![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Aug. 30th, 2007 11:25 pmNo teachers have ever been as closely attended to as mine of the past week, reason being that despite all the orientations and emails and instructions and caveats no one has at any point actually explained what a 'discussion session' is or what one is to say to students, or try to hear from students. Presumably this falls under some neglected wing of common sense, or experience will instruct me or something, but on the off chance discussion sessions have something to do with teaching I've been memorizing my professors' every move.
There is next to no overlap in their styles, except all I guess fall under the general category of rambling. One seems to have a plan, or anyway direction he wants things to tend in, that you only know is there because he relentlessly zigzags around it. Another likes to chat and show videos. The third seems to talk only in paraphrases of Harold Bloom books and science journal anecdotes. These characterizations are unfair, I'm just mad at them for not unwittingly saving me.
The professor whose work I have to lead discussions about got cut off on the first day, because of 1st day admin. chaos; on the 2nd day his mike broke after half an hour. He was about to explain Freud, Jung and allegory, I think. Should I explain Freud, Jung and allegory? Or is my every comment supposed to be a question? I always found that unbearable in classes, that appeal to general knowledge. I'd just answer myself, when I could, to kill that awful (lengthening by the year) absolute silence.
How on earth to prepare. I don't want to over-read the stories we're discussing, surely it's best to keep them at their Platonic minimum, since that's a) the only way I won't lose the bulk of the students and b) that's presumably what the test will be pitched around and c) these sessions are remarkably short.
It's only their second day with me so presumably admin problems, syllabus questions, and talking about how they did on the quizzes will kill much of the time. After that I guess I'll ask what they want, what they liked, what was unclear from the lectures, what the first two stories have in common etc. They need to teach me how and what to teach them if no one else will.
There is next to no overlap in their styles, except all I guess fall under the general category of rambling. One seems to have a plan, or anyway direction he wants things to tend in, that you only know is there because he relentlessly zigzags around it. Another likes to chat and show videos. The third seems to talk only in paraphrases of Harold Bloom books and science journal anecdotes. These characterizations are unfair, I'm just mad at them for not unwittingly saving me.
The professor whose work I have to lead discussions about got cut off on the first day, because of 1st day admin. chaos; on the 2nd day his mike broke after half an hour. He was about to explain Freud, Jung and allegory, I think. Should I explain Freud, Jung and allegory? Or is my every comment supposed to be a question? I always found that unbearable in classes, that appeal to general knowledge. I'd just answer myself, when I could, to kill that awful (lengthening by the year) absolute silence.
How on earth to prepare. I don't want to over-read the stories we're discussing, surely it's best to keep them at their Platonic minimum, since that's a) the only way I won't lose the bulk of the students and b) that's presumably what the test will be pitched around and c) these sessions are remarkably short.
It's only their second day with me so presumably admin problems, syllabus questions, and talking about how they did on the quizzes will kill much of the time. After that I guess I'll ask what they want, what they liked, what was unclear from the lectures, what the first two stories have in common etc. They need to teach me how and what to teach them if no one else will.
