Honoring Teaching: Sherryl Broverman
Teaching award winner discusses what works in her classroom
Friday, April 22, 2005
Durham, N.C. -- My philosophy of teaching has its origins in Bloom’s Taxonomy of
educational objectives, which defines the different levels of
thinking one expects from students. Briefly, Bloom outlines the
cognitive steps of learning as: knowledge, which is simple recall
of information; comprehension, which reflects understanding of
meaning; application, which requires using knowledge in new
contexts; analysis, which requires the ability to break down
information into components; synthesis, which requires students to
arrange information into new patterns; and evaluation, which
requires students to make judgments about the quality of
information. This taxonomy can be used both to teach students how
to think at higher levels and to develop evaluative measures of
their thinking.
When designing my courses I try to include readings, activities and strategies that spur students to the higher levels of thinking identified by Bloom. I also identify for students the different levels of cognition, make explicit that I expect this from them, and model these steps for them in class. I offer multiple opportunities to ‘practice thinking’ via homework assignments, in class activities and optional ‘questions to think about’ so that they don’t just associate thinking with taking exams.
I also base my teaching style on ‘pedagogies of engagement’, which not only connect students personally to the material, but push them to actively manipulate and assess their knowledge. Active engagement is particularly necessary when teaching non-majors, the majority of whom enroll in general education science courses simply to fulfill university distribution requirements. Bloom’s taxonomy has recently been modified to make the essential nature of student engagement more explicit. Shulman’s new taxonomy of learning begins with ‘engagement and motivation’, which he says should be used “not only to grab but to hold… interest, not only to entice but to instruct”. I have explicitly chosen topics for my non-majors courses (e.g., HIV/AIDS, sexual selection, evolution vs., creationism,) that are likely to engage students and motivate them to want to understand. At one level the specific content of my courses is simply a vehicle to expose them to the nature of scientific thinking and to get them to practice higher orders of thinking.
Another aspect of my teaching philosophy is to show students how ideas and issues can cross disciplinary boundaries. By weaving in historical, sociological, political and cultural themes, I show students both how scientific knowledge can be a product of its culture and time, and how scientific endeavors have shaped many aspects of modern society. Examining how social paradigms direct the scope of scientific inquiry enables students to see how ideas evolve over time, and hopefully, to assess the status of current scientific inquiry. This interdisciplinary approach, I have been told by students, also allows connections to be drawn between ideas discussed in different courses, which is an excellent way to cultivate intellectual breadth.
I also explicitly try to stretch students’ understanding by taking them out of their intellectual comfort zone. Analyses of non-intuitive results make them more aware of their subconscious assumptions. Unexpected answers also pique their curiosity about what forces shape the biological world. To this end I organize my courses around questions they may not have even thought to ask, such as how technological advancement can enhance the spread of disease or why infanticide can be adaptive. I believe that repeatedly challenging their preconceived notions stimulates students to be more open to new ideas.
In sum, I try to engage students in my courses by choice of topics, repeated problem solving, making them draw connections with more familiar fields of thought, and stimulating them to question our level of understanding. At all levels of teaching, whether it be course design, choice of topics, or development of activities I strive to forge deep connections between scientific material and the individual student. My goal is not to produce more scientists or doctors, but young adults better equipped to understand the natural world around them and their place in it.
