The Arts TA program claims to be composed of practice which models a certain pedagogical practice, specifically a classroom practice. Things we do in the workshops, such as evaluation, can be translated into classroom situations quite easily. And indeed, so similar, that like in classroom practice, a survey which is so easy to administer becomes quite difficult to take up and adequately respond to. A great way to acknowledge a desire to improve practice, the survey poses a different problem with respect to its results.
This is the case, in short, with the results from the last workshop, Facilitating Discussion. Some concern was surfaced that, while the session was theoretically useful, it could have done with more practical advice: as one participant put it, not so much "tricks," but "tips" would still be great. This post is an attempt to address this demand.
First, a structural explanation (with a slightly apologetic tone): the peer sessions are an attempt to work through specific problems in practice, while the workshops are designed to address the theory of classroom situations. Thus "The TA Role," "Facilitating Discussion," "Effective Marking," and "The Inclusive Classroom" workshops have been seen to be building blocks of most Arts-based TA experiences (workshops on quantitative methods and the visual in classroom practice have been raised as possible additional building blocks). The peer sessions which follow are seen to build off the theory of each session by grounding such theory in talk around actual classroom practice. Where the workshops raise certain questions, the peer sessions attempt to provide a space within which to seek answers.
There is a certain overarching tone to the series that has been disrupted a little--indeed more than expected--by the initial set of "Survival Kit" sessions. These sessions were quite well attended, and changed (for the better, I should note) the dynamic of the semester's workshops from what the dynamic was in previous semesters. From my observations of the workshops, it appears that this term's TAs are far more comfortable bringing their own skills and experiences into self-reflection than they have been in past incarnations of our sessions. Where the agenda of the TA Role workshop was designed to do precisely this, the Survival Kit sessions seem to have preempted this possibility, at least to some degree.
Thus Discussion, which has been structured to build on Role, seems suddenly a little elementary to some (at least judging by the feedback). In other words, by this point in the semester examining the nature of power in structuring tutorial discussions is not entirely new--indeed, it seems more crucial for the Discussion workshop to develop strategies that explore how power can be examined in the classroom.
So apart from us asking "why discussion?" and "why discussion in a university context?" perhaps some consideration should be given to defining what we mean by "question." What are certain of its forms or purposes (e.g. memory and recall or descriptive, analytical or convergent, creative or divergent, evaluative, etc.)? How do we know when to use one in preference to the others? How can we anticipate the kinds of responses each will permit/prohibit? Additionally, we might articulate some of our own interest in active learning, including its principles and methods. An explicit discussion of student-types might also be interesting, as might ways of diminishing or enhancing the behaviours of so-called "difficult" students (the aggressive and the meek alike) without disempowering either.
All of these were raised at different points in the evaluation responses. Some of these are addressed in the linked handout on Facilitating Discussion. But the challenge, as always, is on discovering where one can find such resources for oneself and how one can go about locating them self-sufficiently. As we have tried to suggest, the program hesitates when it comes to providing too narrow a solution to anything when instead one can "learn it for oneself". The value in doing so is in recognizing that this ability, essentially one of discerning and distinguishing, with active engagement and a critical approach, is more generally applicable to one's own academic development across learning situations. Discovering how one knows is, in short, principally more valuable than what one knows.
I hope this answer isn't too evasive. For an even more indirect argument complementary to this post, please feel free to watch Orson Welles'
F For Fake (1974). As always I, and the program as well, welcome your feedback.
k
