely emotional, not intellectual. I consider this emotion telling, and where it may go unnoticed all the more worth addressing. It signals us that something important is happening.
The feeling of awkwardness is probably built on an assumption (generally secure) about the classroom environment—an unstated norm that the visitor has violated. That is, we tend to view the classroom as the teacher's domain, a relatively private space. From one perspective, the norm is a natural expression of respect for the teacher's academic freedom in determining course content and form. From another perspective, however, a view that "privatizates" the classroom contrasts oddly with open enrollment of students, who can converse freely and publicly about what occurs there. Is the classroom public or private?
Why might the mere suggestion of an "open-door" policy in the classroom trigger emotional responses? Consider, here, the tradition of occasions where someone does "legitimately" visit the classroom. Usually, it is someone (notably, someone more powerful or with greater authority) who comes to evaluate the teacher. Passing judgment. Rating their value. Now, there's fuel for emotion. In a seminar in the spring of 1998, UTEP faculty expressed what may be common sentiments about review of teaching: provokes fear, generates anxiety about "qualifying," intimates success or failure, decides promotion or advancement, feeds uncertainties about standards of review, etc. I think someone simply peering in on a class can easily threaten the teacher's sense of self.
Distaste for being evaluated is not uncommon. It probably occurs as frequently among teachers as the students they teach(!). Yet at the same time most teachers are also proud of their teaching at some level. From this perspective, having an "ego" in teaching can be a valuable asset. The ego is the source of the teacher's stake in their effort. Thus, it may be somewhat paradoxical that teachers often cannot freely express their pride through many evaluation systems. Indeed, it is a challenge to imagine a system of "evaluation" that promotes good teaching as much as good feelings about teaching.
Would we benefit from a more "egoless" approach to teaching, where a close look at someone's teaching is potentially rewarding and less threatening to the individual? I suggest that for us to begin to critically evaluate teaching, especially as a way to promote better teaching for ourselves, we need first to address the sense of self that is frequently embodied by the teacher. Ideally, I contend, a teacher should welcome someone who might who might drop in to a class unexpectedly and offer some constructive comments—or, equally, recognize and validate some positive achievement. How might an institutional system foster "egoless teaching" at this level?
Interaction: Teacher to Teacher
The reaction to a fellow teacher visiting class might also be alienation. The stranger is not truly welcome. What is this person's motive or purpose? By comparison, envision someone who drops by unannounced to a colleague's lab, studio or office. In this case, the peer is generally welcome. The visit offers an occasion for congeniality and/or scholarly discourse. Yet how frequently do we discuss our teaching with our peers, as peers in teaching?
Peer review in research is widely accepted and regarded as a positive force. It is how the quality of our scholarly work is validated—and it also serves as a valuable forum for exchanging criticism respectfully. We value peer review in research. Yet to what degree do we avail ourselves of peer review in teaching, another dimension of our scholarly work?
Dialogue among peers can transform teaching from a one dimensional interaction between teacher and student into a rich network. The challenge of teaching can be shared. Collaborative learning, collaborative teaching. A teacher who embraces the community as a means to achieve shared goals in education expresses a second layer of "egoless teaching."
Of course, visiting someone else's class involves an element of courtesy, in acknowledging the dynamics of any particular class and respecting a teacher's lesson plan, etc. But might reactions to an unexpected classroom visitor also measure the degree of trust between colleagues and thus the potential for mutual support in teaching? What can be done to foster trust and interaction when the topic is teaching?
When one considers a college education from the trajectory of a single student rather than through the lens of faculty courseload, one readily sees the challenge of creating something more integrated than a transcript of courses. To what degree do teachers communicate with each other about their common mission for each student (beyond coordinating prerequisite courses or agreeing on a core curriculum, say)? The university is, by virtue of its organization, a teaching community. Shouldn't each member of that community care what others are doing? Shouldn't we all feel honored when another teacher expresses interest in peering into our classes?
How might an institutional system foster "egoless teaching" at this level?
Scholarly Work: Teaching as a Profession
Finally, consider the reaction to the unexpected classroom visitor as simply unexpected--and possibly even strange. Imagine that the visitor may be interested in improving his or her teaching and simply wants to observe a respected colleague to pick up a few ideas. Alternatively, the teacher may be burdened with critical, yet cryptic student evaluations--but does the visitor become a potential ally who could help diagnose and resolve the problem? In either scenario, the visit could be an occasion for professional development. Yet how often do teachers actively seek feedback to improve their teaching? The classroom visitor is strange partly because the notion of benefitting from the encounter is itself strange.
In nearly all professions--medicine, law and engineering, for example--continual renewal and growth is part of the conception of the profession. Yet such expectations are rarer among teachers: why?
Perhaps we don't see in teaching the potential for personal growth. Perhaps we imagine that all good teachers are born that way. Yet like any set of skills, the repertoire of techniques and strategies for teaching can deepen with experience, analysis and reflection. As professionals, we should welcome--and even pursue--opportunities for improvement.
On a more general level, the classroom visitor is an eye on the classroom--a gentle metaphor for examining teaching and its role on a grander scale. What is the purpose or nature of teaching? How does it relate to being a scholar? Why have institutions of higher learning traditionally been composed of research scholars, for example? How does teaching contribute to better research? Here, reflecting on teaching is another professional activity that can help clarify one's purposes and practice.
A third perspective on "egoless" teaching, then, underscores the teacher as a member of a profession committed to continual intellectual and technical growth. The egoless teacher serves a broad vision of education and develops personally towards these goals. How might an institutional system foster "egoless teaching" at this level?
Egoless Teaching
My characterizations of teaching may be off the mark for some individuals, or some sectors within the university. But I suspect that many of them do ring true. They are nonetheless, perspectives to clarify what might foster effective teaching in a teaching community.
How might an institutional system foster egoless teaching at multiple levels?
Bibliography
Pat Hutchings. 1996. Making Teaching Community Property. Washington, D.C.: AAHE.
Keig, L. and Waggoner, M.D. 1994. "Collaborative Peer Review: The Role of Faculty in Improving College Teaching." ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, No. 2. Washington DC: George Washington Univ. School of Education and Human Development.