Although I already wrote a personal response to Prof. Kibler, I cannot refrain from responding to the recommendation from Christopher Booth. I taught for some 38 years and at the several institutions where I taught the student population was "far from ideal" but I firmly believe that Prof. Kibler's approach is the more desirable one. I for one am, naively perhaps, repelled by the notion of deliberately subverting a colleague's approach. Earl E. Stevens, prof. emeritus, Rhode Island College. ----- Original Message ----- From: Booth, Christopher <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 1999 9:45 AM Subject: Re: Pedagogical Question > Your step-father was correct, of course, although before the 2nd Law of > Thermodynamics you should teach an even more fundamental concept, Copernican > non-specialization. (Occam's Razor even before that.) Newton would have been > just another bad-tempered alchemist without THOSE tools. ;-) > > Seriously, your population is far from ideal, and your instinct is > appropriate for an ideal group of students. Your colleague is perhaps too > conciliatory, but given the realities of who your students are and what > they, their parents, the Administrators, and the local job market wants, a > whirlwind panorama of Western Civ. might be more appropriate. If you bend > the textbook toward letting them know that such things WERE, and that they > are different, rich, and interesting, you might have more of a chance of > reaching them than if you try to get a budding highschool football coach or > future CPA or data input clerk wannabe to understand that we read Chaucer in > Middle English because its *wonderful*. The converted to whom you preach > will be reached, the others will shut out the light if you shine it on them > too brightly. > > Adopt the other guy's approch, then subvert it mildly. > > Actually, the other approach sucks, but its a single-semester non-major > introductory, required course; your way is how their entire four years > should be structured. Alas! > > Chris Booth's two cents--although worth much less than that. > > > ---------- > > From: Robert Kibler > > Reply To: Ezra Pound discussion list of the University of Maine > > Sent: Wednesday, September 1, 1999 9:29 AM > > To: [log in to unmask] > > 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? > > >