The Poet in the Classroom

ST. THOMAS UNIVERSITY Issue No. 2 • Fall 2000

In This Issue

The Poet in the Classroom Teaching Spirituality Letter from the Editorial Assistant First Year Humanities Students Professors as Intellectuals Social Work Theory LTD Questionnaire Mediating Instruction with Technology Five Major LTD Initiatives Reflections on the Thinking Process In Metaphor & Logic 2000-2001 LTD Committee Biographical Notes

The Poet in the Classroom

By Tony Steel

Tony Steele teaches a class at St. Thomas University

I decided to become a writer at thirteen when I first read the poems of T. S. Eliot and e. e. cummings. While I still admired the realistic novels of John L. Tunis and the romance of Summerset Maughm, the linguistic violence of verse seduced me to a lifelong dream. Fifteen years later I was living and sometimes studying in Santa Barbara, California. There my writing of poetry began to interest others. I took Creative Writing courses at the University of California from Alan Stephens, Edward Loomis, and Marvin Mudrick. Christopher Isherwood was Writer-in-Residence one term and that too was a delight. I was constantly writing in those days and these courses gave me three things a beginning writer needs: deadlines, an audience of peers and feedback from a mentor.

Alan Stephens taught me syllabic verse, which carried me a long way in exploring my meditative side. Even though, as I later learned, he despised me personally, he was always charitable and encouraging — both in poetry writing and in my academic studies of American Literature. I turned in three to ten poems each week for distribution to the class. I can still smell the intoxicating ink of the Thermofax machine. Loomis taught me the value of minimalist language (“write little, do it well”), as in the writings of Ernest Hemingway. Mudrick was less helpful (he read our stories to us and there was little class discussion), but his curmudgeonly discernment was inspiring. Mudrick once said, “Poetry is only wallpaper,” and so we began to publish “Wallpaper Poems” on Thermofax and gave them away all over campus or stuffed them in bags at the bookstore. It was a powerful medium because as well as writing poems, the wallpaper gang could draw all over the wax masters in the psychedelic style of the day. None of these professors gave marks in their courses, except at the very end, as required by the University Administration. Loomis explained once that at the end of the term he would look at our portfolios, close his eyes, and “see our grades in letters of fire.” I have often used this line myself with my own students. Regulations not withstanding, I have always despised marks. If I had my own school, there would be no marks, as at Summerhill, Antioch and Reed.

But the two teacher-writers who inspired me most, rather more for their childlike emancipated personalities than for their writings, were John Cage and Paul Reps. Creative writing classes were defining moments for me as a student because at last I had a live audience to try my metaphors on. In later life, writers can be stiflingly isolated unless they find an intense and demanding writing workshop like the Ice House at UNB. But as a rule poets don’t get along with each other and workshops tend to turn into pissing contests.

As a university teacher of English for over 35 years I have naturally taught many courses in literature, composition and creative writing. My belief has always been that the chief motives for studying literature are delight and to train oneself as a writer. Study shows what can be done in words and also what has already been done sufficiently and thus need not be repeated. Literature is a pleasure and an anodyne but the writer must not be entirely a hedonist, for what is writing if it can offer nothing more lasting than common pleasures, the “blessing in this pleasant breeze”? Consequently, I am always teaching poetry even when studying prose or non- fiction (in fact I make little distinction between verse and prose).

I encourage my students to imitate the writers they are studying. To write one original Petrarchan sonnet is worth a hundred pages of secondary criticism by Renaissance scholars. Even to slavishly transcribe an admired text is of great value, for it gives you the kinetic feeling of the words of a Keats, Auden or Williams flowing from your pen. I think there’s a writer buried in everyone, even those like the students in my first year class at St. Thomas University who say they “don’t read poetry.” I tease them about their allergy to uneven right hand margins, but I suspect someday the seeds of poetic flowers will germinate in their brains.

Now I have been retired from university teaching for five years and so of course I am teaching more than ever. It is a pleasure that continues, to cross verbal swords with youth. The bliss is perdurable because the students always turn out differently from what I expect — that is, if I ever find out. As the writer says in Fellini’s 8 1/2, “I have nothing to teach, and I am teaching it.”

Marrying the Head and the Soul

Teaching Spirituality in an Academic Environment

By Brian Ouellette

Brian Ouellette

The concept of spirituality is a new and evolving area of study in social work education (Dudley & Helfgott, 1993, Sheridan, 1994). Until recently, social work distanced itself from the exploration of spirituality and practice. This reticence was based on efforts to create “value- free” interventions, some confusion between spirituality and religion, and perhaps some discomfort with the religious roots of social work practice in North America (Canda, 1988; Derozotes, 1990). For the past four years, I have been teaching an elective course entitled Spirituality and Social Work. It was one of the first such courses in Canada, and one of a few in North America. Teaching this course has been one of the most enjoyable and exciting things I’ve done over my 15-year teaching career. I look forward to going to class, and leave each class energized and hopeful. I have often described the course as an oasis of warmth and tranquility in my busy life.

