Search

Outlines a research project for family sociology students that uses student family histories to bridge the gap between course material and personal family experiences. Claims the project teaches students how information is transmitted across generations, as well as strengthening research, interviewing, and analytical skills. (Author/AEM)

Describes two teaching techniques that can be used to personalize the standard lecture format used in large group human sexuality classes. The techniques involve the use of varied homework assignments and the use of upper-level students as discussion leaders. (Author/AEM)

This article addresses a challenge for sociologists who teach at institutions located in unfamiliar cultural contexts through a photo elicitation project to develop students' sociological imaginations while teaching the instructor about students' social contexts. In introductory courses, we must present sociology as a field of study that is relevant for students' lives and teach students to connect their experiences with sociological perspectives. For instructors unfamiliar with the social context shaping their students' experiences, this is a daunting task since we need an adequate understanding of students' lives to effectively teach them. Based on my experience teaching an introductory sociology course in Kazakhstan, I suggest a semester-long project that combines photo elicitation with sociological analysis to (1) teach students to apply the sociological imagination to their own lives and (2) enable teachers to learn about students' social contexts, thus making them better equipped at teaching students how to analyze their lives.

As the authors stated early in their article (Machalek and Martin 2010), evolutionary ideas have been gaining traction in the work of a growing number of sociologists in recent years. Much of their thinking derives from work inspired by sociobiology. However, many sociologists are critical of and unreceptive to incorporating evolutionary biology in general and sociobiology in particular into sociological thought and research. Often (but not always), these criticisms are rooted in misconceptions about sociobiological reasoning. The authors identified a number of these misconceptions and five concepts which, when understood will help allay such misconceptions. This paper presents the authors' reply to Lucal's (2010) and Hanson's (2010) comments of their article.

This article presents the authors' response to David Schweingruber's comments on their paper about sociology's disciplinary core being reflected in introductory sociology textbooks. In his comment, Schweingruber argues that introductory textbooks do not adequately reflect the disciplinary core because the authors of such texts employ terms that extend beyond disciplinary boundaries. Moreover, he offers evidence purporting to show that the terms included in introductory texts do not appear frequently in the recently published articles of the discipline's most prominent journals. But near the end of his commentary, he appears to cast aside both of these positions in favor of a belief that the core is to be found not in the concepts used in the discipline but in a particular way of thinking, one essentially defined by the indefinable. The authors explain that their contention has been consistent: the discipline fails to possess a core body of knowledge commonly recognized by all who study it that serves as the foundation upon which cumulative work will be based. The authors stress that in defense of their position, they draw on Schweingruber's own statements to illustrate four plausible errors. They added that while Schweingruber appears to use their article as a springboard to present his own analysis, they contend that he brings them no closer to identifying the discipline's intellectual core.

Prof. Niemonen claims that the concept of white privilege is "anti-sociological" and "mask[s] complex race-class interactions." He highlights the importance of including social class in discussions of white privilege but focuses exclusively on the white working class, neglecting how race and social class also intersect for people of color. Further, while different social identities mediate how whites experience race privilege, race remains a key factor in shaping life chances and opportunities. We agree that racial groups cannot be treated as homogenous, but we argue for the importance of teaching students about disparities between races before showing them heterogeneity within races; doing so in reverse minimizes the very real ways that race shapes people's lives. Nonetheless, taking into account Niemonen's points, we offer an addendum to our original exercise that stresses the importance of intersectionality; this can be offered as a second step once students have an understanding of white privilege.

Even though I recognize the value of using the mass media to teach sociological concepts and reveal racial biases, I caution against the use of classroom exercises that are developed solely in the context of whiteness studies. Overarching statements of white privilege mask complex race-class interactions generally and the mass media's stereotypical depictions of the white working class specifically. In this "conversation," I explain why the use of the concept white privilege in and of itself obfuscates more than it reveals complex race-class interactions today.

This article presents the author's response to the article "The Sociology of Teaching Graduate Statistics" by Timothy Patrick Moran. Moran takes on the admirable task of trying to improve the teaching graduate statistics. Like many good teachers, he makes controversial and thought-provoking statements designed to promote discussion and debate. First, the author was struck that a paper about teaching graduate statistics makes sweeping statements while offering virtually no statistics to back them up. While noting that "teaching statistics literature concerns itself with undergraduate-level issues," Moran nonetheless feels free to assert that "when teaching statistics, sociological thinking is largely abandoned." The author states that his own suspicion is that there is too much diversity in the teaching of graduate statistics to make such generalizations. He added that certainly, students need to learn how to use statistics appropriately, and it may be a useful pedagogical device for an instructor to review the great debates of the past. But, it is not as though there is a lack of contemporary writing on statistical controversies.

