Monthly Archives: November 2015

INTJ Teacher: An Alternative Approach to the Teaching Philosophy Statement

Some weeks ago I attended a workshop on designing a reflective teaching portfolio offered by the GMCTE at the U of S, and facilitated by two of their excellent instructors, Kim West and Wenona Partridge. The workshop was about making a written record of one’s ideas about teaching, of the methods for accomplishing teaching goals, and of evidence of how that was going. The starting point was a statement of teaching philosophy, which is exactly what it sounds like- a written description of how one views teaching, and how those views inform one’s approach to teaching. (You can find some examples here.)

Kim and Wenona had us do a number of activities to help us articulate a teaching philosophy. I found those activities useful, but what really helped me was something that appeared in their slides, but which we didn’t really discuss in the workshop: the Myers-Briggs survey. Myers-Briggs is a set of questions used to classify people into one of 16 personality types described by four letters: I or E for introvert or extrovert; S or N for sensing or intuition; T or F for thinking or feeling, and J or P for judging or perceiving. The figure below is a nice summary.

 

Chart of Myers-Briggs personality types

Chart of Myers-Briggs personality types. (Source: Jake Beech, CC-BY-SA 3.0)

I don’t know what motivated me to do the test, and from the figure, it doesn’t seem like the classifications should lead to any earth-shattering revelations. But I did do the test (I used the one at 16 Personalities, because it seemed to have the best interface and descriptions of personality types), and the outcome was something I would never have imagined: relief! It felt like a huge burden was lifted!

I learned that many of the things I though were dysfunctional about me, and which I’ve worked hard to overcome so that I could interact with “normal” people are actually themselves normal characteristics (albeit for a very small segment of the population). They are so normal, in fact, that they comprise a stereotype in an online quiz.

On the one hand, nothing has changed. And why should it? It’s an online personality survey, for goodness sake! But on the other hand everything has changed because my perspective is different. I suddenly feel like I’m allowed to be myself, which I would describe as someone with mildly misanthropic tendencies. The kinds of things that frustrate me are quite predictable, if you’re going by the type. This is consistent with the fact that very few people seem to feel as cranky as I do about a number of things which I find blatantly objectionable (some of which I’ve discussed at Petragogy).

Whether you believe that Myers-Briggs is a meaningful or not as a way to determine someone’s personality is one thing, and maybe you’ve done the test and found it to be completely off base. But if you’re looking for scientific rigour, you’re missing the point. When I did the test, some things didn’t seem to match me either. There’s no way I’m disrespectful of authority! I never get in trouble! I just expect that authority figures should be competent, and authority in and of itself is not a thing to respect intrinsically… Oh. Never mind.

See, it’s about having a starting point for questioning your assumptions about yourself.

After a sense of relief, the next thing that occurred to me is that INTJ-ish types would, on the surface, not seem to be particularly suited to teaching roles. The phrases “does not play well with others,” and “does not suffer fools kindly” come to mind. But teaching is something I feel very strongly about, and something I put a lot of effort into getting right.

So naturally, I made a comic. It’s a remarkably efficient way to communicate that I will get things done, and I will do them right. Someone might not like how I do things, but there are solid reasons behind my choices, and I can promise you that I’ve thought it out thoroughly from every angle possible, and you would get bored long before I’m done enumerating the reasons. I will still make you listen, however, because you should have all the facts.

It’s difficult to articulate the implications of that in a few paragraphs in a teaching philosophy statement. One would think a cartoon would be limiting as a means of communication, but somehow it’s just the opposite. I can get more across with a few lines of text and some pictures than I could in several pages of writing.

I’m calling my comic INTJ Teacher (as far as I can tell no-one on the internet has claimed that yet), and using the tag line, “For those who are, and those who should know what they’re dealing with,” because that pretty much sums it up. My first installment (below) is an introduction, and I will post subsequent installments from time to time. With the small number of INTJ-identifying folks out there, and the fraction of those who are educators, I’m not expecting a huge interest. That’s fine, though. I just like the idea of being able to point someone to a url and say, “You’ve been warned.”