In terms of content, we cover diverse and fascinating areas — the first area we address is the distinction between religion and spirituality, which is an important first step since there is much confusion between the two. We also explore spiritual development, and students write a paper exploring their own stages/phases of spiritual growth. Besides looking at how spirituality is incorporated into social work practice, we also cover a wide variety of topic areas depending on student interest. These topics include such diverse areas as Yoga and Breathing; Feminist Spirituality; Native Spirituality; Near Death Experiences; Evil in the Context of Abuse; Stones and Healing; Holistic Healing; Eclectic Paganism; Fundamentalism; Liberation Theology; Musical Healing; Transpersonal Psychology; Food for the Soul; Spirituality and Humour; and Spirituality in the Workplace.

I’ve learned a great deal from teaching this course; it not only exposed me to whole areas of practice that were alien, unknown or off-limits to me, but it also taught me about my own biases, misconceptions, and fears. The other wonderful learning for me has to do with the realization that there was a great deal of commonality amongst the topics covered in the course and the values of social work practice. Themes such as harmony, unity, mutuality, respect, goodness, love, innateness, and connectedness to nature seemed to resonate throughout the various topics covered.

The exploration of spirituality and its integration into professional practice requires a high level of safety and an openness to diversity. When I began to teach this course I was acutely aware that the content of the course and the students’ past experiences were going to raise emotions and strongly influence their experience of the course. Early on I discovered that I had four types of students in the course: (i) the religious student committed to the practice of his faith; (ii) the anti-religious student who had negative feeling toward established religion due to negative experiences or ideological differences; (iii) the spiritual student who had nurtured her own unique spirituality; and (iv) the student who hadn’t put much thought into the issue until taking the course. I was very aware that I could walk into or stimulate a holy war!

I was also aware that spirituality is not a cognitive concept — it can’t just be understood and studied cognitively. It is very much a concept that is experienced and experienced differently by different people. My dilemma was: How do I accomplish this in an academic course? How do I marry the head and the soul?

I’d like to share some of the things I’ve tried that I think were helpful:

(i) Using meditation as an integral component of the course: Each class began with a meditative activity (usually a piece of music, a reading and/or some quiet time). Steve Sunderland of the University of Cincinnati in a recent article describes this as a mean of “welcoming the spirit” (Sunderland, 1999). I’m convinced that this activity sets the tone for the rest of the class and facilitates the move from the head to the soul.

(ii) Standard setting: In the first class, we spend some time discussing the norms and expectations for the class. We usually identify a list of words or statements that capture how we will work together in the classroom. Such words as respect, confidentiality, mutuality, trust, honesty, and use of “I” statements are usually identified as norms or standards. We return to these norms when tension or judgment of the other begins to occur.

(iii) Using reduced lighting: I deliberately schedule the course for the evening. This allows us the opportunity to shut off the lights and use candles for the meditative activity. We turn the lights back on afterwards, but I try to find ways to use fewer lights. The reduced lighting in the room reinforces the atmosphere of trust and closeness. A benefit of night classes, I guess!

(iv) Prof and student as co-learners: Students are an integral component of the learning in the course. I do not identify myself as an expert but rather as a co-learner. Students are involved in the selection of topics to be covered in the course (although I do identify certain topics that must be covered), and after the first class they take full responsibility for the meditation activities at the onset of each class. As well, many students opt to do small group presentations on topics of their choice. The topics and the format of the presentations have been amazingly varied and full of impact.

(v) Use of rounds: Taking the time to do a round is a useful means of facilitating discussion, of creating safety, and reinforcing the concept of co-learning. Although I haven’t used rounds as much as I had hoped, when I have, they bring out issues, ideas and perspectives that may not have been raised. Rounds ensure that all voices are heard and that all voices have equal value. These are important concepts to reinforce, certainly in a spirituality course, or a course that celebrates diversity.

(vi) Separating the experience from the grade: Marks are of major concern to social work students and frequently get in the way of learning. In the spirituality course, I make the statement that I will not be marking their assignments! This, of course causes some consternation and concern for students, but the process has worked well with little problems. I inform students that I will give extensive written feedback on their assignments but I will not assign a grade. Each student is asked to identify a grade for the assignment, and I as teacher reserve the right to question the proposed grade. For the most part, students have been accurate and reasonable in their self-grading. In the few instances where I questioned the grade, students accepted my suggested new grade, or were willing to do more, or were willing to rewrite the assignment to attain the higher grade. (vii) Encouraging creativity: In the literature and for many spiritually-oriented practitioners, creativity and spirituality go together (Walz & Uematsu, 1997; Krill, 1999). Aware of these connections, I encourage students to push themselves and to find creative ways to do their assignments. Each term I am pleasantly surprised by the quality, the creativity, and the diversity that students put into their assignments.

Conclusion: The course consistently receives positive evaluations from students and many identify safety, diversity and creativity as contributing to their learnings. Recent research by John Coates and myself on the impact this course has had on students’ values indicates that the course has (i) increased students sensitivity to spirituality in themselves, (ii) increased students sensitivity to spirituality with others, and (iii) had the most impact on those students not raised in a religious or spiritual tradition and not currently practicing in a religion or spiritual tradition. These results raise many questions and indicate the need for further research. However, as an educator and social worker they are encouraging and reinforce my belief that the context of learning is as important as the content learned.