In this article, I ask for whom is our teaching developed? Although we typically think that it is developed for our students, there appears to be a considerable gap between how our curriculum, especially Introductory Sociology is organized, and what we know about current college students. Drawing on data on enrollment in sociology and overall in colleges and universities along with recent scholarly portraits of college students by Nathan (2005), Clydesdale (2007), and Arum and Roska (2011), I offer the following argument: (1) Our "students" are primarily those who take Introductory Sociology, and this class, indeed, is our public face for most nonacademics; (2) given where U.S. college students matriculate, all too often, Introductory Sociology is likely being taught by someone not as well connected as we might like to our main professional organization; (3) comprehensive textbooks dominate the Introductory Sociology market and contain more information that can reasonably be covered in one semester; (4) college students are "practical credentialists" who spend relatively little time outside of the classroom on their studies; and (5) whether or not we as sociologists agree on what needs to be covered in Introductory Sociology and other courses, we have derived these understandings among ourselves, paying little attention to what skills and knowledge our students want and/or need. If Introductory Sociology really is our "public face", we clearly need to spend a considerable amount of time in making sure that this is how we want to be seen. (Contains 3 tables and 12 notes.)

In this article, the authors argue that one approach to teaching Introduction to Social Problems is to structure the course content around taken-for-granted beliefs that many students have about the social world. In doing so, the authors discuss the social construction of social problems, how sociology differs from common sense, and the importance of critical sociological thinking. By way of example, the authors focus on the social problem of divorce. (Contains 3 notes.)

This article presents the author's response to "Evolution, Biology, and Society: A Conversation for the 21st-Century Sociology Classroom" by Richard Machalek and Michael Martin. Their work serves as a reminder that the discipline is diverse and dynamic. The author appreciates the effort to urge sociology teachers to include genetic concepts in lower-division courses, but he does not share the enthusiasm for sociobiology. The author suggests that the call to include genetic principles in the sociology curriculum is part of a historic effort to discuss social patterns in terms that are individualistic. He offers his views on the role of freshman-level courses in an academy where the boundaries of fields are shifting.

After accepting the editor's invitation to write a response to Richard Machalek and Michael W. Martin's "Evolution, Biology, and Society: A Conversation for the 21st-Century Sociology Classroom," the author took up their recommendation to learn more about recent work on biology and social behavior. She considered seriously Machalek and Martin's observation that it might not be simple "biophobia" that had resulted in her distaste for biological explanations but her ignorance of recent developments in the field. Thus began her quest to overcome her ignorance, to understand the five concepts Machalek and Martin cite as central to sociobiology: epigenesis, the interaction principle, the norm of reaction, prepared learning, and emergence. Machalek and Martin seemed to be arguing that armed with such knowledge, she would conclude that the four criticisms of biological approaches often leveled by bioilliterate sociologists are based on stereotypes that result in misrepresentations of the "logic and substance of evolutionary theory." In other words, as Machalek and Martin put it in an earlier article, the author would see that much criticism of sociobiology "appears to target a "straw man"." The author points out that Machalek and Martin do not give any indication that they agree with biological and evolutionary approaches that make these kinds of arguments. After all of her study of these perspectives, the author remains troubled by Machalek and Martin's implication that her skepticism is a product of ignorance, that it cannot possibly represent an informed critique.

Reading comprehension skill is often assumed by sociology instructors, yet many college students seem to have marginal reading comprehension skills, which may explain why fewer than half of them are actually doing the reading. Sanctions that force students to either read or to pay a price are based on a rational choice model of behavior--a perspective that many students seem to bring with them. However, deep reading--reading for long-term retention of the material and for comprehension at a level that can be perspective-transforming--involves constructing meaning as one reads. Students need help developing reading strategies that enhance this process. Moreover, cost/benefit coercion of reading does not necessarily enhance construction of meaning or deep-learning; indeed, it may reward minimalist or surface reading. This essay is an excursion into theory on deep learning and the implications of that theory for engaging students in reading. An assignment based on multiple intelligences and fostering reading comprehension is suggested and some initial data are provided regarding possible success of this strategy. (Contains 2 footnotes.)