INTJ Teacher webcomic

Introducing the INTJ teacher

Update for 6 September 2018: I’m moving my comic from a separate blog to this one because I have too many  tentacles in online space. I’ll file posts under the category INTJ Teacher.

Categories: INTJ Teacher, Teaching philosophy | Tags: , , , , | 6 Comments

The Levitating Wiener Standard of Formative Assessment

Formative assessment, or informative assessment, as I like to call it, is the kind of evaluation you use when it’s more important to provide someone with information on how to improve than it is to put a number next to a name. Formative assessment might or might not include a grade, but it will include thoughtful and actionable feedback. Formative assessment of teachers is no less important than formative assessment of learners- both are needed for the magic to happen.

I struggle with how to get truly useful formative feedback from my students. There are different instruments for evaluating teaching, including SEEQ (the Students’ Evaluation of Educational Quality), but the problem with the instruments I’ve used is that they don’t provide specific enough information. Sure, there is a place where students can write comments to supplement the boxes they’ve checked off elsewhere on the form, but those spaces are often left blank, and when they’re not blank, they don’t necessarily say anything actionable.

I’ve concluded that I need to design my own questionnaires. But when I get down to the business of writing questions, it feels like an impossible task to design a survey that will get at exactly what I want to know. I do have a pretty high standard, however: the levitating wiener.

The mentalist and magician Jose Ahonen performs a magic trick where he presents a levitating wiener to dogs. You can watch the videos How Dogs React to Levitating Wiener (parts 1 and 2) below. These are fascinating videos… have a look.

The dogs in the videos have one of three reactions:

  1. It’s a wiener! Gimme that wiener! These dogs react as one might expect, focusing on the existence of the wiener rather than on the fact that it is levitating.
  1. How the heck are you doing that? These dogs ignore the wiener and focus on the palms of Jose’s hands instead. It’s as though they’ve decided that it doesn’t make sense for a wiener to be levitating, and he must be doing it by holding strings. In other words, these dogs are trying to figure out how he’s doing the trick, and they all seem to have the same hypothesis. (Incidentally, it’s probably the first hypothesis most humans would come up with.)
  1. This is wrong… it’s just so wrong. These dogs watch for a moment and then get the heck out of there. Like the dogs in group 2 they also don’t think wieners should levitate, but they are too appalled by the violation of normality to formulate a hypothesis and investigate.

To my mind, most of the teaching assessment instruments are more like having the dogs fill out the questionnaire below than watching them interact with a levitating wiener.

Formative assessment for levitating wieners (loosely based on the SEEQ questionnarie)

Formative assessment for levitators of wieners

If the participants checked “agree” or “strongly agree” for “Weiners should not levitate,” it could mean something different for each dog. A dog from group 1 might object to having to snatch the wiener out of the air as opposed to having it handed to him. A dog from group 2 might think the question is asking about whether wieners are subject to gravity. A dog from group 3 might be expressing a grave concern about witchcraft. If the dogs wrote comments (we’re assuming literate doggies here), their comments might clarify the reasons behind their responses. Or they might just say there should be more wieners next time.

Now contrast the questionnaire with the experiment shown in the videos. Because of the experimental design, I learned things that I wouldn’t even have thought to ask about- I just assumed all dogs would react like group 1. I learned things the dogs themselves might never have written in their questionnaires. A dog from group 2 might not have noted his interest in the engineering problems surrounding hovering hot dogs in the “Additional comments” section. It might not have occurred to a dog from group 3 to mention that he was frightened by floating frankfurters. Maybe neither dog knew these things about himself until he encountered a levitating wiener for the first time.

A formative assessment tool that is up to the levitating wiener standard would tell me things I didn’t even consider asking about. It would tell me things that students might not even realize about their experience until they were asked.  Aside from hiring a magician, any suggestions?

Categories: Assessment | Tags: , , | Leave a comment

Blog at WordPress.com.