Many instructors aspire to create and support a classroom community devoted to deep engagement with course readings and discussions. Hans Wietzke, lecturer of classics, uses the metaphor of whale pods and a carefully-scaffolded learning experience to create a unique and lively culture of sustained intellectual engagement with course readings.
What motivated you to create a structured community reading experience for your students?
Class discussions have always been a part of my teaching, but it was in preparing for the Fall 2020 semester, in which we were all fully remote, that I started developing the structure for “podwork.” I wanted to create a lively, enriching, and synchronous learning experience in an environment where I couldn’t take classroom discussion for granted. Podwork was the result: a series of structured activities that made students think about what we’re doing when we have a discussion, allowed students to collaborate with each other, and got us to reflect on why it all matters and also have some fun (it’s a bit morbid, but the name and activities were partly inspired by those “pods” of scary-smart killer whales that work together to hunt seals). Students really got into the activities and it turned out to be one of the most rewarding teaching experiences of my career so far. That initial success evolved into a set of activities that help students better engage with course materials and develop mutual trust and accountability, and in turn generate deeper, more inclusive discussions.
Tell us more about your class, and how you framed and scaffolded the reading process for students?
So far I’ve implemented podwork in 100-level classics courses and those in HFA’s new Cornerstone curriculum, with enrollments ranging from 16 to 25. All of the courses have had Gen Ed listings and so have attracted students from across the university. Podwork itself is built into the course in different ways, with expectations communicated in class, in the syllabus, and through LMS messages. Soon after add/drop, I organize the class into 3- or 4-person pods that are fixed for the semester. Within pods students rotate through different day-to-day roles, which are graded but in a low-stakes manner, and classes consist of a mix of activities done inside and outside of pods. For instance, on any given day, one student from each pod will write a response to a reading prompt in advance of class, which might ask them to offer an interpretation or, more often than not, identify and discuss more superficial aspects of form, content, and style in a reading—my aim is always to get students to really appreciate the text itself before making any interpretations. Before class I might then pick one or two responses, usually ones that model something useful for the class to consider, to use as a primer for an in-class activity, such as jointly developing an interpretation in conversation with the student’s response text. In class, then, we discuss and analyze a text, in part by evaluating and learning from students’ pre-submitted writing. Toward the end of the semester, pods also give more formal class presentations. In all these activities, one thing that I ask pods to do is to try to come to a consensus and reflect on how they got there.
What has been the impact of this strategy on course engagement and student learning?
My long-term hope is that podwork will help my students appreciate how we can and do bond through reading and talking about shared texts (academic, literary, religious, political, etc.). In the short term, students have offered overwhelmingly positive feedback on podwork, both in informal exchanges and on course evaluations. Their comments make clear that they like working together and getting to know each other, they think the activities deepen their understanding of readings, and they think group presentations go better when they already have a history of working together. Some have said that they like being part of a class where everyone has a role to play. All that corroborates what I have seen. The different pod roles also help modulate the energy that different students bring: for instance, a typical role is “pod-moderator,” who is responsible for inviting podmates’ participation in a small discussion. The role thus requires a more confident student to give space to others, and allows a less confident one to be part of a discussion by drawing others in. The pod structure also allows students to plan ahead and still engage in different ways when they’re stretched thin with other semester demands, since the reality is we can’t always expect all of them to be maximally prepared for every class.
But podwork is a continual work in progress: not all pods work equally well together (students pick up on this too), and I’m still tinkering with ways to mix things up without ditching the basic structure.
One more thing: much of my recent teaching has been for the Gen Ed curriculum, so most of my students have been coming from outside of my home college of HFA. One wrote on a recent SRTI, “This course was a useful one. I took it as a gen ed but ended up getting a lot out of it.” That points to an unsettling but I suspect not uncommon sentiment held by many students about what they expect from Gen Eds. But many students have also shared a feeling of being lost in their major programs, which may sometimes provide fewer opportunities for meaningful collaboration or peer interaction. Podwork can offer those students something they’re otherwise missing from their academic experience.
What considerations or tips do you have for other faculty interested in trying "podwork"?
A basic assumption underlying podwork is that familiarity leads to greater trust and accountability, which in turn lead to better discussions and better learning. I would encourage everyone to try out a more structured approach to groupwork if they haven’t already. There are two basic but consequential decisions I’ve made that I’d also encourage others to consider.
First, I don’t allow screens in class, but require students to bring in a hard copy of all readings (with occasional exceptions). I am concerned about classroom equity and not adding to the financial burden of education, but I’ve been able to keep a student’s investment to about $30 total (pdf readings are uploaded to the LMS at the beginning of the semester, so students only need to make one trip to the library for printing, where print-outs cost $0.05 per page). I’m also prepared to suspend the whole policy if a student has a documented need to use a screen and there would be a concern about them being singled out in class. So far that hasn’t happened. My impression is that many students like the policy, as the absence of screens in class keeps us focused on the work at hand and removes the temptation to check Instagram, etc. if attention wanes. On SRTIs, I've so far read only two negative comments about the policy, both of which saw it as creating a waste of paper. The response overall tells me that the policy is worthwhile, but that I can still do more to communicate the rationale and generate buy-in from all students.
That issue of buy-in leads to the second consideration. For podwork to succeed, it absolutely requires student buy-in. To that end, I’ve found it helpful to involve students in setting expectations and ground rules for how class should be run. In some classes we've drafted a class "constitution" with student-set policies, and I print small copies for all students that they can tape in their notebooks (I bring tape). To generate that material, early in the semester we spend a full day talking about what makes for a good discussion (this is a good early exercise in small group discussion). Lots of students have opinions about this, but early on, not everyone might be willing to share them, especially if we’re talking in a bigger group. So I also ask them if they’ve ever been part of a “discussion from hell” and what that was like. That gets most people talking right away.
