Patricia J. Sohn|Teaching Philosophy
I teach with the assumption that almost all students can learn. Encouraging the students to embrace the project of the course takes the first two or three days of the class in most cases, as part of introducing the syllabus and thematic materials. I define the course “project” in terms of the development of skills as well as increasing knowledge and awareness with regard to topical and thematic materials. Because the Middle East and North Africa is fraught with historical claims and normal “facts” that are, themselves, deeply contested, when I teach courses of fewer than 50 students I tend to use a modified seminar method. I expressly do not require students to “believe” me on facts nor the fact claims of the scholarly works that we read, which are typically based upon primary research. But I do ask that they be able to identify the main argument(s) and explain those arguments in terms of evidence that is accurately presented in the author’s terms, rather than any of our own, as the first line of analysis. I suggest that, when we have developed the skill to do so consistently over time, it should increase our ability to decide for ourselves what to believe regarding fact claims. At the same time, it should increase the student’s own confidence in his or her ability to do so.
In the case of seminars, I feel that I have had some significant success in teaching through choosing topical texts that are important and interesting for students to the extent possible (e.g., a “great texts” approach). I work hard to sell the idea of focusing on the reading materials, almost exclusively, for the first half of the semester, or so. In that way, lecture and discussion are centered upon scholar/author arguments, and the classroom is likely to become productive and supportive rather than polarized. In individual presentations of chapters and round tables for each major text students are asked to become somewhat expert in the chapter they are presenting, or on the theme they are discussing in a round table. When students have developed the more disciplined skills to approach readings in this way – and identifying and recounting the arguments and evidence offered in the author’s terms becomes closer to second nature – I then open the classroom discussion to include some student personal experience or reflection while attempting to avoid “the normative.” Near the end of the semester, I allow some more normative discussion; I do so particularly if it is tied to student personal experience or scholarly theories. I distinguish between analytical distance and normative personal engagement. I have some assignments arranged to encourage the students to distinguish between the two in an active way, that is, to recognize when they are engaging in one or the other and to develop skills in appropriate uses of each.
The skills level of the students in reading, explaining the readings, as well as in writing and speaking about the readings usually increases appreciatively across the semester (the more so if I have a few students who take my courses two or three times). As noted, I do allow some limited time for (fully) normative discussion. I do so most typically by the end of the semester with the reminder that the classroom usually includes students from across the political spectrum, as well as students from many religions and national origins. I feel that I have been most successful when the students are able to remain sensitive (e.g., in the sense of sensible) to one another and grounded in the readings in that context. Most students have been willing to embrace that need for classroom functionality, and it has, on many occasions, resulted in meaningful discussions regarding important topics. That, together with the development of analytical skills in reading, writing, and speaking, is my highest goal in teaching in higher education. If I achieve it in a semester, I am happy. I have had students move on to very responsible positions and remain in contact over decades. Thus, I believe that it works. I believe that teaching to skills as well as knowledge achieves the goals of expanding the student’s sense of his or her own potential options; grounded self-confidence; and contributes (directly or indirectly) to the economic options, career options, or successes of many, if not most.
By using a skills-development approach, I usually find that most students feel they have learned something important in the course, be it skills, topical material, or both. I encourage them to consider how increasing their formal writing ability and their public (modeled on academic professional) speaking ability on academic topics will help them in future courses, work, and professional contexts. That has been the most effective way that I have been able to achieve “buy-in” amongst the students. When the students “buy-in” in large numbers, they tend to enjoy the classes a great deal. I have had some students say that my courses are the best courses they have taken. They come prepared, and they participate in discussion and group work in an actively-present manner. In longer sessions (e.g., a 2- or 3-hour class), I may give the students 3 to 10 minutes to read a specific one to five pages (different for each group, or for each student); in small groups, they then discuss what they found and what seems to be most important. It has increased the specificity and detail of discussion, and possibly the confidence of some among the less prepared, shy students, or students for whom English is a second language. Likewise, from an individual student’s starting point, it has tended to allow them to climb the ladder of analysis to a not insignificant degree. It is something of which I am proud. In seminars, then, I have been able to use discursive interaction with the students fairly extensively, while still focusing on causal analysis generally or as presented by authors (identifying each in turn).