References:

Canada, E.R. (1988) “Spirituality, Religious Diversity, and Social Work Practice” Social Casework, 69(4), April, P.238-247

Derozotes, D. (1995) “Spirituality and Religiosity: Neglected Factors in Social Work Practice” Arete, 20( 1), Spring P. 1-15

Dudley, J. & Helfgott, C. (1990) “Exploring a Place for Spirituality in the Social Work Curriculum” Journal of Social Work Education, 26(3) Fall P.287-294

Krill, D. (1999) “The Creative Imagination and Social Work Practice” The Spirituality and Social Work Forum, 6(2) Fall

Sheridan,M.J., Wilmer,C.M., & Atcheson, L (1994) “Inclusion of Content on Religion and Spirituality in the Social Work Curriculum : A Study of Faculty Views” Journal of Social Work Education, 30(3),Fall P. 363-376

Sunderland, S. (1999) “Welcoming the Spirit” Society for Spirituality and Social Work Newsletter, 6(1), Spring

Walz, T. & Uematsu, M. (1997) “Creativity in Social Work Practice: A Pedagogy” Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 15(1/2), P. 17-45

Letter from the Editorial Assistant

The Learning and Teaching Development (LTD) Committee has enlisted the aid of the faculty of St. Thomas University to publish another edition of the faculty’s newsletter. The LTD Committee and I, would like to thank those of you who have contributed articles to this issue.

I am a fourth-year journalism student at St. Thomas. I have used the skills I have learned from this program to design this newsletter.

I hope that the newsletter creates a better awareness of the different teaching styles now being used at St. Thomas, and expresses some of the ideas of your peers and their perspectives as professors at St. Thomas.

Teaching Perspectives is published bi-annually. The next issue will be published in the spring of 2001. Those of us editing this edition hope that you find it enjoyable and at the same time informative. We would appreciate any feedback or submissions you may have for the next issue.

Christopher Ings Editorial Assistant LTD Committee

First Year Humanities Students-Thinking about Learning

By Heather J. Richmond

Introduction

First Year Humanities students at St. Thomas recently participated in a workshop entitled Learning Styles. The purpose of the workshop was to increase the students’ awareness of personal learning styles and that of others in their university classes. Another goal was to see if students could begin to think about their learning preference in relation to the university courses they would now be attending. A final goal was to see if students could expand their learning style repertoires while taking part in a class activity during the workshop. My teaching of the students in each of the three workshop groups attempted to facilitate their learning development by encouraging their consideration of other ways of knowing.

Intelligence and learning style background

This type of thinking about an individual’s thinking derives from the work of psychologists in the 1940s. These researchers asked whether individuals could think about the whole field at issue — or were they better at seeing parts of things? Holistic or analytic? Later researchers asked questions about an individual’s learning preference — whether it was impulsive or reflective.

This encouraged the development of learning style inventories used to decide how an individual learned best. The inventories are available everywhere and can be quite amusing for the casual seeker of self-knowledge. These types of inventories are often criticized as lacking in reliability and validity. Other anecdotal evidence suggests that students learn better when they study in their preferred way. Educators have a renewed interest in learning styles due to the research of Howard Gardner on multiple intelligence. Gardner himself says he can’t prove that there are multiple intelligences; but he does propose eight and now a ninth (existential) intelligence:

1. Linguistic - a wordsmith, a poet; Sheree Fitch 2. Logico - mathematical; Bertrand Russell 3. Musical - perfect pitch; Mozart 4. Spatial - recreates visual perceptions; Rodin 5. Bodily - kinesthetic; Wayne Gretzky 6. & 7. Personal & Emotional - intelligence; insight, empathy; priest, therapist 8. Naturalist - able to organize the natural world in categories; Darwin 9. Existentialist (his new one); Dali Lama’ French Philosophers (based on Gardner’s Sampling of Intelligence in Scientific American, 1999 p. 22)

Learning styles

Learning styles are said to reflect these various abilities or intelligence and are usually categorized in three main ways. The following provides a few of the characteristics of each style. 1. Visual learner - a list maker - jot things down to remember - use of visual cues - doodle, highlight text or notes

2. Auditory learner - like to listen to a lecture rather than read the text or notes - repeat a telephone number a few times to remember it - you like to talk to understand rather than using a visual prompt

3. Kinesthetic learner - you use trial and error and can learn on your own - in the classroom you tend to shift your position frequently and fidget - you begin to understand how things work by tinkering with them

Class activity

The final stage of the workshop was to have students explore learning by having them respond to problems in creative ways. The tests of creativity were written on the overhead. The students formed loose groups with those sitting nearby. Each group had to decide which test or problem they wanted to solve. There were large coloured markers and unlined chart paper for the groups. Working in colour while lounging around the aisles or stage in the huge lecture hall seemed to help learners think outside of their everyday way. After solutions were reached, the groups presented their finding to rounds of applause and friendly comments.

