But We Didn't Mean To Teach Porn - University of Minnesota ...

The National Teaching & Learning 

Volume 17 2008 

Number 4 May 

• EDITOR’S NOTE, p. 3. 

• “But, We Didn’t Mean To Teach 

Porn” The Power of Play in 

Teaching and Learning, Deb 

Wingert & Tom Molitor, University 

of Minnesota, p. 1. Playing around 

takes on a whole new meaning. 

• RESEARCH WATCH: Engrained 

Study Habits and the Challenge 

of Warmups in Just-in-Time 

Teaching, Carol Subiño Sullivan, 

Joan Middendorf, & Mary Elizabeth 

Camp, Indiana University, p. 5. 

JiTT (Just-in-Time Teaching) 

encounters students’ bad study 

habits and teachs another lesson. 

• INNOVATIONS: Learning To 

Talk About Art, James Rhem, 

Executive Editor, p. 8. Giving 

students vocabulary and a prod to 

use it in a comfortable setting 

awakens intelligent discussion 

online and off as Keith Adams has 

found in teaching photography at 

Rowan University and elsewhere. 

• BOOKS: The Practice of 

Problem-Based Learning, 

reviewed by Laurel Warren Trufant, 

University of New Hampshire, p. 10. 

• PRAXIS: Grading Photography, 

p. 11, Walvrood’s ideas take root 

in Brian Steele’s beginning 

photography class at Adrian 

College. 

• AD REM . . .: Flow: One of the 

Many Faces of Motivation, Marilla 

Svinicki, p. 12. Can you spell 

Csikszentmihalyi? 

“But, We Didn’t Mean To Teach Porn” 

The Power of Play in Teaching and Learning 

Deb Wingert & Tom Molitor 

University of Minnesota 

Our descent into “porn” began 

innocently. Our Preparing 

Future Faculty (PFF) course, 

Teaching in Higher Education, filled 

with 30 doctoral students and postdoctoral 

fellows enthusiastically 

seeking guidance as future professors. 

We held a particular session, 

Technology Enhanced 

Learning, in a cuttingedge 

campus lab, where 

all students participated 

throughout the interactive 

session on individual 

computers that 

were linked to a huge 

screen in front. 

All went according to 

plan . . . until the 

Scavenger Hunt activity. 

As planned, students 

worked in small groups 

of four to six with their 

assigned, intriguing, 

education-related websites, with the 

expectation of presenting the 

website and their highlights to the 

rest of the class. One group of 

future family social science professors 

was particularly enthusiastic 

when it came their turn to share 

their assigned “Virtual Autopsy” 

site. They eagerly came to the head 

of the class and typed in the URL to 

share their treasures. 

In their excitement, they accidentally 

typed in a few inaccurate 

symbols, and the huge screen (and 

30 individual computers!) instantly 

displayed an obscene porn site in 

all its “glory”! With the entire class 

stunned, the group furiously tried 

to access the (clean and educational!) 

“Virtual Autopsy” site, 

succeeding only in dragging all of 

us further and further through the 

porn site. The class quickly shifted 

from shock to uncontrollable 

laughter. 

Eventually the class resumed. 

Our technology-enhanced scavenger 

hunt, now permanently etched 

in students’ memory, had set a 

serendipitous precedent. Little did 

we know that such a glaring faux pas 

would set teaching and learning 

expectations for the remainder of 

the semester. Our course continued 

in infamy, generating once in a 

lifetime course evaluations. Word

quickly spread about our fun “porn” 

class. Students from other sections 

attended in record numbers. The 

“bar” of teaching and learning had 

been raised. We, in turn, planned 

each session to rival the previous in 

using playful and meaningful 

strategies to teach difficult, complex 

content. Our future professors 

experienced and incorporated into 

their repertoire the significance of 

both content and process in 

teaching and learning. 

Rationale: Why Play 

During Class? 

Why should students play during 

class? Keep in mind four principles. 

First, a sense of play engages the 

experiential mind of 

students. Sivasailam 

Thiagarajan (2003) 

reminds us that our 

experiential mind tends 

to think and learn fast, in 

concert with impressive 

long-term retention. 

Former Harvard University 

President Derek Bok 

(2006) concurs in his 

book, Our Underachieving 

Colleges, contending that 

research has long shown the value 

of teaching with diverse and 

interactive strategies, while the 

continuing tendency to lecture 

traditionally and cover massive 

amounts of content adversely 

impacts students’ critical thinking 

and ability to solve problems. Bok 

reports that the average student 

retains only 42% of the material by 

the end of the lecture, and only 

20% one week after the lecture. 

Second, play provides the 

opportunity for students to apply a 

variety of multiple intelligences. 