This article presents the author's comments on the article by Keith and Ender on sociology's disciplinary core being reflected in introductory sociology textbooks. The author mentions that Keith and Ender claim that if sociology has a disciplinary core, it "would logically be located in the introductory textbook." Furthermore, since a science is supposed to have a conceptual core, Keith and Ender suggest that sociology may not be a science, or at least is not presented as one in introduction to sociology textbooks. The author states that this comment presents evidence that introduction to sociology textbooks are not reflective of published sociological research, and therefore, the contents of these books' glossaries tell readers little about the current state of the discipline. He emphasizes that Keith and Ender are not alone in claiming that introduction to sociology textbooks reflect this field. He argues that introduction to sociology textbooks are a poor reflection of the discipline. (Contains 1 table and 2 footnotes.)

Focuses on the setting of a science and career fair; and discusses the use of cultural artifacts. Examines the use of folk dolls in a science and career fair. Includes background information and addresses the reasons for using the dolls. Includes references. (CMK)

Focuses on teaching sociology to prisoners, the benefits of teaching prisoners, and the experience of teaching the courses to prisoners. Addresses how the author took the experience of teaching prison students into traditional undergraduate courses. Highlights the implications for teaching sociology. (CMK)

Argues that there is a need to rethink the teaching of classical sociological theories. Focuses on the reasons the authors rethought their course with a special emphasis on their critique of Eurocentrism. Discusses the course and the responses of students to the new version of the course. Includes references. (CMK)

Discusses what contributes to the excellence of sociology researchers. Directs focus toward advanced sociology undergraduate students and beginning graduate students. Emphasizes the personal qualities of researchers offering four examples to illustrate these qualities. Addresses the importance of files, multiple data sources, and personal associations. (CMK)

Responds to "Rethinking the Graduate Seminar." Addresses four areas of misconception: (1) the goal of graduate programs; (2) the role of graduate seminars; (3) the role of the instructor's goals and teaching style; and (4) the distinction between student motivation and abilities. Presents a model linking graduate seminars with the skills needed to encourage students to become scholars. (CMK)

Contends that professors of graduate seminars fail to provide the structure necessary for academic discourse. Describes four models for graduate seminars along with the disadvantages of each model. Discusses the issue of authority in graduate seminars. Provides an example of an effective graduate seminar. (CMK)

Responds to the article "Rethinking the Graduate Seminar." Argues that the two key assumptions of the article are not grounded in empirical realities that attend higher education in the 1990s. Discusses the use of student-to-student writing critiques in the graduate seminar to facilitate student growth. (CMK)

Responds to "Rethinking the Graduate Seminar." Addresses topics such as the many styles of teaching in graduate seminars, the role of the instructor, the graduate seminar as part of professional socialization, and socialization for the teacher. Provides suggestions on the article's ideas for dealing with discussion. (CMK)

Describes radical pedagogy and observes that an overview of "Teaching Sociology" suggests that few teachers fully practice it. Argues that while professors are free to teach radical theory, radical pedagogy is hindered by institutional constraints. Concludes that radical teachers may benefit from remaining more within the confines imposed by their institutions. (DSK)

Responds to Sweet's (Steven) essay on radical pedagogy in the teaching of sociology. Discusses what it means to be a radical teacher. Presents ideas for beginning radical pedagogs to gain support for their initiatives from other instructors, their own institutions, and their students. (DSK)

Responds to Sweet's (Steven) essay on radical pedagogy in the teaching of sociology. Observes that a problem for radical pedagogy is that it means different things to everyone. Presents an alternative pedagogical perspective based on Gramsci's (Antonio) views. Critiques claims that teaching techniques can produce social change. (DSK)

Responds to Sweet's (Steven) essay on radical pedagogy in the teaching of sociology. Discusses issues related to the degree to which sociology instructors are normative and radical; problems and potential of the radical ideal; and the radical dilemma of power in the classroom. (DSK)

Discusses the importance of out-of-class experiences and reviews the literature on outcomes of this "other" or "informal" curriculum. Argues that, by sharing some data on academic and professional socialization from students, faculty, and departments, most departments do not adequately provide these opportunities. Evaluates barriers to providing these experiences. (DSK)