Feedback form

Students were asked “what kind of a learner do you think you are”? The majority did appear to have a sense of how they learned best (informal survey findings), most believing that they were auditory or visual learners — those who prefer to listen, take notes, see some visual aids, and write tests both essay and multiple choice. The kinesthetic learners were in the minority in the survey results, but perhaps this reflected their previous learning directed by teachers who may favour a paper and pencil approach. Students like this also reported that they liked to do projects and activities and be able to demonstrate their learning through oral presentations, debates, drama, performance and art or other visual interpretations.

The majority of students also said they were learning from their professors in a way that met their learning needs, with some requesting more visual aids. These first year students are not yet self-directed learners, a possible goal of their learning in the university. Humanities students at St . Thomas University feel that they will be able to continue their development and increase their potential for learning in ways which are valued in one context or another.

Bibliography

Gardner, H (1999). Sampling of Intelligence in Scientific American, October/November.

Woolfolk, Winne & Perry (2000). Educational Psychology. Canadian Edition. Allyn & Bacon: Ontario.

Teaching and the Responsibility of Professors as Intellectuals

By Jean Sauvageau

Jean Sauvageau

In my opinion, higher education is synonymous with intellectual responsibility. As scholars, we are in a privileged position, one which stems from easy and ample access to information, political liberty and freedom of expression. By training, we are equipped with reading grids that enable us to analyse the pronouncements, policies and actions of private and public agencies and the media. That we use those assets in our possession responsibly should be the least that is expected of us in a liberal arts institution such as St. Thomas.

As university professors, we find ourselves in a position to lead by example, using that privileged position to speak up and take concrete action for social justice and democracy. That being said, I have to admit that I find it an impossible tenet to see myself as the traditional positivist scientist, the detached observer and commentator of the social situation. On the contrary, I believe it is our duty, as intellectuals, to correct disinformation and denounce the wrongful behaviours of private and public institutions. (Granted, given their record, the task is enormous.)

Institutional actions require direct protest. This is what I realized when I saw the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans officials deliberately ram their boats into the vessels of native lobster fishermen. For one thing, these life threatening actions appeared grossly out of proportion with the aims sought (removal of lobster traps). It goes without saying that no one should take such drastic action unless another human life is in danger, something which was far from apparent in that context and something which was never even claimed by the DFO itself. And the other thing which bothered me was that those actions were undertaken by representatives of my own government — “on my behalf” — and that, I could not accept. I may not have much of a say as to what goes on anywhere else in the world (which never prevents me from saying it when I want to — globalization oblige), but I will certainly let the government of my own country know that I do not agree with its unjust policies and its reckless behaviour. That is what prompted me to draft a letter of protest to the minister responsible for DFO, a letter which I made available to St. Thomas faculty (my fellow intellectuals) for their signature.

Not only is it the responsibility of intellectuals to denounce nonsensical actions, wherever they may occur, but we also have to realize that institutional discourse alone will often take an issue in certain directions, excluding other possible discourses, otherwise worthy of consideration, but drowned out by the sheer power of official institutions as credible voices. The casting aside of alternative discourses may have the effect of creating certainty about an issue, and certainty has been the one ingredient which has presided over many human catastrophes in the course of history. Given this, the responsibility of the intellectual is also to help create a climate for the tolerance of a multiplicity of discourses to be heard, to help make room for replacement discourses when the mainstream hegemonic version of events is detrimental to some individuals or groups.

For example, I read many media articles every day (both printed and on the web). When I come across a gross distortion of facts about crime and the criminal justice system–my area of predilection–sometimes (but, I admit, not nearly often enough) I will take the time to write the editor or the journalist responsible for the article. I will suggest other ways of looking at the issues and recommend documentation and individuals to consult. My responsibility as an intellectual calls for proactive actions. In this regard, American criminologist Gregg Barak coined the term “newsmaking criminology” to invite criminologists to offer their expertise to the media rather than shun it.

The responsibility of the intellectual is, in the end, to foster a healthy climate of doubt and uncertainty. And it is up to us, as teachers in the classroom, to show students the implications of action versus inaction, openness of mind with respect to justice and democracy. As I often tell students, higher education is not about giving answers, but about asking better questions; it is not about problem solving, but about problem making. The very stuff, I believe, of justice and democracy.

You've Got to Have a Dream: Social Work Theory for a Better Tomorrow

By Rosemary Clews

After I had taught introductory courses for four years, the department promoted me to “fourth year theory.” I am excited about teaching this course because it can help students to think critically about their work. Also, I was worried about the course. The fast pace in most social work offices makes this reflective practice very difficult. Summarizing one theory after another for a whole year could be excruciatingly boring.

We teach structural social work here at St. Thomas. We encourage students to look at factors in our social systems that impinge on our lives. Students are taught to not “blame the victims” of our social systems but encouraged to direct their efforts towards confronting injustice and oppression within these systems. Students are anxious to “get it right.” They are often fearful about entering a real world of social work practice where structural ideals must be forgotten because they are required to change “bad,” “sad” or “mad” people.

