Following on from the breakthrough I had whilst delivering the workshop on sound environment a few weeks ago (see blog entitled: “Workshop on Sound Environment – A new chapter in my practice”) I was asked by the same unit leader to deliver the same workshop, except to Stage 1 students.

This time I would have quite a few more students, about 30.

I was also in need to record this session for an observation opportunity.

So I suddenly felt that my delivery had to be much more formal than the first time round.

My somewhat unplanned conversational experience with the stage 3 students that gave me a great deal of hope for having hit a breakthrough, now felt quite remote. I felt the pressure of heading back to PowerPoint slides, me at one end of the class, students at the other and delivering in passive mode, i.e. where the students passively receive the lecture.

But why did I feel that formal was better? Why did such rigid structure seem the way forward? Of course I would interpolate examples from real life industry experience, but why the need to cling on to the slides, to the theory, to the talking…

Perhaps this has to do with my upbringing as a learner. I come from Italy where, at least when I grew up, learners are expected to sit down and receive lectures, then go home study on books what the teacher explained, learn it (ideally elaborate and not memorise, but some students memorise and do very well…) and repeat it back when interrogated (“interrogation” is how we call our viva exams, which happen regularly throughout the year, not just at the end of a term) in front of the whole class by yourself (or two of you if you were lucky) “surface learning” anyone (Biggs, 2007)? Also, one was never asked for their own opinion. One was expected to analyse texts and thinking through the lens of critics, professors, established writers, etc. not their own. I appreciate one should have a broad understanding of the knowledge that’s out there, but somehow it felt a bit restricted to never be able to express one’s own opinion.

This was turned upside down when I was studying for my undergraduate degree in New York: there we were in fact encouraged to criticise, analyse and express our opinion.

How about a happy medium?

Nonetheless, whether I was allowed to express myself or not, my experience was of a passive learner, during lessons anyway. In my own time I was always quite curious and tried to get to the core of what I was learning. This may also have been the effect of being a professor’s daughter…

So I suppose this is why I find some kind of security in delivering a lecture:

• I can prepare
• I can know what to say all the time
• I could even rehearse every move, every tone, the level of my voice (this may be coming from my acting training)
• The session can be predicted

So of course, an informal session is scary, it’s like improv: one has to ‘yes…and’ everything (Halpern et al, 1994), acknowledge the situation as it comes and respond to it in real time. But that is much more real and much more engaging and much more effective and liberating! The proof is in how well that previous session went.

But how can one reproduce that? Not just for repeat teaching, but for the years to come? There are a lot of variables, mostly to do with people and combination of people.

Perhaps this is the point, that we mustn’t aim at reproducing teaching. Perhaps teaching is ever evolving and we evolve with it as students do and we learn from each session improving on the next one. This does not seem fair, but it possibly highlights how teaching is then a dialogic process where teachers merely contribute to knowledge creation and sharing; where knowledge is in the interpretation and creative application of theory just as much as the theory itself.

All that said, I have been reflecting on the difference between Stage 1 and Stage 3 students and on whether, perhaps due to confidence, experience, maturity, Stage 3 students are able to navigate an informal session more successfully or at least more comfortably than Stage 1 students would.

Perhaps Stage 1 students still need some structure in their taught sessions. Structure here though, shouldn’t mean passively receiving a lecture. If Stage 3 students can take unplanned conversations, for Stage 1 students the teacher could provide some structure, offering prompts, activities that stimulate critical thinking, opportunities to discuss challenges.

From this reflection, it seems that I need to break down my lectures and find opportunities for practical activities that allow students to experience the theory I’d like them to learn, whether this is through the use of equipment or in response to real life scenarios. This would allow me to keep some of that safe structure, whilst allowing students to co-create the session with me and construct their knowledge along the way.

Bibliography

Biggs, J. and Tang, C. (2007) Teaching for Quality Learning at University (Third Edition) Maidenhead: Open University Press

Halpern, C., Close, D. and Johnsonn, K. (1994) Truth in Comedy. The Manual of Improvisation Colorado Springs: Meriwether Publishing