The academic year begins again—new courses and new collections of students in them. One of the best parts of our profession is this regular opportunity to start over, to begin with a clean slate. And what might make the courses we are about to begin better? I’d vote for listening, probably because I just read a good article about it. Author Ester Schupak (2019) begins with an honest admission: “I continue to struggle to keep my lips firmly pressed together and to assume the stance of the listener and the gentle questioner, to let [students] find their own exploratory path to knowledge” (p. 197).
To continue reading, you must be a Teaching Professor Subscriber.
Please log in or sign up for full access.
Love ’em or hate ’em, student evaluations of teaching (SETs) are here to stay. Parts <a href="https://www.teachingprofessor.com/free-article/its-time-to-discuss-student-evaluations-bias-with-our-students-seriously/" target="_blank"...
The academic year begins again—new courses and new
collections of students in them. One of the best parts of our profession is
this regular opportunity to start over, to begin with a clean slate. And what
might make the courses we are about to begin better? I’d vote for listening, probably
because I just read a good article about it. Author Ester Schupak (2019) begins
with an honest admission: “I continue to struggle to keep my lips firmly
pressed together and to assume the stance of the listener and the gentle
questioner, to let [students] find their own exploratory path to knowledge” (p.
197).
She writes about “listening rhetoric” as Wayne Booth describes it in The Rhetoric of RHETORIC; Schupak sees it as more a goal than an achievable methodology. It is to “listen without an agenda, to respect the integrity of the text and to be receptive to the discourse of others” (p. 196). It can also be defined by what it is not, and there’s nothing abstract about those behaviors: listening for the purpose of formulating an answer; listening to refute or to reply; listening with the goal of correcting, interrupting, finishing what the other is trying to say; pretending to listen; listening impatiently while wanting to change the subject; hearing but not listening.
Could listening be the most ignored part of teaching and
learning? Despite its necessity, it doesn’t feel like a top priority. We’re
teachers, the designated experts. We are expected to talk, and boy do we meet
those expectations. If only we listened as well as we spoke.
Schupak teaches in Israel, and her students are diverse. They
range in age, speak different languages, and are of different religious faiths,
believing or not believing strongly in those traditions. She writes that in the
beginning of the course her students sit in clumps with their own kind. How can
she help them bridge their differences and come together as a classroom
community? She starts with explicit instruction in listening, not by telling
students it’s important but with readings and time devoted to discussing the
role she believes it should play in her composition courses. There’s a focus on
concrete, tangible behaviors to avoid and to practice.
Though she works to model what she proposes, Schupak admits,
“I’ve discovered that it is much easier to talk about listening rhetoric that
it is to personify” (p. 198). She’s guided by a set of ideals; she’s not
listening for the “right” answer or a range of “right” answers but seeking to
truly understand her students’ words. She avoids pretending to listen. She
refrains from interrupting. She doesn’t stop students. She listens with
interest. “I do not (yet) embody this ideal myself, and I am honest about that
with students. Nevertheless, I make it clear to my classes that listening
rhetoric is an important personal goal to me, and that just as they may
struggle to achieve this ideal, I will be struggling alongside them” (p. 198).
Where is the listening challenge greatest for teachers and
students? Schupak would say discussion. Participation is a performance of sorts—in
front of peers, yes, but also before the teacher. Most students who participate
want the approval of both, but teachers give points. Students hoping to earn
them aggressively seek recognition. Once when I was leading a discussion, a
student held up a hastily scribbled note: “Call on me! I’ve got the answer.” It’s
speaking that earns points, not silence, even though attentive listening always
occurs in silence.
Schupak works to avoid evaluations—even positive ones like
“great insight” and “good question.” Verbal kudos encourage some to speak, but
they discourage others who don’t believe they have anything “good” or “right”
to offer. Her goal is responding “to every comment with an equal degree of
respect, addressing the content rather than rating it” (p. 199). That doesn’t
mean factually incorrect statements or racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, or
other offensive opinions are allowed to stand, but they are corrected gently.
I’ve been trying to do a better job of listening, taking my cue from Maple, my beagle puppy. She’s still got a lot of behaviors to learn, but she knows how to listen. Her hindquarters go down and she cocks her head, fastens her brown eyes on mine, and hears me out. I don’t listen as well to her. Maple communicates with behaviors I don’t understand and don’t always hear, and she takes action if she isn’t heard or understood. Listening to puppies, to students, and to each other is work, but listening motivates learning.