Rather than focusing narrowly on 

traditionally passive forms of 

teaching and learning such as 

lectures and taking scrupulous 

notes, playful strategies frequently 

incorporate at least one or more of 

Gardner’s multiple intelligences 

(2003), impacting a wider range of 

students: 

• Linguistic (e.g., reading, 

discussions) 

• Logical-mathematical (e.g., 

charts, thinking games) 

• Kinesthetic (e.g., doing, 

demonstrations) 

• Spatial (e.g., handouts, 

overheads) 

• Musical (e.g., using/creating 

songs) 

• Interpersonal (e.g., small 

group activities) 

• Intrapersonal (e.g., journal 

writing, reflecting) 

• Naturalist (e.g., outdoor 

activity, treasure hunts) 

Third, lively strategies provide 

significant opportunities for the 

professor to plan for, and students 

to further develop and apply, skills 

in both 

emotional 

literacy and 

interpersonal 

relations. 

Students work 

with others in 

diverse 

situations 

requiring 

teamwork, 

collaboration, 

and, perhaps, 

friendly competition. This provides 

ample opportunity for students to 

refine a multitude of interpersonal 

skills, such as: sharing ideas, asking 

for clarification, checking understanding, 

providing support, 

offering constructive criticism, 

encouraging teamwork, etc. 

Likewise, students can gain invaluable 

skills regarding emotional 

maturity, including: identifying and 

expressing emotions, identifying 

constructive (or destructive) 

thoughts and feelings in oneself 

and others, calmly expressing 

emotions, focusing criticism on 

behavior rather than people, 

expressing empathy toward others, 

and overall monitoring and managing 

the affective dynamics of given 

circumstances. 

Fourth, classes that employ a 

variety of strategies, accommodate 

highly diverse groups of students. 

Historically, teaching in higher 

education has accommodated 

students who excel in passive 

A sense of play 

engages the 

experiential mind 

of students 

THE NATIONAL TEACHING 

& LEARNING FORUM 

Executive Editor: 

James Rhem, Ph.D. 

2203 Regent Street, Suite B 

Madison, WI 53726 

Editorial Advisory Board 

Jonathan Fife, Director Emeritus 

ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education 

Gabriele Bauer, Director 

Center for Teaching Effectiveness 

University of Delaware 

Pat Hutchings, Vice President 

The Carnegie Foundation 

for the Advancement of Teaching 

Susan Kahn, Director 

Urban Universities Portfolio Project 

Indiana University–Purdue University 

Indianapolis 

Wilbert McKeachie 

Professor of Psychology, Emeritus 

University of Michigan 

Edward Neal, Director 

Center for Teaching and Learning 

University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill 

Christine Stanley 

Executive Associate Dean 

College of Education & Human Development 

Texas A&M University 

R. Eugene Rice 

Senior Scholar 

Program in Leadership & Change 

Antioch University 

Marilla Svinicki 

Professor of Psychology 

University of Texas at Austin 

Editorial correspondence: 

James Rhem 



Subscription information: 

The National Teaching & Learning Forum 




(ISSN 1057-2880) is published six times 

during the academic year by James 

Rhem & Associates, LLC — December, 

February, March, May, September, 

October. 

One-year individual subscription: $59. 

Periodicals postage paid at Madison, WI 

Postmaster: Send change of address to: 




Copyright © 2008 

James Rhem & Associates, LLC 

DUPLICATION BY PHOTOCOPYING 

OR OTHER MEANS IS STRICTLY 

FORBIDDEN. 

http://www.ntlf.com 

May 

2 THE NATIONAL TEACHING & LEARNING FORUM Vol. 17, No. 4 2008

Editor’s Note: 

We finish out this semester with an especially rich issue of the 

Forum after what I think has been a pretty remarkable spring 

semester. The feedback on the previous two issues with material on 

affect and its place in learning encourages me to think the Forum 

stands in the forefront of some important conversations likely to 

influence the conversation about teaching and learning. But one of the 

meatiest offerings in this issue reminds us that even the most 

promising innovations must contend with some old, entrenched, 

uninformed, backward ways. Indeed, it’s often been said that student 

resistance offers one of the greatest roadblocks to pedagogical 

innovation. Innovators of JiTT (Just-In-Time Teaching) have certainly 

found that to be true, as Carol Subiño Sullivan, Joan Middendorf, 

and Mary Elizabeth Camp of Indiana University report in their study of 

engrained study habits and the way students relate to the “warmups” 

that form an essential part of JiTT. No matter how innovative the 

pedagogy, students must still accept and play their part. 

At times, however, “play” may come in surprising ways, as Deb 

Wingert and Tom Molitor of the University of Minnesota discovered 

when a student presentation accidentally accessed a pornographic 

web site in class. The shock and then the laughter led to an 

atmosphere of engagement and play that Wingert and Molitor seized 

on, transforming their pedagogical approach with a series of games. 

