|
Hi all I want to first say that my thoughts herein are NOT intended to involve
any moral judgment toward Alissa. Indeed, I appreciate the fact that Alissa has
indicated that her professional background is not in the discipline, and that
she is asking for help to teach a discipline outside her preparation. This is a
pragmatic issue, and thus, I offer my thoughts on how a non-sociologist might
attempt to teach our discipline. However, there is another, broader issue here,
that seems (to me) too often ignored. At the end, I briefly address the broader
issue of the teaching of our discipline by non-sociologists, since it in many
ways, begs the question of whether or not sociology constitutes a profession (or
even a semi-profession). First however, we should consider the pragmatic issue of how a
non-sociologist might attempt to effectively teach our discipline. This
practice is not uncommon at the community college level, and I think we should
continually reconsider what we as a profession wish to be taught in our
introductory course. My personal suggestion would be to focus on breadth,
rather than depth. In this context, is seems more reasonable to expect someone
not trained in sociology to work from a generalist introductory text. I would
also recommend that a non-sociologists use a standardized testbank to simply
assess mastery of the breadth of concepts and findings, and suggest they not
evaluate students by asking them to critically assess sociological content and
perspectives. I say the latter because I believe a person not properly trained
in a given discipline is more likely to err when it comes to critically
assessing the ability of students to use insights and techniques in manners
consistent with the disciplinary practices. In addition, many texts come with good ancillary materials, and as
Keith indicates, the ASA website has a lot of resources as well. In addition, a
scan of the “Teaching Notes” section of our TEACHING SOCIOLOGY
journal can provide a lot of examples of effective teaching practices. Finally,
as Eileen and Morten have done, we should each offer assistance. I personally
like the “teaching note” by O’Bach (1999) for teaching the “constructedness”
of social group identities (Teaching Sociology, 27: 252-257). This exercise work
well in several contexts, not just race. Regarding the sociological perspective, I might personally recommend that
non-sociologists teaching sociology concentrate on exercises where students
practice “taking the role of the other” in order to understand and
interpret why others express certain behaviors and beliefs, and under what
social circumstances those behaviors and beliefs are most likely to be
exhibited. For example, if you want students to understand seemingly
non-normative behavior among poor people, have students work to imagine raising
a family of two or three from within the framework of a poverty budget, and in
the absence of a parental partner. While Alissa asked for classroom-based
experiences, I find having students tutor and mentor poor kids, or having them
work in afterschool programs teaches invaluable insights regarding diversity, poverty,
community, human agency, etc. Alternatively, if you want them to understand the
lack of search activity among discouraged workers (a real census category),
have them imagine trying to find work when there are no jobs that match their own
abilities, talents and skills, or when “prior experience” is
required. Have them go through the help wanted ads in certain communities, and
compare the jobs available to aggregate unemployment compensation levels. In
short, one essential exercise is to have them construct and learn to appreciate
alternative rationalizations for seemingly irrational behaviors and practices. In a related sense, I would also suggest non-sociologists have students
practice “avoiding victim-blaming.” I think this is a key
difference between our model of the nature of social problems, and the medical
or psychological approaches to social problems. In the latter, the emphasis seems
to be upon changing individuals so that they might adapt to environmental stressors
in their lives. From a sociological perspective, the emphasis is rarely upon
individuals, and almost always upon social environments. As such, we are more
concerned with “changing the stimuli,” rather than focusing largely
upon changing the response. And for any behavior, it is essential for sociology
students to learn to recognize the influences upon human behavior that are
located in environmental forces OUTSIDE the individual, rather than seeing
human behavior as being the result of internal factors or mental processes. I
strongly suggest non-sociologists avoid biological and psychological
explanations, since (a) these disciplines already have arguments for human
behavior that do not prioritize social factors (e.g., they often assign primacy
to biochemistry, and/or stimuli-response mechanisms regulated by the brain.),
and to emphasize biochemistry and psychology is a form of reductionism, from
the standpoint of sociology that too often ignores the primacy of environments
in cause behavioral patterns. Sociology is does not infer these other
disciplines are wrong: instead, it looks at alternative causes of human social
behavior. However, the broader issue has been with us for a while, and I have
rarely heard professional discussions of the role of non-sociologists teaching
sociology. If a sociologist were to write to “Teaching Economics”
or Teaching History” or “Teaching Psychology” and indicate
that (a) he or she had been assigned to teach History 101 or Econ 101 or Psych
101, and (b) she or he has no background in that discipline, my guess is that
the members of that listserve would be surprised, if not shocked. My guess is
that most professional organizations would be outraged if non-members tried to
teach their disciplines, and some I believe would try to intervene. Primary and
secondary education has restrictions upon who can teach in elementary and
secondary schools, based on certification. When higher educations courses are taught
by outsiders, is this somehow “more” legitimate? For example, I
cannot even teach criminology or family systems courses in my department, but these
courses are occasionally taught by non-sociologists, at the community college
level. Shouldn’t such presentations of disciplinary content be declared
“non-accredited?” Again, I do not wish to sound as if I am judging
the author of this post, since she is doing what needs to be done. But on a
broader level, should people without credentials be allowed to teach? And if
so, which disciplines should allow such practices, and at which levels of those
discipline? Robert Robert J. Hironimus-Wendt, Ph.D. "It doesn't matter how strong your
opinions are. If you don't use your power for
positive change, you are indeed part of the problem,
helping to keep things the way they
are." -Coretta Scott King From:
[email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eileen Ie Welcome to the list Alyssa, I've found one exercise in particular to be very useful in
demonstrating inequalities of class that was actually posted by another member
on the list. My students really love it and it really gets the point across.
I've attached it as a Word file. Also, if your class has access to the internet there's an exercise
called "Sorting People" on race that students seem to also find
interesting. Hope these are helpful. Eileen Ie
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Teaching Sociology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/teachsoc -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- |
- TEACHSOC: New to Sociology alyssa
- TEACHSOC: Re: New to Sociology Ender, M. DR BS&L
- TEACHSOC: Re: New to Sociology Eileen Ie
- TEACHSOC: RE: New to Sociology Robert Hironimus-Wendt
- TEACHSOC: Re: New to Sociology Del Thomas Ph D
