What Academia Could Learn from Uruguayan Soccer

On Sunday July 24^th 2011, Uruguay played the final game against Paraguay for the America Cup (Copa América) at the Monumental Stadium in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The rivalry between Argentina and Uruguay is legendary. Both countries had 14 wins in this tournament up to 2010. They were tied, and Argentina was dreaming of breaking the tie by winning the title once more in their own soil, but it was not meant to be. Uruguay beat them on the way to the final, much to the disbelief of the Argentineans who were one of the favourites together with Brazil. 

And you may be asking yourself by now, how soccer can teach something to academia? Let me explain…

Uruguay, a small country in the Southern Cone of Latin America, with 3,500 million people, has been known for the quality of its soccer, but for a long time, they were also known for not playing fair. Under the leadership of O. Tabárez, the Uruguayan team showed its brilliance during the World Cup in South Africa, and now in Copa América.

The team that nobody expected to win has gained the respect and admiration of many by the quality of the players, by their sense of pride for the country they represent, by the respect they have towards each other, and by the unselfishness of their plays.  Passing the ball to a team-mate that has a better opportunity to score is not an uncommon event for the Uruguayan team. They pass the ball with the precision that comes from hours of practice and with the understanding that it doesn’t matter who scores the goal: when one of them scores, they all do. 

The purpose of the game is to score more goals than the opponent, and the players of La Celeste (their jersey is sky blue –celeste in Spanish) understand this and execute the plan with exquisite precision. They celebrate each play together. They enjoy seeing others in the team succeed and they help and support each other at all times. 

I was reflecting on their behaviour, their sense of fair play, their cohesiveness as a team and their extraordinary sense of togetherness and pride, and I thought, wouldn’t be incredible to achieve the same level of performance in academia? Where the size of the institution is not what really counts, but its sense of purpose, pride and deep sense of community? Wouldn’t it be priceless to join in the victory of the individuals in a department, for example, because the success of one in the team is actually the success of all? Wouldn’t be rewarding to treat each other with respect and consideration instead of trying to undermine the work of others by ignoring their victories and enjoying their defeats? Wouldn’t be a great way to mentor students in an indirect way, by showcasing the high level of unity within departments, programs, Faculties, etc.? 

Sadly, this is not what happens in most campuses, and rivalry and opposition, the protection of one’s own discipline to the detriment of others, is not uncommon.  Faculty members sometimes seem more concerned with, and consumed by, their own personal agenda than the well being of the group. Frictions and competitiveness take precedent over the sharing of resources in a fair and constructive manner. 

And, so, yes, I believe Uruguayan soccer can teach many good lessons to academics and perhaps, in the near future, we could be joining together in the celebration of everyone’s success: students, professors, institutions and the country as a whole. Because, when one wins, we all do!

Mercedes Rowinsky

3M National Teaching Fellow
Associate Professor
Department of Languages and Literatures
Wilfrid Laurier University

Shift Happens: Teacher Identities and Success

I’ve been working with new college teachers for about twenty years now, and I’ve come to a conclusion, based entirely on experience and observation: 

Those who make a successful transition in their professional identity from “subject matter expert who teaches” to “teacher of subject matter” make the best teachers for college students.

Why is this so important? It leads to better teaching and learning, that’s why.

Teachers come to the college setting from many diverse walks of life (trades, business, industry, social service, the arts, health professions etc.) and seem to fall into two categories:

           1) They are very good at what they do, but have a drive to share their expertise with        coming generations;

           2) They have not been able to find satisfying work in their field, or are ready to move on from it for various reasons.

Interestingly, people from both categories can make excellent teachers.  The key thing is that they realize that their expertise is a “necessary but not sufficient” foundation for good teaching.   

It’s obviously necessary that a teacher know the subject matter, but information and skills in almost all fields are changing and growing so quickly that even that foundation will need to be constantly repaired and built upon if the teacher is to remain current and effective in modelling and conveying the requirements of their field. As important, however, is the realization that knowledge is not enough, that the ability to teach well requires a whole new area of knowledge and skill: that of adult learning. And those who struggled to learn their subject themselves are perhaps more likely to realize that more is needed if student learning is to be successful. 

That old saw “those who can’t do, teach” has a grain of truth to it: “those who struggled to do, may know best what is needed in order to learn”.  If the novice teacher does not experience this epiphany, his or her courses are quite likely to fall into the “lecture and test” mode.  The emphasis is on “somehow” pouring the knowledge from the teacher’s brain into the vessel of the student’s brain, and then testing to see if it got there okay.  As most of us know, there’s “many a slip ‘tween cup and (in this case) student brain”! These kinds of teachers assume that if they just “tell” what they know, then the students will learn it, too. This may have been enough back when we were teaching the elite, well-prepared 10% of the population—need I explain that this is no longer a description of our student population?