After most of a working lifetime of practicing or administering social work I firmly believe that structural social work is possible within our human service agencies. If our graduates think that they can change the world overnight they will be disappointed. However, if they begin with a vision of a better tomorrow they can start to construct this better world through their practice.

Those of us who are old enough to remember “South Pacific” will recall that if we want our dream to come true we “gotta have a dream” in the first place. Therefore, I began the course by encouraging students to dream. We are constructing a vision of a better world. Next we will consider where (if anywhere) social work will fit within this world. For the remainder of the semester we will explore many of the concepts and theories in our text to evaluate whether they help or hinder our progress towards a better tomorrow. During the winter semester students will be spending part of their week on practicum placements. They will encounter realities of social work practice. Armed with our vision of a better tomorrow, and the theories that might help us to move towards it, we will explore the actual challenges of practice and try to relate our theory to these challenges. When there is no theory to help us, we will try to create it.

That’s the plan. I’ll let you know how it works. I am encouraged by our first few classes. We ended the last class by a “circle round” when each student in turn shared one thought. With their permission I reproduce what they said:

We need a vision to guide us Begin in a small way, change yourself Why not have a vision How can we facilitate empowerment? There are lots of people out there wanting change We need a balance between a vision and making it happen Self examination, self-care We need to expand our roles in all 6 areas (social, economic, educational, political, legal, family) Motivating and sustaining each other to work for change I hope that I don’t lose the passion We need vision, we also need skills Power in numbers Community We need to challenge, we need commitment There are lots of other ‘social workers’ out there Important that we acknowledge diversity and acknowledge limitations Every new day brings a challenge Social work values are my values Diversity so there is no one solution Keep the vision in mind and strive to reach the goal Have patience and channel energy Be idealistic sometimes, then look at how to do things Vision is important, be positive Social workers as shepherds, be humble, we have privilege Collectivity Social workers as educators

Velvet, Bev, Blair, Sheila, Shaun, Darlene L., Karen B., Charlene. Lucia, Beth-Ann, Sonya, Sharon, Rachel, T.J., Lindsay, Karla, Christina, Cathy, Darlene B., Miles, Penny, Stephen, Joani, Carol, Karen L., Jeff.

The round ended. There was silence for a few seconds. Then they clapped. I am proud of them all.

Social work is in good hands.

Did someone say Teaching Workshops, Conversations, Fora?

For the past few years, the Learning and Teaching Development Committee has been organizing Teaching Workshops (formal presentations) and Conversations (informal discussions) as part of its faculty development work. While well presented and conceived, these sessions have been suffering from reduced attendance in the last couple of years (and due to the tendency to attract the same people to each session).

This year, LTD would like to be more responsive to faculty needs and constraints, and toward that end we ask you to take a few minutes to complete the short questionnaire below. We will use the results to plan a series of workshops to meet your needs. Thank you. (Thank you. Please print and complete. Send to Tony Tremblay, LTD Officer.)

Content

What topics would you like to see addressed in teaching workshops/conversations? ______

What topics would not engage your interest? ______

Format

What format would more likely draw you to these sessions: formal teaching workshops, informal teaching discussions, or other? ______

Who should lead these teaching sessions: St. Thomas faculty, invited guests/specialists, other? ______

Constraints

What are the best days and times for these sessions? ______

Conclusion

What would encourage you to attend an LTD session, and, opposite, what would discourage you? ______

Mediating Instruction with Technology

By Tony Tremblay

Tony Tremblay operates his computer in his office at St. Thomas University

“The university has to become a technical school so that each student may instantly fill a position in this technological society. And people are horrified that the university does not accommodate faster and better. These imbeciles are totally ignorant of what the university’s role should be, they sneer at the value still attached to the ‘humanities,’ at the uselessness of Latin, of history and philosophy. They want the university to be a technical cog in a technological society. Of course, these are the same imbeciles who give pompous speeches on tomorrow’s civilization and technological humanism. . . . In effect, it is quite likely that this adjustment to the technological world will condemn any possible university to death.” (Jacques Ellul, The Technological System, 245)

The discourse analysts among you will notice first in my title the syntactic fracture from what has now become the fluid “Technology Mediated Instruction.” That is intentional. I want to focus in this short piece on both the action of mediation and the attempts to steer discussion away from that action. “Technology” must therefore be put at the end of a title to be made strange (which, for most of us on the inside of education, it is).

My observations in this piece come from two memorable “learning” experiences in the last few months, the first Greg Sprague’s opening component of our most recent ETI (“How Multimedia is Changing Our Lives,” April 2000), and the second Dr. David Brown’s talk on “Assessing the Impact of Technology on Learning” (Brown Bag Seminar, September 2000). Both presenters occupied a common ground; that is to say, both announced that they would “assess impacts,” which at least to me suggested some critical evaluation, if not preliminary interventions in the form of questions, contexts, considerations, implications, and so forth. What both delivered, however, was overdetermined hyperbole of the sort that tends to ignore evaluation for declaration, specifically, declarations of the speed, power, and wizardry of the machine. Neil Postman calls this the “gee whiz” approach to discussing technology in education, and points out that it is a standard rhetorical strategy used to optimize persuasive bullying while removing that which is contentious from the realm of reasoned debate.

