You said your colleague was not prepared to teach and let teach,
and I presume the governing body agrees with him/her....  as I
have said before in these discussion, quoting Whitehead... "the
secondhandedness of the learned world is the secret of its mediocrity"
I hardly see the relevance in whatever the powers-that-be ordain... if
you MAKE IT NEW you will find that there is only ONE idea underlying
any possible course that could be devised, and that the same idea
can be illuminated no matter what the syllabus lays bare as specific
content and approach...
 
Stoneking
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Kibler <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 1999 11:12 AM
Subject: Re: Pedagogical Question
 
 
> do you really think that just because the general direction of a course is
set, one way or the other, that mediocrity must prevail?
>
> >>> William Stoneking <[log in to unmask]> 09/01 9:10 AM >>>
> Then,  mediocrity will - as usual - prevail...
>
> stoneking
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Robert Kibler <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 1999 9:53 AM
> Subject: Re: Pedagogical Question
>
>
> > unfortunately, one of us must prevail, and a governing course
description
> will result. I am happy to teach and let teach, but my colleague is not.
> >
> > >>> William Stoneking <[log in to unmask]> 09/01 8:40 AM >>>
> > TEACH WHATEVER YOU LIKE... LONG AS YOU "MAKE IT NEW"
> >
> > stoneking
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Robert Kibler <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 1999 9:29 AM
> > Subject: Pedagogical Question
> >
> >
> > > Here at VCSU, a colleague and I are at odds over how to teach a 200
> level
> > Humanities course. He thinks that the course ought to be based on a book
> > that provides an overview of events, so that it can quickly pass through
> > literary and philosophical events from the Mesopotamians to present day.
I
> > say that it is impossible to teach everything, and that such an approach
> > leaves students with very little access to the past. For my part, I
> further
> > suggest that they are better off reading key bits of
primary-if-translated
> > texts that are conceptually rather than chronologically dependent. My
> > feeling is that if you take these primary texts and treat them according
> to
> > overarching themes--ones that are vital in all cultures in time and
> > space--themes such as the gods, love, leadership, and philosophy--then
the
> > students get both a sense of the past that delivers not only the
> Humanities,
> > but does so in a way that gives them individual access to ancient and
> > classical Greece, imperial Rome, the anglo-saxon and then the norman
> > influenced middle ages, and then the renaissance.  My colleague argues
> that
> > I omit too much important cultural information, and I argue that his
> > approach does not admit enough students to the Humanities--that it just
> > gives them a sense of what somebody else says about a lot of events.
Under
> > my thematic approach, we read bits from the following, and ask what it
> says
> > about the four themes:
> > > Homeric Hymns, Ovid's Metamorphoses, Sappho, Pindar, The
Pre-Socratics,
> > The Republic, Parmenides, Thucydide's Melian Dialogue, and all of
> Antigone,
> > to get a sense of the Greeks. I also lecture on Greek architecture and
> > politics. For the Romans, we read from the Aeneid, the Roman
> > Elegists--Catullus, Propertius, Sulpicia, Caesar's Gallic Wars, and
> Tacitus'
> > Germania. For the anglo-saxons, we read Widsith, Deor, Seafarer, Battle
of
> > Maldon, the Dream of the Cross, and all of Beowulf. We read and
translate
> a
> > dozen Middle English lyrics, and read Chaucer's Prologue, and his
Miller's
> > Tale in Middle English. We read a Shakespeare play, and we read bits
from
> > Machiavelli.
> > >    My colleague uses a book by a man named Bishop, which has lots of
> > illustrations and gives very small snippets from many great works--but
> > mostly, it is a telling of the tale of Western Civilization (the bent of
> the
> > course) by one expert to the uninitiated. The other expert--my collegue,
> > fills in the gaps. Between the two of them, they cover a lot of
territory,
> > and bring students up to the present. Yet for all of that, as my
> step-father
> > says--neither my colleague's course or my own introduce the 2nd Law of
> > Thermodynamics--essential, in his opinion.
> > >    I might also mention that there is a required second Humanities
> course
> > that emphasizes music and art. These courses are taught by faculty who
> kind
> > of begin their approach to music and art in the 17 and 18th
centuries--and
> > one of them veers off into North American Indian culture--the sort of
> > veering that a thematic approach, I think, would allow.
> > >     This is a 200 level course, has 40 students in a section, and very
> few
> > of them English or History majors. If you had to choose between my
> approach
> > and my colleagues, which would you choose and why? Further, what is your
> own
> > general sense about how such a course ought to be taught, to such a
> > population?
> > >
> >
>