By Kyle Fassett, Doctoral Student, HESA
Attention to pedagogy, or the craft of teaching practice, has been considered an invaluable study by educators for centuries.[1] As faculty members transmit knowledge from one student to another, teaching stands at the heart of North American education.
By delving into the past, one gains a thorough understanding of the teaching practices that faculty of different generations have embraced. As we reflect on Indiana University’s history, one may wonder how did faculty, administrators, and the students guide teaching in the 1970s?
Several sources indicate growth occurred due to changes in tenure and promotion, funding to innovate in and outside of the classroom, and student discontent all called for excellence in teaching.
Balancing the demands of the faculty role often requires differing approaches. Scott Gordon[2], a professor of economics, commented on the issue of tenure of faculty who excelled at teaching but did not output enough research to obtain the status.
He recommended the creation of a new position deemed a “praeceptor,” where an individual would teach twelve hours of courses each semester as opposed to the traditional six at IU. The three-year contract position would be issued instead of individuals being released by the institution. In a handwritten note on the memo, Dean of Faculties, Henry Remak, claimed he liked the idea and would inquire about how to proceed.
However, no evidence has been discovered that the idea of “praeceptors” ever came to fruition but the fact Remak was willing to entertain a new teaching structure should be considered positive. By being receptive to innovative ideas, Remak opened the door to move IU forward.
Faculty had numerous ideas on how to improve teaching at Indiana University. In January of 1970, a teacher in the history department and administrator in the Junior Division, Cullom Davis, outlined three ways to improve quality teaching. He believed that there needed to be strong faculty commitment, which could only be achieved through rewards: tenure, promotion, and salary.[3]
Davis also believed Indiana University should incorporate Associate Instructors in decision making about teaching, provide them teaching services that were historically reserved for faculty, and have their contracts hosted by the chancellor’s office to maintain control over departments. It was important for AIs to be provided teacher training at Indiana to enhance their instruction at IU and beyond.
Finally, Davis stated the Office of the Dean of Faculties should have grants available to improve teaching quality, and the institution should be receptive to innovative ideas. Several of the recommendations were, in fact, considered by the administration.
Teacher improvement grants aimed to innovate the faculty of Indiana’s practices during the 1970s. The Academic Vice Chancellor and Dean of Faculties reviewed the applications; requests ranged from $150 to $4,500 for new equipment, international movies, and sabbatical studies.[4] (In today’s dollars, $950 to $28,000.)[5]
Funds were allocated to develop new courses to broaden the university’s curriculum. The administration saw the importance of specialized education to move Indiana University forward.
Committee work at Indiana University was indicative of the push to improve teaching practices. There were two committees for Learning Resources: Audio Visual, and Television, which the Dean for Academic Affairs collapsed into one board aimed at weaving technology into teaching practices.[6]
Additionally, in 1969, Henry Remak, Acting Dean of Faculties, requested his secretary obtain 20 copies of the University of Michigan’s periodical on Good Teaching from the institution’s Center for Research on Learning and Teaching.[7]
Remak had the pamphlets stored in a file titled “Project to Improve College Teaching.” Remak’s actions demonstrate his interest in teaching and his drive to improve IU’s climate around the topic; it eventually led to the creation of a teaching resource center. In a book chapter titled Learning and Teaching Centers: Hubs of Educational Reform, Susan Singer, professor at Carleton College, discussed how research universities such as University of Michigan and Northwestern University formed teaching centers beginning in 1962 and 1969 respectively.[8]
Faculty members at Indiana University in the 1970s continued to call for new teaching paradigms. An activist on campus stated: “Academic credit should be awarded for the performance of volunteer services in the community and elsewhere.”[9]
Additional requests are seen in the image below. These demands show the Indiana faculty to be forward thinking about teaching. Service learning has since become a common educational teaching strategy in the 21st century where students work in a community outside of the university to receive academic credit. The technique is believed to be highly beneficial for student learning and achievement of civic outcomes.[10]
At Indiana University, its early implementation shows faculty were taking into consideration students’ involvement outside of the traditional classroom. Service learning was the continuation of a national paradigm shift of thinking about where learning occurs. Faculty at Indiana were beginning to see how teaching occurs beyond the classroom instruction and fits into numerous aspects of their role, e.g., student research, advising meetings, and co-ops.