So what was said? Greg Sprague, UNB’s then-incoming Director of Computing Services, began by saying that Intel’s CEO was “the new guru.” Of what exactly, we were not told, though the inference of his importance (whatever it is) was assumed to be clear in both the language and spirit of animation that followed. The flood of terms alone was impressive: “global revolution,” “electronic revolution,” “screenagers,” “e-company” (versus “ex-company”), “cyber- squatting,” “e-solutions,” and “affordability.”

Eldridge’s Axiom— “faster, better, cheaper” — informed Sprague’s whole presentation, and without any thought whatsoever to the impact of all this on our learning and teaching environments, let alone what gets taught and learned. Without reference to the shifting ground, or to the work of Jacques Ellul or Neil Postman or Ursula Franklin or countless others whom we in the liberal arts know a little about, the clear messages in Sprague’s overdetermined hyperbole were these: that there can be no debating the importance, indeed the necessity, of technology in the classroom, and that to believe otherwise renders one roadkill on the information superhighway. Imagine being told that by UNB’s Director of Computing Services, and that since “business is driving the revolution,” we must therefore fall in line.

To make any sense of the foundational logic in all of this, one had to be at the next “learning technologies” presentation by Dr. David Brown, in which a regional IBM executive sat next to the previous Director of UNB Computing Service, David MacNeil. Coincidence or instructive recurrence? (Probably the latter, since Dr. Brown was quite open in his admission that IBM was underwriting some of the cost of the two-year laptop replacement policy at his university.)

Dr. Brown opened his presentation with the comment, “computers save student lives,” and proceeded from there to espouse with merriment — equal to Sprague’s own — the supposedly research-corroborated benefits of delivering instruction via technology. I say “supposedly” because while he claimed that research existed to prove that laptop technology did enhance learning, he also said that he could produce no paired or matching-set studies that made the case — a curious instance of his text embarrassing its own ruling logic. In that absence, all he could do was assure us that it was so, that technology was the answer. Foremost among the benefits he identified was the idea that “with [technology-induced] ubiquity, the culture changes.” And with that comment and matching PowerPoint slide, Adorno rolled over in his grave.

Moving in that narrow range from surety to declaration — believing, in other words, that technology is a panacea for education and then saying so — what these speakers didn’t seem to understand is that technology itself changes both the learning environment and the content of what is learned, and that as reflective educators we tend to care deeply about those changes. Which doesn’t mean that we necessarily fear them (a position their oppositional logic forces us into), but that we want to attend to them, discuss them, and feel our way slowly. Moreover, as scholars of argument and utterance, we tend not to be swayed by rhetorical tricks, meaning that most of us understand that if “e-solutions” are proposed, then non-“e”-problems can be found. If you don’t own a spaceship, then getting to Mars is a real problem, especially if Mars suddenly becomes the agreed-upon destination. In such an environment, the complicity of those who make spaceships is rather obvious, especially if they too are the cartographers. Such is the coercion behind the overdetermined hyperbole of the two speakers I heard: our lack becomes a determination of what they have in plenitude, an old salesman’s trick.

For my part, I am curious about the pedagogic potentials of technology and am making attempts to incorporate technology in my teaching and research.

I become wary, however, as I think others do, of the tyranny of non-academics and corporations in dictating the terms of education, for that which intervenes or enables (such as technology) also changes. I ask nothing less than to be a partner in this change, and I look forward to the reasoned discussion and “slow-zoned” implementation training that must now temper the hyperbole of the IBM/UNB salesforce.

The five major initiatives of the Learning and Teaching Development Committee for 2000/01 (we welcome your participation and/or advice as we do our work):

By Tony Tremblay

(1) LTD Web site: We have committed to looking at the web site and making changes to bring it up to date and to improve its overall design. Working group: Gerry Baier, Maureen O’Toole, Dale Dasset, Tony Tremblay.

(2) Student Ratings: This is the big initiative, premised on the belief that our current instrument is wanting (this belief stems from the work of the LTD committee in the last three years). We have committed to contacting all the LTD Officers in the region and studying what each does at his/her institution. We’ve also agreed to look at the work done at St. Thomas in the last three years. From that information, we’ll be soliciting input from our colleagues, then proposing alternatives to the current instrument. Working group: Roger Moore, Omar Basabe, Maureen O’Toole, Ashleigh, MacDonald, Tony Tremblay.

(3) Teaching Perspectives: We’ve committed to launching the newsletter twice this year, with issues coming out in December and late March. To make this initiative come to fruition, we need copy from colleagues, which we are actively soliciting. Working group: Roger Moore, Christopeher Ings (JOBS student), Bob Edgett, Tony Tremblay.

(4) Teaching Conversations/Workshops: We’ve committed to rebuilding this aspect of LTD, mostly because of waning faculty interest. To get us going we are asking faculty what they need/want in these fora, and organizing sessions on Diversity and Large Classes. Working group: Suzanne Dudziak, Essam Safty, Ashleigh MacDonald, Tony Tremblay.