“Bull,” “Scholar Bee,” “Name That Stage,” and others emerged as 

approaches that gave a wide range of Gardner’s multiple intelligences 

an opportunity to enter vigorously and visibly into class activities, 

enhancing learning across the board. Read about their interesting 

experience and consult more detailed ancillary materials about the 

games at www.ntlf.com. 

Ancillary materials also accompany the report in this issue on Keith 

Adams’ success at Rowan University in leading students to critique art 

with more sophistication. The critique holds a central place in most art 

instruction but students often stand mute before the challenge of 

articulating what they think and feel about images. Adams observed 

that students engage energetically with each other online. Perhaps 

their critical vocabulary lagged behind their conversational energy, but 

Adams had an idea about fixing that. He offered them a very pointed 

set of guidelines for actually using the critical terminology they’d been 

exposed to. Not surprisingly, his students’ facility with critique has 

much improved. Maybe the structure of language is a key to the 

structure of thought after all, and better tools will build better thinking. 

This is also our annual Book Review issue. We begin with a review 

by Laurel Warren Trufant of a good book on Problem-Based 

Learning. Readers will find reviews of over a dozen other new books 

on teaching and learning at our web site. And remember, individual 

print subscribers (but not libraries) may now register to access full 

issues of the Forum online in addition to their print subscriptions. 

We didn’t have space to fully explore the ways Brian Steele of 

Adrian College has been influenced in teaching his beginning 

photography course by Barbara Walvoord’s now classic book on 

effective grading, but we include links to all his materials posted online. 

Finally, AD REM . . . columnist Marilla Svinicki of the University of 

Texas at Austin offers a word about that necessary ingredient of all 

learning — motivation. Here Marilla looks at the exciting, high-end 

form of motivation known as “flow.” If you don’t know “flow,” it’s a gold 

ring to reach for, the time when things are really cooking. 

Have a great summer. See you again in the fall. 

—James Rhem 

lecture listening and note-taking. 

As Felder (1993, 1996, 2005) 

noted, students with diverse, nontraditional 

types of learning 

preferences left higher education 

in high numbers. When Brigham 

Young University researchers 

(Harb, et al., 1993) documented 

this phenomenon, they intervened 

by developing curricula to accommodate 

diverse groups of students 

with increased engaging learning 

strategies, including play. Results 

indicated that the computer science 

department was now retaining 

highly qualified students, who 

represented widely diverse learning 

preferences. Revised curricula now 

included activities to connect 

students with meaningful, deeper 

learning applicable to their lives. 

Just What Are These 

Playful Strategies? 

A wealth of engaging strategies 

already exists, thanks to brilliant 

contributions from Ken Jones 

(1997), Bernie Dodge (2005), and, 

especially, Sivasailam Thiagarajan 

(2003). These strategies include a 

wide range of activities, such as: 

role-plays, case studies, constructive 

controversies, simulations, jigsaws, 

scavenger hunts, labs, group 

presentations, projects, group 

panels, peer grids/frames, etc. 

Other popular activities include: 

Classroom Millionaire, Classroom 

Jeopardy, Ultimate Game Show, 

Classroom Quiz Bowl, Classroom 

Feud, and No Whammies (details 

available at http://jc-schools.net/ 

tutorials/PPT-games/ and 

http://www.ppt4teachers.com/ 

testcreation.html). 

We have connected complex 

content with our own designed 

games: BINGO, Stump the Class, 

Name That Stage, Scholar-Bee, and 

Bull (Wingert and Molitor, 2005). 

“Stump the Class” is patterned after 

David Letterman’s/Johnny Carson’s 

“Stump the Band.” In this case, the 

students (in teams of four to six) 

first design a question that requires 

high levels of critical thinking (i.e., 

upper levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy), 

and then pose their challenging 

question; the teams attempts to 

Vol. 17, No. 4 2008 THE NATIONAL TEACHING & LEARNING FORUM 3

answer within a given time limit, 

earning graded points for accuracy. 

BINGO, played like the regular 

game, can be designed to require 

critical thinking in applications, 

analysis, and evaluation. 

“Name That Stage,” a variant of a 

game show, “Name That Tune,” 

requires students (or teams) to 

answer high level questions relative 

to any course content organized in 

stages, phases, levels, timelines, 

dates, sequences, categories, etc. 

Like the previous game, students 

earn points for accuracy. 

“Scholar-Bee,” based on an oldfashioned 

spelling bee, requires 

students/student teams to process 

course content and critically analyze 

cases, problems, or applications 

posed by the professor. Given teams 

of four to six or the class divided 

into two sides, students in turn 

answer the question posed when 

their assigned number is called, 

again earning points for accuracy. 