The 1970s were years Indiana University flourished in improving teaching through technological advancements. Some faculty called for the abolishment of massive lecture-style courses in hopes of improving student learning; they proposed personal experimentation courses that would advance the limited possibilities of independent studies.
Faculty wanted to provide students opportunities to pursue their interests. Additionally, faculty believed more exploratory options would eliminate the “tyranny of prerequisites.”
These claims pushed the administration to consider alternative forms of teaching. In a 1970 memo on “Instructional Innovations, Bloomington campus,” there is a list of practices utilized at the institution: audio tutorial programs, experimental classrooms with televisions in Ballantine Hall, and a new campus committee on teacher education was formed.[11]
Faculty and staff across disciplines were experimenting with new ways of educating their students; technology was both a benefit and a hindrance. Indiana faculty appreciated the new modalities, but also took advantage of them around holiday break periods; instructors would require students to watch movies and then not show up to teach. Teaching practices evolved substantially during the decade and challenged the norm.
Sensitivity training in a first-year studies English course is one way an instructor demonstrated innovation in teaching. Borrowing practices from the Royal Canadian Air Force, one faculty, Dan Armstrong, detailed several ways he worked to build rapport and trust with his students through various exercises.[12]
He recounted having students partake in the “blind leading blind” where one student led another around the classroom with their eyes closed; students could also perform trust falls in class, and students could participate in a levitation activity.
Armstrong stated, “The primary function of the session is to quickly break down barriers between instructor and students and among students themselves.” This proclamation begins to shed light on how teaching borrowed strategies from other fields. The interdisciplinary nature of the activities could be a commentary on the evolution of teaching at Indiana University. The techniques appear to be an initial example of catering to students’ learning needs.
The Vietnam War as well as the Kent State shooting seemed to cause immense stress on student psyche. Thus, faculty responded in ways necessary, e.g., changing teaching methodology. Teaching philosophies laden with values and understandings of how learning works direct faculty practices.[13]
However, teaching did face adversity on campus due to the political turmoil surrounding the war in Vietnam. In 1970, Indiana University canceled classes on the day of, and the day after, the Kent State shooting in recognition of the general emotional turmoil.
This was a point of contention for students who wanted the rest of semester canceled and other students who wanted to finish their year. Protests attempted to bar students from attending class.
An administrative assistant wrote in a memo to then Vice-President and Dean of Faculties, Henry Remak: “Today several students had to come in through the windows and then they pulled in Mrs. Tyndall, also through the window. Mrs. Tyndall thinks that this good bunch of kids deserve a chance to take their final exams and finish school.”[14]
The power of teaching at Indiana University is demonstrated in the variation among student positions.
With Indiana University’s bicentennial rapidly approaching, there are a myriad of questions about the future of the institution. Administrators ponder how to best prepare students for their careers and lives; “We must continue to ask the important questions: What kind of world will future generations inherit? And what can be done to give them the future they deserve?”[15]
As history demonstrates, Indiana University’s faculty practices, institutional commitments, and student perspectives aspire for teaching and learning excellence.
References
Activism. (n.d.). Academic reform: The need for an educational radicalism. Indiana University Dean of the Faculties records: 1946-1982, Collection 23, Indiana University Archives, Bloomington, IN.
Armstrong, D. (1971). Mrs. Mary Burgan: Director of First-Year Studies. Indiana University Dean of the Faculties records: 1946-1982, Collection 23, Indiana University Archives, Bloomington, IN.
Astin, A. W., Vogelgesang, L. J., Ikeda, E. K., & Yee, J. A. (2000). How service learning affects students. Higher Education, Paper 144. Compayré, G. (1886). History of pedagogy. Boston, MA: D. C. Heath & Company.
Davis, C. (1970). Improving undergraduate instruction. Indiana University Dean of the Faculties records: 1946-1982, Collection 23, Box 31, Indiana University Archives, Bloomington, IN.