(5) Faculty Mentoring: We’ve committed to exploring the dimensions of both informal and formal mentoring with new faculty, as well as establishing focus groups to more effectively determine where needs exist and what we might do to address them. Working group: Roger Moore, Rosemary Clews, Colleen Comeau, Essam Safty, Tony Tremblay. Again, the LTD Committee welcomes advice, input, and involvement.

Some Reflections on the Relationship between Left Brain / Right Brain Tinking in Metaphor and Logic

By Patrick Malcolmson & Roger Moore Patrick Malcolmson working in his office on campus

Roger Moore using his computer.

We have often taught in each other’s classes and we have spent 10 years exchanging thoughts and reading each other’s reviews and papers. The following is a typical e-mail conversation that exemplifies our style of intellectual interaction which emphasizes the relationship between thought and research, learning and teaching.

Patrick: At the bottom of page 3 of your review of Polack’s translation of Góngora’s Solitudes, you use the phrase “linear fashion.” What precisely does this mean?

Roger: I was using the terms “linear” and “metaphoric” to distinguish between the thought of the left brain and the right brain, a concept which I have since abandoned after intense pressure from several of my readers.

Patrick: Does this mean reasoned or logical or rational? As opposed to imaginative, intuitive, divinely inspired, or faith?

Roger: I would rather maintain the left brain right brain distinction that I was trying to establish, then I can justify my use of “linear.” However, if “reasoned,” “logical,” and “analytical” are equal in your use of “or”, rather than choices, then my answer would be “Yes! That is precisely what I am saying.” Clearly, then, if all three terms are accepted as equal, any would substitute for “linear” and give greater accuracy. If they are not equal (and I don’t think they are) then I would choose “reasoned,” because of the thinking process suggested. The act of translation is probably eighty or ninety per cent solid reasoning and transposing, hence linear, and with few metaphoric jumps, the art of translation not being conducive to the production of new metaphor unless the original is changed beyond recognition. In my opinion change, other than change of language, is not the translator’s task.

As for the terms “imaginative,” “intuitive,” “divinely inspired,” or “faith”… I do not see these terms as synonymous. “Faith” has to be eliminated from the start. “Divinely inspired” (Deus est in nobis) is also somewhat suspect nowadays, though if you agree with my theory on the creation of inner space which we talked about earlier, this is probably the closest term. “Imaginative” does not quite capture the process. “Intuitive” has to be the best word of a bad choice. Therefore, I would opt for reasoned versus “intuitive” but with many hesitations, as expressed above.

Patrick: Is this not what Montaigne spoke of in terms of “esprit de finesse” vs. “esprit de géométrie”?

Roger: I would not like to say “yes” or “no” to this question. If he did, then, like me, Montaigne has reduced the concept to an either/or choice. Clearly the either/or choice is an inadequate oversimplification, whether it be reduced to left brain or right brain, “esprit de géométrie” or “esprit de finesse”; “reasoned” or “intuitive.” Equally clearly, the language I am using does not have the words I need to express myself accurately.

Let me try to explain further. When I write creatively, I live suspended in a strange place that I cannot always account for. This happens too when I write academically, so it is not always a creative vs. academic split. Personally, I work probably 95% from analogy: monkey see, monkey do. Unlike you, I find it most difficult to talk in terms of inductive reasoning, metaphor, analogical reasoning, etc. In many cases, I do not think in any rational process that I can reconstruct later. Things seem to be right the way they turn out. But I cannot explain them. My thought process is not one that I can myself see. I therefore have tremendous problems understanding other thought processes. That is why the simplicity of “left” vs. “right” and the suspended space in the middle “feels” so right to me.

When creating, I live in that middle space. It is somewhat of a dream world. I can enter it at will. It has its own logic and rules. I need to be relaxed and happy to enter it and work in it. I am not always conscious when I come out of it of what I have done in it. I am certainly not conscious of the creative logic that operates within it. If I were a world famous author, these pearls would be acceptable. As a mediocre non-entity struggling in a distant province on the outer fringes of an abandoned empire, I feel very deeply the inadequacy of the above statements. Hence the borrowing of left brain / right brain.

Patrick: And is metaphor not an aspect of inductive logic?

Roger: To equate metaphor with any form of logic is, I think, a dangerous thing. The creative process is, for me at least, a hidden one. It just happens. The resulting metaphor may then be decoded into its component parts, but when that has been done, the poetry is usually lost, as happens in translation, when the end elements are more important than the inner space. I think intuitive logic, which is itself a metaphor, would be better applied to poetry; if intuitive logic is not a metaphor, then it is a paradox, much as “freezing fire,” and “burning cold” are metaphors based on paradox. The “truth” (if it in fact exists at all) lies neither in the “ice” nor in the “fire,” but in the inner space between the two opposing elements of “icy fire.” This space (I like to think of it as hyperspace) then becomes the new poetic reality.