Articulates an approach to teaching sociology that creates connections between the personal and political lives of the students and the sociological concepts studied. Includes descriptions of class assignments designed to induce alienation and empowerment. Considers pedagogical alternatives to traditional instruction. (MJP)

Maintains that introductory sociology courses rely on a preponderance of jargon that obfuscates the nature of the discipline. Advocates communicating the nature of sociology by emphasizing its three main approaches: structural, systematic, and critical. Suggests that religious affiliation and economic status influence ability to think sociologically. (MJP)

Describes a classroom-based research project that focused on issues of cultural pluralism. Students interviewed foreign students living with U.S. host families as well as the families. They also examined student handbooks and orientation materials. Discusses the implementation and outcome of the project. (MJP)

Asserts that western civilization's belief in the differentiation between object and subject impedes a true multicultural discourse. Praises the postmodernist approach, that self-evident reality is actually a politically constructed text, as being useful in identifying subjectivity. Argues for acknowledgment, rather than displacement of, individual subjectivities. (MJP)

Maintains that sociology was founded in the 19th century as a discipline for the scientific study of social order. Contends that the discipline has been attacked by both liberals and conservatives. Argues that teaching sociology as a laboratory science is the best way to improve the discipline's professional and public image. (CFR)

Presents several common misperceptions about student evaluation of college faculty members. Asserts that it is essential to examine the operational processes used to measure effective teaching. Discusses the role of research, the importance of sociology, and the utility of standardized assessments of student learning in faculty evaluation. (CFR)

Argues for the incorporation of classical liberal theory into undergraduate sociology theory courses. Urges that liberalism be contextualized in relationship to its intellectual predecessors. Suggests that understanding classical liberalism enhances understanding of Durkheim, Marx, and Weber. Recommends works that can be used as reading assignments. Includes sample questions to accompany the assignments. (DK)

Observes that there has been no accounting of the history of the teaching of sociology. Suggests that the journal, "Teaching Sociology," can help bring attention to teaching. Notes that sociology majors' grades and standardized tests scores have declined. Argues that sociology instruction must become more effective and must implement value added assessment. (SG)

Examines the use of personal computers (PCs) in the introductory sociology course. Discusses the functional strengths and weaknesses of PCs. Describes the use of PCs in preparing and presenting visual material, teaching basic concepts and strategies, illustrating analytical storylines, and engaging students in problem solving. Suggests additional uses for PCs. (SG)

Discusses difficulties of classroom-based research and obstacles to conducting classroom-based ethnographic research. Identifies temporal obstacles, personnel, safety, and traditional classroom orientation. Suggests experiential approaches for fieldwork instructors such as individual projects, a choice of group projects, or a single designated class project. Describes a cooperative project on homelessness. (DK)

Presents an interview with Phil Nyden, a professor at Loyola University (Illinois). Describes his qualitative methods course. Includes his suggestion of a group project rather than individual research projects enabling students to focus on methodology rather than substantive issues. Lists course objectives: learning qualitative methods, applied sociology, and ethics. Argues that students learn sociology by doing something with it. (DK)

Examines issues surrounding socioethical topics. Argues that professional responsibility operates at three distinct but interconnected levels: individual (moral-philosophical), professional (sociological), and societal (multidisciplinary). Argues that the nature of sociology inevitably leads to facing ethical issues as professional rather than personal matters. Urges including ethics in existing courses rather than separate ones. (DK)

Discusses effects on graduate sociology education of trends emphasizing quantitative methods and the positivist tradition at the expense of social theory and interpretive sociology. Argues that failure to develop sociology's interpretive tradition has allowed the style and intellectual creativity of sociological work to suffer. Urges greater balance between the two traditions of sociology. (DK)

Urges the sociology profession to make ethical practices in teaching and research a first priority. Argues that the mentor/apprenticeship model is an inadequate solution for teaching ethical decision making. Suggests that ethical training should be infused in the curriculum and supported by programs at the department, college, and university level. (DK)

Analyzes the structure of academic sociology departments. Stresses the competition for resources and symbolic capital among different groups including faculty, support staff, research staff, graduate students, and undergraduate students. Focuses on the complex role of graduate students, the constraints, and the opportunities it opens. Urges reform of the nearly feudal structure. (DK)