When a new teacher’s primary allegiance is to his/her discipline, it may be some time before equal (or any) attention is paid to learning how learning itself happens: how to design curriculum and lessons to incorporate the active strategies that research has amply proven are best for learning; how to provide frequent formative feedback to students so they can test their growing mastery; how to create evaluation tools that measure the more important, deep learning that we hope our students are gaining. 

Until that allegiance begins to shift, teaching is effective only by chance.  Once the identity begins to move in the direction of “professional educator,” teaching becomes more deliberate, more diverse, more reflective, and, in consequence, more effective. And that makes for much higher job satisfaction, less burnout, and better results at all levels. 

Much of my work in recent years has been focused on finding ways to start and support that shift.  I am always thrilled when I hear my colleagues say “I’m a teacher ... of ... ”.   

Shift happens!

Ruth Rodgers

Teaching & Learning Specialist
Centre for Academic and Faculty Enrichment (C.A.F.E.)
Durham College
 

Kindle A Flame

In her recent column, (“Is Our Students Learning”, Globe, June 16, 2011) Margaret Wente cites a robust American study by Arum & Roksa that confirms what many of us have been suspecting for some time.  Taking a closer look at the core of their findings, one will find the underlying intuition and explanations not all that surprising.

In sum, the study claims that almost half of the students show no gains in learning after two years in university, which leads Ms. Wente to believe that "for many students, higher ed. is a waste of time". Dig deeper and the reasons become almost obvious.

First, the study reveals that full-time students are spending about 15 percent of their week on academic work, or, In other words, precious little time in learning. Obviously, learning does not occur by osmosis, nor by mere willpower. Without time on task, students who show deep learning gains will be astonishing exceptions.

Second, students admitted that, in the course of earning their degrees, half of them had never selected a course that required them to write more than 20 pages. One out three said they had not taken a course requiring more than 40 pages of reading.  In other words, expectations for many students are at an all-time low.

If students are not being challenged, if there feel little motivation to apply themselves to tasks and learning, should anyone be surprised when little is gained academically? Add to this sad state larger class sizes, less attention, and professors who demonize students as the problem, and we have a perfect storm.

But blaming students is as silly as blaming teachers. It is fruitless to rail against the students, or the faculty, just as it is fruitless for a chemist to rail against atoms and molecules for not behaving the way he thinks they should. Complaining about the nature of the students or the faculty does not address the universal challenge of creating learning opportunities. Instead we are better off identifying conditions that can radically engage students for the betterment of society.

Yes, there are some students who are "drifting dreamers". Is there anything wrong with that? Maybe the world would be better with more dreamers who can envision a better world and then work to realize that dream. Deep down, teachers are in a position to help students find their voice so that they can realize their vision. When we get past the idea that university is a place to fill students with content to the realization that university should be teaching our students to dream big and realize those dreams, then engaging students reaches another level.

Imagine a university where students are graded on the quality of their contribution to society upon graduation, rather than in how much content they have managed to temporarily memorize in that same time period. Imagine a world in which the paradigm of education has changed to one of serving society as one serves oneself, guided by experienced mentors rather than simply receiving information from sages on the stage. Imagine a world in which students at all levels and in all countries are mobilized to solve the global issues that confront us.

Over a decade ago, Barnett wrote about realizing the university in an age of supercomplexity. But one does not have to read Barnett to get a sense of the global issues our students inherit. You could have picked up any newspaper to get a growing sense of panic from social and military conflict, indebtedness, inequity, inter-generational stress, multiculturalism, public/private sector tension, scarce resources, the need for sustainability, ethical citizenship, transparency and accountability. Are these not better problems to focus on then the "blame game" that gets us no further?

Students have many competing priorities and they always will. Are students nowadays any different than when you were a student? Are children any different, fundamentally, than they were when you were a child? We don’t think so. Curiosity is a fundamental human characteristic and will always be. For teachers this is a gift. It is a gift because teachers can be trained to find the right hooks that enable students to engage at full tilt. It is only the hook that changes with each student and over time; that is our fundamental challenge as teachers.

As for research, which is falsely separated from teaching, maybe that is another hook on which teachers might focus. Maybe we need to see research as a part of the teaching continuum and engage students earlier in doing and discovery, rather than in sitting and listening. Maybe we need to have students build their answers from spare parts and a very brief manual, rather than have them slavishly follow a recipe that has them deliver the same, expected answer as everyone else since the beginning of time.

We feel privileged to be able to teach university students. Learning is "not filling a bucket....but lighting a fire,” as Yeats said in 1893. Wonderful learning outcomes result when teachers kindle the flames.  When that ignition takes place, it is impossible to prevent students from achieving deeper and more meaningful learning.

Arshad Ahmad                                                     Glen Loppnow

President, Society for Teaching                           Vargo Teaching Chair

& Learning in Higher Education                           Professor of Chemistry &

& 3M National Teaching Fellow                            3M National Teaching Fellow

Concordia University                                            University of Alberta

Tel: 514 947 2095