Sociology of the Anarchists - Gozips.uakron.edu - The University of ...

The methods elaborated by McKeachie, such as “learning cells” and team learning, also
bolster my conviction that there should not be blatant learning hierarchies. I think it IS
true that we can learn just as much from each other as we can from an instructor. This
makes sense in a mathematical/probability sense (more people exchange ideas, discussing
and sharing thoughts), but also in terms of equity. I think most people who have been at
universities for long enough to enter graduate school can learn the subject matter in most
texts if we are interested in it, and then teach it to others (thus reinforcing that
knowledge). There's no reason to assume that students are not just as capable of doing
that for others as we are. “Learning cells” as McKeachie describes would seem to be a
good partnering tool when done by pre-class question writing and random formations (it
would help students learn to ask and answer questions of what interests them, and to meet
and engage with others they normally wouldn't, and thus to learn and teach from varying
viewpoints/styles).
I think that class size if very important. We all know that there can be more discussion in
smaller classes (not to mention individual instructor attention), but that doesn't mean that
large classes will be incompatible with this type of learning. I've seen a sociology
professor (John Zipp) use small groups in a very positive way that I think helps a great
deal. That said it's important to note that the primary issue is the size of the learning unit
itself—in large classes, the size of groups must not be larger than those within smaller
classes. (In many ways, it reminds me of “affinity groups”—another activist configuration
—how there is an ideal size that should not be superceded, or else the ability of the group
to function will be rendered useless).
I appreciate that “active learning” and group work is not offered as a panacea to all other
types of learning and instruction, but also how it is not a way to avoid for class
preparation. Much deliberation and thought needs to go in how to use these varying group
structures to make them useful, otherwise they could be a total waste of time. Also,
combining smaller groups with large groups (like “clusters”, which are what anarchists
call collections of affinity groups) or a whole class, will require our adept facilitation of
the discussion (and of course a mastery of the material in order to help focus discussion
on what appears to be important to the class). It's sometimes claimed that group learning
requires student participation and interest in order for it to work. On the other hand,
individual learning (being lectured to) also requires active student participation and
interest, yet it is far more difficult to convince students to dedicate themselves to learning
in such a passive environment and mode of learning.
Dealing with controversial topics and despair:
Moore's (1997) piece echoed what I and others have already noted in our own experiences
in classes. Personally, it annoys the shit outta me when I get more “respect” for equally
“radical” ideas than female colleagues or colleagues of color, just b/c I'm a white man. I
loved the experiment she did with her classes and how it was able to provoke a discussion
about her student's preconceptions of what she was teaching and why they might be
considering it less valid due to the source. (Just to toss out the offer: I'd be happy to do
the same for my female colleagues who will be teaching in the near future, particularly
[ Williams 99 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]