Describes a classroom exercise for increasing gender equality and awareness in class discussions by increasing female students' participation. Explains that only female students may speak during one week of the course. Argues that radical and feminist education must promote the equal empowerment of male and female students to talk and listen. (DK)

Argues that introductory sociology students need to be familiar with the basics of the entire research process and able to spot simple research errors. Urges teachers to devote time to teaching research methods, assign homework, and include research methods instruction throughout the course. Recommends use of extended research examples and well-chosen computer software. (DK)

Asserts that sociology is losing ground to other disciplines and programs that are engaged more actively in the workplace. Proposes that, because of the vast changes in the workplace, there is a more active and more applied role for sociology that may help to provide greater opportunities for students and faculty. (DB)

Describes the supervision of internships in an applied medical sociology program. Participation covers three areas: (1) establishing a wellness program; (2) maintaining the program; and (3) responding to intern needs. Finds that monitoring interns requires a structure different from academic advising and instruction, and recommends treating interns as colleagues, not as students. (NL)

This article presents the author's response to Timothy Patrick Moran's article "The Sociology of Teaching Graduate Statistics." Since 1972, the author has taught the required graduate-level social statistics course in three different departments. During this time, he has seen the truth of the concerns that Moran expresses at the beginning of his article; the foundation course must cover more ground than ever before, and computer software has become much easier to use. However, the author has drawn different implications from these trends than the ones suggested by Professor Moran. His decisions about how to teach the foundation course have been driven by his judgment of what the students most need to learn during their first year of graduate social statistics. The author mentions that his response has been to focus the course around statistical techniques that will be broadly useful for the work the students are preparing to do on their dissertations and in their part published articles. In addition, some of Professor Moran's assumptions are questionable. Sociological theory is at best peripheral and usually irrelevant to understanding these controversies. Further, it is unlikely that students will be able to understand the issues argued about and the positions taken by various factions as these controversies developed historically.

This article presents the author's response to the comments provided by Farkas, Hardy, Williams, and Zipp regarding his article on the teaching of statistics in graduate programs. The author mentions two issues: Conceptually, what are the needs for making changes in the graduate statistics curriculum? And practically, what are the merits of various proposed changes, and how do they implement them? The author completely agrees with Professors Hardy and Zipp that the teaching of statistics in graduate programs needs to become an institutionally based discussion, considered more broadly within the context of both the other courses they expect graduate students to take and their prior training as undergraduates. The author believes that as improvements are made, more can be found such that the teaching of quantitative methodology begins to mirror the scholarship of statistics itself--that is, more like an ongoing process of development and advancement. To this end, it is obvious that the conversation between the five of them has made valuable use of these pages.

This article presents a response to Timothy Patrick Moran's article "The Sociology of Teaching Graduate Statistics." In his essay, Moran argues that exciting developments in techniques of quantitative analysis are currently coupled with a much less exciting formulaic approach to teaching sociology graduate students about quantitative analysis. The author mentions that to begin to remedy this problem, Moran suggests they infuse the teaching of statistics with theory, history, and debate, coupling this "substantive" approach with the technical training that now appears to their primary interest. The author finds much to applaud in his proposal. She mentions that the classes Moran describes are much more fun to teach and more like the statistics/methods training she received as a graduate student. She believes that implementing Moran's methods/statistics curricula will require more than a change in how they teach statistics. It will require some fundamental changes in how they think about "basic" graduate training in sociology. (Contains 2 footnotes.)

As we enter our second century, it is an appropriate time for sociologists to take stock of where we have been and where we are going. Although most of this reflection appears to focus on substantive matters, Timothy Patrick Moran is right in arguing that their gaze ought to extend to how they teach graduate statistics. This article presents the author's response to Moran's article "The Sociology of Teaching Graduate Statistics." Reading Moran's article, for the most part, the author finds a lot to recommend. Two points are clearly uncontroversial: Graduate statistics courses should emphasize the importance of sociological theory in all phases of the research process--both Moran and him are hopeful that this already happens--and these courses should be sure to include an appropriate dose of statistical theory. Moran suggests, and he may very well be correct, that the need to cover more and more advanced techniques has driven these more basic topics out of the curriculum. The author mentions that perhaps this is the best way to characterize one of Moran's biggest contributions: bringing the sociologist back into statistics. The author adds that Moran makes an excellent point; the typical statistics course is taught as if the techniques are not problematic at all, that they have no history and that their acceptance is universal.