It reminded me of a study they did recently that used statistical regression to determine what factors (in the school environment) had the greatest effect on student outcomes. The researchers basically concluded after controlling for “home environment factors” that the biggest contributor to student success was not teacher aptitude nor the quality of school facilities but actually “peer effect” – learning that takes place between students. To me, this seems to suggest that a more effective approach to improving education might be to try classroom “designs” that enhance the peer effect rather than focusing more narrowly on teacher “quality.”

I’ll get you a link, if you haven’t heard of this research already. It seems somewhat relevant here. Anyway, thanks for the ideas, I’m interested in learning more about this.

1. Those J201-204 courses are weed-out classes, right? And the SOJC is changing them into Gateway I and Gateway II (Do you follow Michael Werner [mwerner1] on Twitter or in any other form? He would have more info). I don’t know what they’ll be like, but I hear there’s more about online and visual training.

You might also have experienced problems that occur in large state schools with large intro classes versus private schools with small classes, as Jeremy mentions in comment 1.

2. I asked all of my Reporting 1 students last term and Mag 1 students this term if anyone was on Twitter, and no one knew what it was. So in that case — OK, I’m a part-time adjunct and full-time journalist, not really “a professor” — I know more than some of them.

I can’t address the multiple-choice test issue, but I do know that I want my reporting students to understand newsfeeds and on-line reporting and real-time blogging or Tweeting but ALSO to know how to write a news story or an editorial or a profile. Cluelessness about constructing a narrative will trip an aspiring reporter up way faster than ignorance about how to use Twitter. The latter is much easier to learn.

Meanwhile, I do wonder how it would be if everything students were doing in Reporting had a real-life component. I didn’t major in journalism but did do my undergrad at the U of Missouri, and J-students there write the daily paper. That means classes have much more of a real-time response. (The UO J-school’s News Lab is kind of like that, but it’s not quite the same.) On the other hand, when you’re just learning, it might be a bit easier to have a protected space where you can screw up without having it blared all over the print/online world.

3. On your unconference and planning the syllabus together: There’s a great book called “A Year in School: What the Teacher Learned” by Jane Tompkins that recounts her attempts to do the very thing you ask for. She talks about the implications for various sorts of students. However: The model of creating the syllabus together might work for you, but not for others … and you’d have to be able to deal with that without thinking they’re less smart or capable than you.

In that vein, you write here as if J-school professors know nothing about what students will need to know — which is as patently ridiculous as a professor telling students they should just trust the prof because the students don’t know anything. Good ideas can get lost in that kind of rhetoric from either side. I think we can encourage more of a good working relationship with a different approach.

I have before and will again think about trying syllabus collaboration. It’s easier a. in a 16-week semester b. in a small class c. with students who have self-selected to know that it’s an experimental class. Still, I see room for it in Reporting 1 this spring. Interesting as I plan the syllabus.

Would love to talk with you about more of the issues you raise. I’ll be at a play and can’t be on #collegejourn chat Sunday, but I’ll definitely try for March 1. Meanwhile, see you on Twitter.

Thanks for sparking some thoughts about teaching in a J-school,
Suzi

Suzi Steffen
Performing/Viz Arts Editor @ the Eugene Weekly
Adjunct instructor @ the UO’s SOJC