Gordon, S. (1971). Good teachers who do not make tenure. Indiana University Dean of the Faculties records: 1946-1982, Collection 23, Box 31, Indiana University Archives, Bloomington, IN. Indiana University. (n.d.a). Bicentennial campaign. Retrieved from https://iufoundation.iu.edu/campaign/index.html
Instructional Innovations. (1970). Memo. Indiana University Dean of the Faculties records: 1946-1982, Collection 23, Box 31, Indiana University Archives, Bloomington, IN.
Liebenow, G. (1973). Interdepartmental communication academic affairs memo. Indiana University Dean of the Faculties records: 1946-1982, Collection 23, Indiana University Archives, Bloomington, IN.
Nilson, L. B. (2016). Teaching at its best: A research-based resource for college instructors. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Remak, H. H. H. (1972). Note to Joyce, administrative assistant. Indiana University Dean of the Faculties records: 1946-1982, Collection 23, Box 31, Indiana University Archives, Bloomington, IN.
Singer, S. R. (2002). Learning and teaching centers: Hubs of educational reform. New Directions for Higher Education, 2002(119), 59–64.
Tyndall, M. E. (1970). Activism, phone memo to Henry Remak. Indiana University Dean of the Faculties records: 1946-1982, Collection 23, Indiana University Archives, Bloomington, IN.
U.S. Inflation Calculator (n.d.). Inflation calculator. Retrieved from http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
Wetmore, P. C. (1974). Course development grant. Indiana University Dean of the Faculties records: 1946-1982, Collection 23, Indiana University Archives, Bloomington, IN.
Notes
[1] Compayré, G. (1886). History of pedagogy. Boston, MA: D. C. Heath & Company.
[2] Gordon, S. (1971). Good teachers who do not make tenure. Indiana University Dean of the Faculties records: 1946-1982, Collection 23, Box 31, Indiana University Archives, Bloomington, IN.
[3] Davis, C. (1970). Improving undergraduate instruction. Indiana University Dean of the Faculties records: 1946-1982, Collection 23, Box 31, Indiana University Archives, Bloomington, IN.
[4] Wetmore, P. C. (1974). Course development grant. Indiana University Dean of the Faculties records: 1946-1982, Collection 23, Indiana University Archives, Bloomington, IN.
[5] U.S. Inflation Calculator (n.d.). Inflation calculator. Retrieved from http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
[6] Liebenow, G. (1973). Interdepartmental communication academic affairs memo. Indiana University Dean of the Faculties records: 1946-1982, Collection 23, Indiana University Archives, Bloomington, IN.
[7] Remak, H. H. H. (1972). Note to Joyce, administrative assistant. Indiana University Dean of the Faculties records: 1946-1982, Collection 23, Box 31, Indiana University Archives, Bloomington, IN.
[8] Singer, S. R. (2002). Learning and teaching centers: Hubs of educational reform. New Directions for Higher Education, 2002(119), 59–64.
[9] Activism. (n.d.). Academic reform: The need for an educational radicalism. Indiana University Dean of the Faculties records: 1946-1982, Collection 23, Indiana University Archives, Bloomington, IN.
[10] Astin, A. W., Vogelgesang, L. J., Ikeda, E. K., & Yee, J. A. (2000). How service learning affects students. Higher Education, Paper 144.
[11] Instructional Innovations. (1970). Memo. Indiana University Dean of the Faculties records: 1946-1982, Collection 23, Box 31, Indiana University Archives, Bloomington, IN.
[12] Armstrong, D. (1971). Mrs. Mary Burgan: Director of First-Year Studies. Indiana University Dean of the Faculties records: 1946-1982, Collection 23, Indiana University Archives, Bloomington, IN.
[13] Nilson, L. B. (2016). Teaching at its best: A research-based resource for college instructors. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
[14] Tyndall, M. E. (1970). Activism, phone memo to Henry Remak. Indiana University Dean of the Faculties records: 1946-1982, Collection 23, Indiana University Archives, Bloomington, IN.
[15] Indiana University. (n.d.a). Bicentennial campaign. Retrieved from https://iufoundation.iu.edu/campaign/index.html