“Bull,” vaguely resembling the 

game of B.S. (Being Sneaky!), gives 

students/student teams the 

opportunity to critically analyze 

course content posed as cases, 

problems, or applications, as in the 

other activities; in this case, however, 

students must determine if the 

information presented by the 

instructor is fully accurate/logically 

reasonable, or identify the error, the 

faulty reasoning . . . the “bull.” 

Conclusion 

Since our unexpected dalliance 

with porn, we have applied various 

play strategies, with considerable 

success, to other courses from 

educational psychology to the hard 

sciences, and from small classes to 

large classes of over 100, from labs 

to seminars to journal clubs. Short 

of endorsing porn, we embrace the 

path begun by our faux pas of 

incorporating highly diverse and 

interactive processes, facilitating 

deep learning of difficult content 

in every class session. 

References 

• Bok, D. 2006. Our Underachieving 

Colleges: A Candid Look at How Much 

Students Learn and Why They Should Be 

Learning More. Princeton, NJ: Princeton 

University Press. 

• Dodge, B. 2005. WebQuest Page: 

http://webquest.sdsu.edu/ (Learn from 

Bernie Dodge how to create 

your own interactive online 

learning materials). 

• Felder, R. 1993. 

“Reaching the Second Tier: 

Learning and Teaching 

Styles in College Science 

Education,” Journal of 

College Science Teaching, 

23(5): 286-290. An updated 

presentation of the Felder- 

Silverman model. 

• Felder, R. 1996. “Matters 

of Style,” ASEE Prism, 6 (4): 

18-23. 

• Felder, R.; Brent, R. 2005. 

“Understanding Student Differences,” 

Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1): 

57-72. An exploration of differences in 

student learning styles, approaches to 

learning (deep, surface, and strategic), 

and levels of intellectual development. 

• Gardner, H. April, 2003. “Multiple 

Intelligences after Twenty Years.” Invited 

Address, American Educational Research 

Association. 

• Harb, J.; Durrant, S.; Terry, R. 1993. 

“Use of the Kolb Learning Cycle and the 

4MAT System in Engineering Education,” 

Journal of Engineering Education, 82(2): 

70-77. 

• Jones, K. 1997. Games and Simulations 

Made Easy: Practical Tips to Improve 

Learning Through Gaming. London: 

Kogan Page. 

• McKeachie, W.J.; Svinicki, M. 2006. 

“Dealing with student problems and 

problem students,” Chapter 14 (pp. 172- 

190) in Teaching Tips: Strategies, 

Research, and Theory for College and 

University Teachers, 12th Edition. Boston: 

Houghton Mifflin Company. 

• Thiagarajan, S. 2003. Design Your Own 

Games and Activities. Hoboken, NJ: John 

Wiley and Sons, Inc. 

• “Virtual Autopsy.” http://www.leac.uk/ 

pathology/teach/va/titlpag1.html 

• Wingert, D.; Molitor, T. June, 2005. “But 

We Didn’t Mean To Teach Porn: The 

Power of Play in Teaching and Learning,” 

Teaching For A Change (National) 

Conference, Westminster, Colorado. 

Contact: 

Deborah A. Wingert, Ph.D. 

Director of Educational Development 

College of Veterinary Medicine 

Preparing Future Faculty Coordinator 

Center for Teaching and Learning 


315 Science Classroom Building 

222 Pleasant St. S.E. 

Minneapolis, MN 55455 

Telephone: (612) 625-3405 

Email: winge007@umn.edu 

Tom Molitor 

Professor in Veterinary & Population 

Medicine 

and Early Career Resource Teacher 


1365 Gortner Ave. 

St. Paul, MN 55108 

Telephone: (612) 625-5295 

Email: molit001@umn.edu 

Submissions 

The Forum encourages submissions 

on any aspect of college 

teaching and learning. The ideal 

article falls within a 1500 word 

limit and, following Thomas 

Sprat’s praise of the Royal Society, 

holds to a style of writing that reflects 

a “close, naked, natural way 

of speaking.” 

Normally, articles come from 

faculty, but other voices, including 

student voices, are welcome. 

Also, the symbiosis between our 

printed edition and our web site 

creates rich opportunities for posting 

ancillary materials to accompany 

submissions. 

Submit manuscripts to James 

Rhem at 2203 Regent Street, 

Suite B, Madison, WI 53726 or via 

e-mail at jrhem@chorus.net. 

4 THE NATIONAL TEACHING & LEARNING FORUM Vol. 17, No. 4 2008

But We Didn't Mean To Teach Porn - University of Minnesota ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?