The Star Ledger has an article about some offbeat college course topics that have been popping up recently. Students can study everythings to the Simpsons and society, to “How to Watch Television.” Remarkably, instructors have found when they make an effort to involve students and relate their material and overall themes to subjects and examples that feel contemporary and relevant, that students interest and attendance goes up.
“It’s a hook to catch their attention,” Professor Norman Cetuk said of the 22-minute animated show. “They have a lot of work to do.”
Centenary’s “The Simpsons: An American Family” course is one of dozens of quirky classes popping up on college campuses as professors look for fresh ways to engage a new generation of students. Colleges say the more offbeat the class, the faster it fills.
This doesn’t seem to me to be anything new, except that in many ways it seems that University educators are learning from their peers who teach younger students. High School teachers have faced for years the problem of involving students in education and convincing them of the relevance of the subjects that they teach. My friend Matt Cinotti has been using the Simpsons as an example in his student-teaching English classes, both because people enjoy them (as well as himself) but also because it helps to engage the students in studying the subject in general.
Student reactions seem to indicate that there is a basic inability of students to apply the concepts studied in their academic pursuits to current events and trends. Why should the study of culture and history be confined to events in the past? The past has already been well documented. The present is where the historians, writers, thinkers, and philosophers of the future will find the material to ply their trade.
A few of the 57 Montclair students who packed the class last semester were disappointed when they learned How to Watch Television involved more than sitting in a lecture hall watching “Friends,” Gencarelli said.
I think it’s a welcome breath of fresh air into the higher education domain. There are many items about the science and art of teaching that have been the subject of extensive training and study at lower levels, but that are not given the same emphasis in a University setting. Why does a HS teaches spend years learning how to teach well, while anybody with a Ph.D and partial command of the English language can lecture to college students? How much better would the University experience be if more instructors knew how to teach?
Study Simpsons in College
Tags: about · age · ANT · ci · classes · cle · it · learning · NJ · problem · quote · rutgers · sim · sso · tar · teaching · training · ui · UK · Work · XML
The Star Ledger has an article about some offbeat college course topics that have been popping up recently. Students can study everythings to the Simpsons and society, to “How to Watch Television.” Remarkably, instructors have found when they make an effort to involve students and relate their material and overall themes to subjects and examples that feel contemporary and relevant, that students interest and attendance goes up.
This doesn’t seem to me to be anything new, except that in many ways it seems that University educators are learning from their peers who teach younger students. High School teachers have faced for years the problem of involving students in education and convincing them of the relevance of the subjects that they teach. My friend Matt Cinotti has been using the Simpsons as an example in his student-teaching English classes, both because people enjoy them (as well as himself) but also because it helps to engage the students in studying the subject in general.
Student reactions seem to indicate that there is a basic inability of students to apply the concepts studied in their academic pursuits to current events and trends. Why should the study of culture and history be confined to events in the past? The past has already been well documented. The present is where the historians, writers, thinkers, and philosophers of the future will find the material to ply their trade.
I think it’s a welcome breath of fresh air into the higher education domain. There are many items about the science and art of teaching that have been the subject of extensive training and study at lower levels, but that are not given the same emphasis in a University setting. Why does a HS teaches spend years learning how to teach well, while anybody with a Ph.D and partial command of the English language can lecture to college students? How much better would the University experience be if more instructors knew how to teach?