PERHAPS the best discussion section I have ever had here at the University was that for ENGL 381, History of Literature in English I, during the first semester of my second year. It wasn't as politically stirring as the section for introductory bioethics; most people seemed to have deeper convictions about abortion than about the Wife of Bath. The material was less emotionally wrenching than that in History of the Civil Rights Movement; a single picture of Emmitt Till's mother weeping over his mauled young body would bring a lump to my throat that no Petrarchan-style sonnet could create.
Nor can I say that the students, as intelligent as they were, made the section more stimulating than any other. Our fearless TA did his best to hold our attention for a full hour, but we students ended up as silent as pretty much every other discussion section here at U.Va.
|
Actually, after much consideration, there remains only one element of the class that indisputably separates it from the rest of the pack: the e-mail commentaries. These electronic responses to the entire class impacted my experience so positively that I recommend them for any discussion section or seminar-sized class that recquires a lot of reading.
These e-mails didn't demand a great deal in terms of careful writing. Students just had to read the selections for the week, then e-mail informal remarks to the rest of the class. Honest assessments flowed freely: I didn't like this poem, that conclusion made no sense to me, Shakespeare definitely was gay. Not every message was particularly illuminating - sometimes people were clearly writing just to have something written. But even those e-mails contributed more value than one might think.
Requiring an e-mail response about every reading ensures that each student can be mentally engaged with each assigned text. Some professors and TAs evidently worry about their classes keeping up with the work. Having students write e-mails that necessitate at least a modicum of thought is a better way to guarantee they will complete the assigned reading than giving simple quizzes. Those types of class assignments usually ask questions with answers that can be obtained easily from Cliff's Notes.
Enrollment in sections and seminars deliberately is limited to about 20 students, but not every person enrolled gets to contribute equally. Almost inevitably, a few students tend to dominate, and a few others do excellent imitations of mutes for the entire semester. E-mail gives a space for all students to have an equal voice.
Students who are shy or inclined to stutter, or whose minds draw a blank when faced with an inquiring professor and a room full of peers, can still make their excellent, intelligent, revolutionary points. A student can sit in front of a sympathetic computer and spend an hour developing his thoughts carefully, and then have the rest of the class respond with compliments like, "That was an amazing idea. I totally agree. In fact, I found even more evidence that supports what you said." Yes, this is an appeal to students' vanity.
E-mail responses also help students who tend to spend discussion stammering things like, "Uh, well, there was that part, you know ... " by having them articulate some thoughts about the text before coming to class. Frankly, discussion times are much too short to have time expended on embarrassed pauses. If students have already determined that universal insurance coverage won't work, and have well-thought out reasons why they think so, discussion will go more smoothly. Not in the sense of being peaceful, but without those gaps during which everyone busily shuffles pages and coughs. Anyway, a peaceful discussion is boring.
Best of all, e-mail responses encourage a more lively debate, both in person and through computers. Students can read a classmate's e-mail, think "I don't agree" and then, through the use of their own e-mail accounts, explain why the first e-mailer was wrong. Hopefully if he has any pride, he will then retort with a message completely - but politely - destroying their arguments. These fierce discussions will extend to the classroom, and professors and TAs will have to listen in quiet amazement as their once-reticent students become as invested in proving that we should end trade relations with China as they are in proving that they deserve an A.
But maybe you disagree with everything I've said so far. You want to argue with me. You want to explain why requiring e-mail comments would make Jefferson turn over in his grave, or cause the end of civilization, or both. I'd love to hear it, please send to prg3a@virginia.edu.
(Pallavi Guniganti's column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily.)
Read More
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 2 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
SHRAUGER: McIntire’s three-year model limits opportunities for first-year students
By Alex Shrauger | 5 days agoBy pigeonholing students into commerce so early, the University violates its own mission of providing a holistic education that produces students capable of succeeding in a variety of fields.