My teaching approach is, then, influenced by my own academic or social-theoretical position as a post-structuralist and post-positivist scholar, researcher, and life-long student of comparative and international socio-political dynamics at the levels of the grassroots (including micro-level political ethnography), culture and institutions, or a combination of the two. That is, (1) while I recognize the critically important contributions of postmodernism to rethink some of our early assumptions regarding Objectivity in ourselves as social scientists; (2) I draw upon the work of some experts in discursive, semiotic, or analysis of power in recent work when studying religion or cultural variables (including Derrida and Bourdieu); and (3) I believe normatively in multiculturalism as a means to coexistence in the streets of almost all of our national contexts; (4) I am, nonetheless, not able to follow to the extent of a full relativism. There is a moral order for me, as a Mahayana Buddhist (Asian or Tibetan form), however mild. Thus, while Durkheim challenges our notion of a grounded morality above the community, I follow some of his methods and academic disciples (e.g., Douglas, Turner, etc.) in analyzing the social rather than his normative positions regarding the relative immorality of crime and the ostensible ungrounded nature of religion(s). Relationality, significant in feminist theory, likewise, appears in some of my work; but not taken to a full position of relativism. What is important for good consideration for me in what is relative or relational is that which is necessary for us to coexist in our streets (or classrooms) across ethnic, religious, gender, and other social boundaries, hierarchies, and ideologies. Nonetheless, my teaching tends to the non-normative side with that approach as its background principle.
It inspires me to watch (and to listen to) the students’ progress every semester – and every week – at making sense of scholarly arguments more efficiently and effectively. I am heartened to see their writing skills develop over the course of a semester. Together, it makes me believe that the next generation will, indeed, be prepared for self-rule in a democratic setting. It increases my confidence in passing the baton to our next generation’s leadership.
The same is true, approximately, for my teaching and mentoring of graduate students. I have served on many Ph.D. and M.A. committees over the years, including those of some of our best graduate students. I have helped with the development of their dissertation research design(s), and, for some, with fellowship and/or grant writing. I have helped with some graduate student publishing efforts. Some went on to achieve prestigious post-doctoral fellowships, faculty posts, and to become chairs, directors, and associate deans at their own universities, here, at home, and abroad.
My undergraduate students who remain in contact (usually via LinkedIn) have displayed a wide range of professional development from stay-at-home mothers to doctors, lawyers, Peace Corps, Teach for America, positions at the United Nations, and the like. Three of my former undergraduate students received a University-level research award for the senior thesis for which I was supervisor. One received a University-level writing award for that thesis. One was later a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard University. One former undergraduate under my supervision received a College-level senior thesis research award. Two undergraduates went to the University of Chicago for Master-level study, and others to other top-10, top-20, top-30, and other colleges and universities for graduate school, law school, or both. At least a half-dozen students received highest honors with me as their honors thesis supervisor. I worked with close to a dozen students as junior fellows in a departmental student-research program over the course of twenty-four years.
I received a Great Teaching Certificate from the University of Florida, a professional development training certificate within our Center for Teaching Excellence, and two Teaching Badges: Digital Literacy and Student Focused Teaching. I attended one teaching workshop in the same series on Active Learning. It is a professional training and development exercise that I find effective to help me stay appraised of recent developments in teaching pedagogy, and specific methods and strategies that faculty employ. In the digital context it is particularly useful, as participating in such workshops raises my awareness of certain technologies as they are becoming available.
I did similar work relating to professional development of teaching-training beginning in the early 2010s, when I became involved in learning about and contributing in my small ways to developments in online teaching. I was part of a University-level committee regarding the same and learned a few platforms, techniques, and course-development skills related to teaching online. Most of my courses were, nonetheless, in person. Today, I am very comfortable with online and hybrid teaching to the extent of allowing students who are sick to participate via Zoom if they are able, and like opportunities made possible by online technologies when they correspond with university or department policies.
I often make a concerted effort to reduce the costs of texts by using readings that are available as electronic books, free-of-charge, electronically available research articles, and similar. I received four awards for low-cost texts for my courses in recent years. In addition, for some classes I offer a suggestion of several optional films, which can be counted as course materials for the purposes of writing assignments (while not replacing readings). I include them in the electronic reserves listing for topical relevance and student convenience, or, if there is no electronic reserve, I provide an online database link to them for correct identification. Thank you for reading!