INSIDE DOUGLAS COLLEGE / JANUARY 8, 1991

LN RE I TS I PS TET aE SN LE TE EES LO ST TAD LEI DY TOTS RINT EERE

works, along with arguments and evidence supporting
their selections, were to be presented to the class orally
in the fifth week of the semester. We limited presenta-
tions to 15 minutes each and suggested that students
consider their presentations as persuasive speeches. In
addition to the oral presentation, we required each
student to maintain a research log: “a detailed but
readable account of how the research proceeded, who
completed what tasks, what discoveries and frustra-
tions were experienced, and how final decisions were
made.” We required that it also include documenta-
tion of works cited and people interviewed.

Over the next two weeks we allowed the groups a
few minutes of class time to meet and organize. The
students assumed responsibility for most of the meet-
ings on their own time outside of class. We also
arranged two “potluck” dinners for the class on
weekends in order to view films we had chosen and,
more importantly, to give students a chance to relax
and get to know one another. Even these informal
occasions were used by the research groups to swap
ideas, discoveries, and frustrations.

At this point, we realized a hidden virtue of this
kind of research project. The students were building
relationships and community even as they worked ona
demanding academic task. Further, the groups all
faced conflicts and frustrations, not only with the
immensity of their tasks, but with each other as well.
There was a struggle and compromise. Some groups
functioned more smoothly than others. A couple of
groups didn’t function at all; members worked inde-
pendently, perplexed by the seeming impossibility of
meeting regularly in the face of busy lives and over-
booked personal schedules. Most of these conflicts
found voice in the research logs, and we learned of
them only after the projects were completed. Even
then the experience of struggle became rich experien-
tial compost for the community garden. But the most
exciting outcome of this research assignment was not
to reveal itself until later, and it took us by pleasant
surprise.

On the day research results were presented, the
students bristled with excitement. Fifteen minutes
proved much too short to contain the information each
group eagerly offered the class. These were their
selections, and the students resembled dedicated
instructors expounding the virtues and significance of
their selections. Supporting evidence sometimes
spilled over into personal anecdotes of interesting
people interviewed and surprises experienced. In the
two class periods we devoted to the presentations, a

major shift occurred: The mantle of responsibility and
the authority for the class was lifted from the shoulders
of the instructors and settled comfortably onto the
shoulders of the students.

For the next 10 weeks this was their course, and they
knew it. Nobody said it, we didn’t plan it, but there it
was. We shared the students’ enthusiasm. Thanks to
their efforts, we all looked forward to a reading list that
was fresh to us all. Our job at this point was to narrow
the readings to a manageable number and to place the
readings into some kind of sensible order, allowing for
length of selections and dates when we could obtain
some of the materials. Co-learning would be a reality.

And so it was. We read and pondered these works
alongside the students. We read works chosen by a
particular group; members of that group would
volunteer background information and help us over
humps in understanding. As instructors we felt the
kind of investment they had in the readings; we
experienced it every time we walked into a classroom.
For most, if not all, of the students, it was their first
taste of really caring deeply about their academic work.

CECES

Many of the outcomes of this student-centered
research project, intended and otherwise, met the
thematic concerns of our course by converting the class
itself into a microcosmic community. The pedagogy
underlying it, however, invites adaptability to most
other courses, in short, by structuring assignments and
activities in ways which: engage students and help to
build community in the classroom, reward students for
working collaboratively, develop in students feelings
of responsibility for and caring about the assignments,
and help faculty and students become active co-
learners in the classroom. We believe such an ap-
proach enables students to participate genuinely in the
process and content of their learning and offers some
means of bringing the students’ minds and spirits into
our classrooms.

Luke Barber, Professor, English/Philosophy

John Barrett, Professor, English

Jackie Claunch, Dean of Instruction

For further information, contact the authors at Rich-

land College, 12800 Abrams Road, Dallas, TX 75243-
2199.

 

Suanne D. Roueche, Editor

October 26, 1990, Vol. XII, No. 25

©The University of Texas at Austin, 1990
Further duplication is permitted by MEMBER
institutions for their own personnel.

 

INNOVATION ABSTRACTS is a publication of the National Institute for Staff and Organizational Development (NISOD),

EDB 348, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, (512) 471-7545. Subscriptions are available to nonconsor-
tium members for $40 per year. Funding in part by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation and the Sid W. Richardson Foundation.
Issued weekly when classes are in session during fall and spring terms and once during the summer. ISSN 0199-106X.

=o