Patrick: How else does one generate wholes from parts, a type or genre from a number of specific instances? Roger: Now I am being bound by the terms of your argument, and I do not like the terms. I would rather reply “Deus est in nobis”! I would rather affirm the overall importance of poetic intuition. I would rather answer by using metaphor than by using logic. I am not certain, at this stage, that my mind is capable of following the logical process which your mind demands. Let me turn the question back to you: how does one generate wholes from parts, a type or genre from a number of specific instances? If you reply by using reasoned, logical thought, I will answer that you are probably not using metaphors, certainly not in any poetic sense. So, at this point, I think the argument becomes self-defeating.

Patrick: My point is that the distinction between logical analysis and metaphorical / intuitive thinking is based on the notion that logic equals deductive logic or analysis. Problem: Inductive logic and analogical reasoning are synthetic! That violates the nice materialistic basis of l-brain vs. r-brain. That distinction presupposes a set of concepts that are then “operationalized” in empirical experiments. Those concepts themselves are derived from philosophy not from science.

Roger: I am not sure that I agree. Montaigne, without the benefit of brain damaged patients from the Los Angeles Emergency Car Crash wards, seems to have been grasping intuitively at this left brain / right brain difference. And this is the crux I think. If the stroke and car crash victims establish the hemispheric differences, then there are medical grounds for arguing the left brain / right brain distinction. If these grounds are not sound, then we are into a more speculative debate the like of which I do not care to enter.

Patrick: Here’s a quote for you, from the Globe and Mail of January 31,1998: “Ornstein addresses split-brain research which was also a mainstay of his previous book. He says he began researching The Right Mind thinking he would find little support for the view of the brain he had promulgated back in 1972 (The Psychology of Consciousness), which basically equated the right hemisphere with creativity and left with rationality. After all, subsequent studies have suggested that many of the original claims made about the different capabilities of the right and left hemispheres were grossly simplistic. Ornstein deplores how split-brain theories have devolved into cultural cliches.”

My main point in all of this is that the creativity / rationality distinction is a fuzzy one at best. It requires metaphysical assumptions: if there is an order to nature, a cosmos, then imagination works to reflect back the “image” of nature — art imitates nature. But if there is no cosmos, then creativity is a species of creation ex nihilo. No?

Roger: Cultural cliche or not, left brain / right brain works for me and the idea of hyperspace metaphorically (not logically) suits my idea of what happens (a) when I produce metaphors and (b) when I read metaphors. However suspect this is scientifically, there is ample support for this theory within the writing community, perhaps because it does attempt to explain, however simplistically, something we do not understand.

As for art imitating nature, this is to return to a much older and a slightly different argument. Some art does imitate nature; but, by extension, some art tries to go beyond nature and create something in one form which does not necessarily exist in another. The breaking of the single viewpoint in modern art already starts a movement away from nature, for in both nature and traditional art we stand in one place and view from one place. The attempt to turn emotion into metaphor (a feeling into words), is not in my opinion a logical act. I think logic breaks down when we try to account for metaphor. That is why translation, which is an eminently logical act 95% of the time, also breaks down when faced with metaphor. Patrick: I am wanting answers from you, my friend, about the questions I raised — especially about inductive reasoning, metaphor, analogical reasoning, etc. I need to know how reason works, in the hope of becoming more reasonable.

Roger: You want to know how reason works so that you may become more reasonable but I am talking of how metaphor works and how we try to express emotion and feeling without using any reasoned logic which I can reproduce for you in analytical terms. Alas, my friend, perhaps we are comparing “apples” with “oranges”!

Contact us with your suggestions and concerns about teaching and learning at St. Thomas University. This year’s LTD committee is:

Roger Moore (Chair), Romance Languages Tony Tremblay (LTD Officer), English Suzanne Dudziak, Social Work Gerry Baier, Political Science Essam Safty, Romance Languages Ashleigh MacDonald, Student Representative Maureen O’Toole, Student Representative Omar Basabe, Romance Languages

Biographical Notes

Rosemary Clews (“You’ve Got to Have a Dream: Social work Theory for a Better Tomorrow”) teaches Social Work at St. Thomas University.

Patrick Malcolmson (“Some Reflections on the Relationship Between Left Brain / Right Brain Thinking in Metaphor and Logic”) teaches Political Science at St. Thomas University.

Roger Moore (“Some Reflections on the Relationship Between Left Brain / Right Brain Thinking in Metaphor and Logic”) teaches Spanish at St. Thomas University.

Brian Ouellette (“Teaching Spirituality in an Academic Environment: Marrying the Head and the Soul”) teaches Social Work at St. Thomas University.

Heather Richmond (“First Year Humanities Students — Thinking About Learning”) teaches Education at St. Thomas University.

Jean Sauvageau (“Teaching and the Responsibility of Professors as Intellectuals”) teaches Criminology at St. Thomas University.

Tony Steele (“The Poet in the Classroom”) is a utility English prof at St. Thomas.

Tony Tremblay (“Mediating Instruction with Technology”) teaches English at St. Thomas University.

------

We want your feedback…

Comments on this issue of Teaching Perspectives are welcome, as are suggestions for future issues or articles. Please send those to Tony Tremblay, LTD Officer.