Final report on the Mellon supported course, "Gender and Family in South Asia"

Meena Khandelwal
Sociology/Anthropology
Denison University

The following report constitutes my evaluation of S/A 346 ("Gender and the Family in South Asia"), which I taught in the Spring 2000. Bahram Tavakolian taught "The Middle East and the West" during the Fall 1999 semester as part of the same proposal.

1. How were project goals (as defined in the proposal) met, or modified and met, and if not, why were they not met?

I followed the plan and syllabus for "Gender and the Family in South Asia" more closely than expected, although some technical difficulties did interfere with my ability to meet these goals. The electronic classroom at Kenyon was out of commission for a week and a half before spring break, and I was not informed of this as soon as the problems were known. We had to cancel one class, hold one class session via speaker phone, and have the Kenyon students drive down to Denison for another class session. I was promised that the system would be repaired when we returned from spring break, but it was not clear that it was actually functioning properly until an hour before our first class after the break. This created a certain amount of confusion. Luckily, it was repaired and we were able to hold class for the remainder of the semester without any technical problems.

As it turns out, the rapport that developed among the students in the class was excellent. For this reason, we ended up meeting for class, for the viewing of a movie, for a lecture by Chandra Mohanty, or for dinner, more often than I had anticipated; the students wanted to meet face-to-face, so much so that they were willing to drive (Usually the Kenyon students drove to Denison, but I also took the Denison students up to Kenyon for one class session (on their request.) to see each other both for class and for social gatherings. I think this rapport was facilitated by several factors.

All these factors contributed to a very cohesive group, which greatly improved the quality of our class discussions and, I think, the students’ preparation for each class (I sensed that they wanted to impress their fellow students). The course was run as a seminar. Occasionally, the discussion would seem to be limited by the technology in the sense that the students from one campus would be conversing about the material, while students from the other campus would act as silent onlookers. This was much more likely to happen when students were more involved and invested in the discussion, which might lead them to speak more quietly, interrupt each other, or mention something "on the side" to one student while another was speaking. None of this would have presented a problem in a normal classroom, but it could easily exclude the remote students (at either end). I would have to keep stepping in and reminding people to speak up, etc. For the most part, however, class discussions went well, and there was equal participation from both groups of students. Another important reason class discussions went well is that I, on the advice of Bahram Tavakolian, had a student assistant who sat in my class every day and operated the cameras. This was effective in allowing me to focus on the material and the students. I think that all courses taught via video conferencing, if they are to be truly successful, must include a student assistant to operate the camera and free the instructor to focus on teaching.

2. What was learned about teaching and learning with technology?

I decided to take on this collaborative project as an experiment, partly because of my previous connection with Kenyon and my knowledge that there were many students there with an interest in South Asia. Still, I did enter this collaboration with a certain amount of skepticism regarding distance learning. I learned that it is possible for a remote collaboration to actually enhance the quality of a course. I cannot know with certainty whether the success of this course would be repeated if I were to teach it the same way next year. Did its success depend on the particular group of students who chose to take it (with all the added inconvenience for Kenyon students) and the fact that it was balanced by having six students at each campus or was it inherent in the course design and its collaborative aspect? It is probably a combination of both.

I also learned that teaching students at another campus requires more planning and organization. Some of the spontaneity that is desirable in advanced courses is lost. For example, when the power was out at Kenyon, I felt that I had to cancel class rather than simply moving students to another location for a class discussion. All my Denison students were present and prepared for class, but it would not have been fair to hold a class that would have excluded the remote students. Also, it became more difficult to maintain flexibility in the schedule and feel like I was being fair to both groups (especially since the spring breaks and exam periods differed by one week).

The presence of the two groups of students enhanced the course, but the technology per se did not enhance it in any way. On the contrary, some of the quality of videos was lost in the transmission; in one case, the subtitles were cut off from the bottom of the screen, rendering the video useless to my students! I did not make as much use of the blackboard as I usually do. Many of the problems were overcome by my use of CourseInfo. For example, I used my webpage to post lecture notes and exam questions and to receive papers electronically from my remote students. This involved more work on my part, but it did do away with the time problems involved in exchanging information and assignments with my remote students. I used CourseInfo instead of using faxes, the blackboard, and the document camera. Because of the additional planning involved in teaching a collaborative course, I think it would benefit the instructor to know in advance how many students she will have.

It also became apparent to me that there will always be some students who are somewhat intimidated by the technology. For example, it is necessary that everyone speak a little more loudly than normal and articulate a little more clearly than normal. For the most part, students adjusted well to this requirement, although I did have to remind particular people to speak up from time to time. I had one very shy and soft-spoken student who was probably even less likely to participate in discussions because of the technology’s additional demands.

3. What was learned about the collaborative process?

On an individual level, the collaborative process was great. It was good for me to have more students who were knowledgeable about and deeply interested in the topic we were studying than I would have had if the course were limited to one campus or the other. On an indiv idual level, it also seems to have been a good experience for the students; they were intensely curious about campus and academic life at the "other" place. I think their horizons were expanded a bit (intellectually and personally) by the experience.

On a departmental level, the benefits to the Anthropology Department and Asian Studies Program at Kenyon are self-evident; they have another course to offer. I am not sure what the benefits are for the Sociology/Anthropology Department at Denison, except perhaps that the quality of the course was enhanced (in my opinion) by the presence of the remote students. As far at the DU administration is concerned, I taught only six students rather than twelve a low enrolment for any course here at Denison. I suppose the benefit for my department here would be the possibility of our students being able to take advanced, specialized courses at Kenyon, but I am unaware of any such plan for the near future.

On an institutional level, it is a fine line between using collaborative projects to enhance a liberal arts education, and using it for financial expediency rather than educational benefit. It does mean more work for faculty and less accessibility to the instructor for remote students. In very limited situations (advanced area studies courses, for example), I think it can expand the range of topics in which students at small liberal arts colleges can cultivate an interest. It has been my experience that students at small liberal arts colleges, especially by their senior year and especially if they have developed strong interests, exhaust the curriculum. The other side of this, of course, is that is exactly what must be forsaken to gain the benefits of a liberal arts education. This perspective, that suggests students should limit themselves to the areas of expertise of their own faculty, does have some merit.

4. What improvements would be made to this project if it were to be repeated?

The funds for a student assistant and for social gatherings (I was able to finance three dinners for my students one at a restaurant and two at my home with take-out Indian food) must continue to be available. There must be at least three students on the remote campus. CourseInfo should probably be used for such courses. These are all things that I think should be maintained for future projects.

One improvement would be to have students commit to such courses earlier than the first day of class, so that there can be better planning and less anxiety for the professor. Another would be to have a SINGLE contact person for the instructor. I found that I had to contact Ron Howard for questions on the Denison end, Larry Tucker for technological questions and problems at the Kenyon end, Rita Kipp for administrative help at the Kenyon end, and Scott Siddall for encompassing issues. This was problematic when the Kenyon classroom was out, but I was not informed of this until the very last minute. I think it was not clear who should be responsible for informing me of technological difficulties. It would help if there were one person to oversee such collaborative projects.

5. List ways in which information about this project has been disseminated.

Other than preparing this report, I have not taken active or formal steps to disseminate information about this course. I did allow Scott Siddall to observe my course on one occasion and to videotape a few minutes of it on another occasion. Professor Bai also sat in on my course one day. I have had numerous informal conversations with other faculty who are either considering remote projects or considering using CourseInfo. I would be happy to participate in workshops or speak with faculty considering collaborative teaching projects.

To Current Project List