Vampires, Zombies, Robots!

While I was at U Birmingham (UK) for induction a few weeks ago, the Distance Learning PhD cohort did an activity that was part speed dating, part apocalypse, part screen-writing, and part serious research.  The title was "Vampires Robot Apocalypse!" and its purpose was to strengthen our ability to give an "Elevator Speech" about our research.  (Either that or one of the folks on the induction week planning committee just had too much coffee--or wine--and thought it would be hilarious.  It was.)  Everyone met with three different partners and, under a time limit, explained what our research is and what led us to want to pursue that research.  After the first partner, we also had to choose which sci-fi/fantasy scenario best lent itself to our research: Vampires, Robots, or Apocalypse.  I went with Vamps.  With our final partner, we were asked to combine our research foci and our scenario of choice, add ourselves into the mix as protagonists, and write a book or movie preview.  The results were pretty hilarious.

I decided then and there that I was going to find a way to work the exercise into my Research & Writing course.  So I did.

I modified the title and added Zombies to the mix: "Vampires, Zombies, Robots!  (Oh my!)"

First, I told my students I wanted to give them "Context" on the class meeting's activity, so we watched the previews for I, Robot, Queen of the Damned, and Warm Bodies.  Without telling them why, I then instructed my students each to find a partner who is not in their Focus Group (small groups of students organized by theme and similarity in research topic).  I then gave the students three minutes each to explain their: 1. Research Project, 2. Purpose, and 3. Justification (why they chose the topic).  I then gave them the following descriptions and told them to choose one:

*Vampires: Vampires exist by sucking the life-blood out of humans, ruling over them with their superior life-span (forever) and strength.  Life is short if you’re a human.
*Robots: Science and technology have triumphed; creative thought, mistakes, and human emotion are no longer relevant.  Life is mechanical. 
*Zombies: People are mindless consuming bodies, decaying and falling to ruin.  Life just isn't life.

They had a shorter time to discuss their Topic, Purpose, and Justification with their second partners, then additional time to explain their choice of apocalypse.  In their third pairings, students had even less time to discuss their Topic, Purpose, and Justification, but additional time to discuss their apocalypse.  I then gave them about 15 minutes to write a movie preview combining their research topics, apocalypses, and themselves as protagonists.  I made sure to remind them to use their cheesiest "movie guy" voice as they wrote.  At the end of class, all of the pairs read their previews aloud as dramatically as they could (when they weren't collapsing into giggles!).  

Success!  It was an absolute riot and it was a useful exercise: Students had to work with partners they might not normally have chosen to work with.  Students also had to describe their research (8-10 pgs.) concisely to someone who wasn't familiar with their project.  Students had to think abstractly to connect topics like STDs prevention, the importance of architects, and GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) to an appropriate apocalypse.  On top of all this, students had to synthesize their research, an abstract idea (apocalypse via Vampires, Robots, or Zombies), and create a viable end product: a film preview.  I will definitely do this again!

   Life just isn’t life.

Dissertation Schmissertation

I know I've already pointed out that the "lecture-less" idea isn't exactly patented mine, but this article on MLA's consideration of changing the format of the Humanities post-graduate dissertation feels relevant. "Dissing the Dissertation" not only deals with the problem of how long it takes for doctoral candidates to earn their dissertation-requiring PhDs, but also the format in which they are required.

We live in a digital, instantaneous time period, so why are dissertations, the products of what is presumably new, relevant and applicable research, still so old-fashioned? I think this fits in wonderfully with the idea that not only are we teaching our students (at every level) wrongly, but also that we are misleading them in the meaning of what it is to truly learn!

I have sat through some wonderful lectures in my day, both as a student and as a faculty member, but even I must admit that I found myself thinking about what I was going to make for dinner when I got home at least once in the course of the talk. The educational and academic systems must change how we (I include myself in this) approach learning and teaching. If we don't know how people learn, how on earth can we effectively teach?

The Beginning

For years I have joked that I am "ADD." I am acutely aware that this is, in fact, a very serious epidemic affecting multiple generations now, and I do not take it lightly. The truth is, I am not ADD, and while I occasionally get distracted (should I make more coffee?), for the most part, I focus rather well on just about anything (except for faculty meetings).

Depending on who you ask, the average attention span of a typical adult is anywhere from 5-8 minutes. All the sources of these statistics do agree on one aspect: that timeline is shortening--rapidly.

English classes range anywhere from 45-75 minutes, so how am I supposed to engage 20 non-Liberal Arts majors for longer than 5 minutes? Putting aside my own ego and belief that I am, quite certainly, the most entertaining English professor any student could ever wish for, I realized I had a problem: What happens for the rest of the class time if I only get 5 effective minutes?

Recently, both The Chronicle and Inside Higher Ed (as well as other publications, I'm sure) have pointed at and discussed the flaws in lecture classes. The result of these discussions is hard for us higher education teachers to hear, but it rings true: students just don't learn effectively from lectures. Ouch. So what good am I, then?

Then, the aha moment: I will no longer lecture. Read: I did not say I will no longer talk. I really do enjoy the sound of my own voice, and I think I have fabulously useful ideas to share, so I will not shut up. But, I will talk less, and seek more interactive and small-group ways of working with my students.

The Spring 2012 semester began yesterday. I have three sections of ENG 120, totaling about 65 students. Let the experiment begin!