By
Jill Beck
President, Lawrence University
On a fall day some years ago, Yale President A. Bartlett Giamatti welcomed
an audience of new first-year students to the university and told them about “the
grand adventure that you now undertake, never alone but on your own, the voyage
of exploration in freedom that is the development of your
own mind.”
My first months as president of Lawrence University have been my own voyage
of exploration, with opportunities to be both welcomed and welcoming, to begin
the process of “learning Lawrence,” and to discover for myself
the best ways to articulate the strengths and aspirations of this fine institution — indeed,
a grand adventure.
Giamatti’s words, “never alone but on your own,” seem to
me to describe, succinctly and in useful ways, the relationship of students
and teachers that is the hallmark of a Lawrence education: a powerful combination
of student independence and self-reliance empowered by a caring and involved
faculty.
Long convinced of the value of individualized instruction in liberal education,
I was pleased to find that, at Lawrence, it has a distinguished past, an impressive
present, and a promising future. I made that the subject of my first Matriculation
Convocation address in September, and now I would like to share a version of
those remarks with the readers of Lawrence Today.
What is individualized instruction?
The phrase refers to diverse forms of one-on-one learning — such as tutorial
education, research collaboration, coaching, or mentorship programs — that
contribute to stretching the boundaries of individual performance and potential.
It is any one-on-one educationally oriented program in which instructors supervise
a selected activity, whether it focuses on acquiring the specialized knowledge
of a discipline or a more practical understanding needed to partner effectively
with the community.
The theory behind individualized instruction — articulated in sources
ranging from the Socratic dialogues to Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Emile — is
that, because students vary in interest, skill, and pace in learning, ways
must be found to adapt instruction to individual needs.
The most common form of individualized instruction is tutoring. In a 1955 article
in The Journal of Higher Education, R. B. Clark identified the following goals
of tutorial education, which are generally agreed to and which apply equally
well to individualized instruction as a whole:
• It stresses familiarity with primary source materials.
• It teaches students to think for themselves and to have confidence in their own conclusions and opinions.
• It is a supplement to lectures and laboratory courses.
• It develops the facility to express oneself in writing or other means of presentation.
Moreover, the purpose of tutorial education is not only academic but also
to form a caring, advisory, collaborative relationship between teacher and
student.
In 1986, the vice chancellor of Oxford University, as cited in Tapper and
Palfreyman’s
book Oxford and the Decline of the Collegiate Tradition, observed
that “the old view of the tutorial was very much
founded upon the idea that you established a relationship. I never thought
tutorials were a system; I always thought they were a relationship. . .
.”
Some history
One of the earliest formal mentions of “tutor” is to be found
in the statutes of Brasenose College at Oxford University in 1509. Some
350 years
later, a description of tutors at Oxford was written that could apply equally
well to many of our professors at Lawrence. According to W. G. Moore in The
Tutorial System and Its Future:
The tutors of Balliol were the elite of the university and thought no sacrifice of time or labour too great for the sake of their pupils. It was no uncommon thing for them to hear essays and correct compositions in the small hours of the morning. Even their vacations brought no rest; if they traveled it was to gather new ideas for their lectures. . . .
At another important institution, Princeton University, tutorial education
was given a vigorous boost in 1906 when all undergraduates were assigned
preceptors or tutors. The “method,” as it was called, was introduced
under the leadership of Princeton President Woodrow Wilson to combat deteriorating
teaching conditions in large lecture classes and an unhealthy lack of student
independent reading. One of the important findings of this experiment, which
was watched by the entire nation, was a greatly increased use of the library.
Tutorial
education at Lawrence was introduced by President Henry
Wriston (pictured,
left). In 1932, Wriston wrote:
"Education is growth, and growth is always individual. … The object of college is not to produce human units one just like the last. Its purpose is to develop individuals."
Wriston continued, “The tutorial plan of instruction is based on individual
teaching with a view to individual growth, and the student is measured
with reference to his own capacities and his own development rather than
upon
some arbitrarily established relationship between him and his fellows.
It opens
the way, therefore, not only for a more individual development but for
measuring progress upon a basis which is more just and more intelligent.”
Like
Wriston before him, President Nathan
Pusey (pictured, right) focused more
upon the individual than upon the group, arguing that, only by transforming
individual
students,
provoking “revolutions” within them, would they be equipped
to provide the leadership necessary to improve society.
President Richard Warch, in 2003, cited individualized instruction as one
important feature of the Lawrence Difference:
By affording students opportunities for close collaboration with faculty, by encouraging student research as a central element of the learning process, by giving them individual attention, by fostering their personal aspirations and self-confidence . . . we enable them to gain the kind of education that serves them in their personal lives and in their contributions to the common good.
Sometimes a great notation
My own introduction to the virtues of individualized instruction took place
15 years ago. In 1989, I was a member of the faculty at The Juilliard School
and had invited to my class a guest teacher from London, Ann Hutchinson,
who had recently completed a translation — one that involved translating
a language that few among the readers of this essay could be expected to
know, despite the many well-traveled individuals and language scholars
among us.
The translation was of a dance notation score written by Vaslav Nijinsky
to record what he considered his best work of choreography. Nijinsky was
a legendary
dancer with Les Ballets Russes in the early 20th century. In 1912, he choreographed “L’Apres-Midi
d’un Faune” (“Afternoon of a Faun”) to music by
Claude Debussy. The ballet was revolutionary in every way, and critics
agreed that
it represented an almost ungraspable departure from standard practice,
an expression of radical individuality.
In the years following “Faune’s” premiere, many others copied
and restaged Nijinsky’s ballet — but, as they did so, they altered
it to make the ballet more “typical.” The dance, before Nijinsky’s
very eyes, began to deteriorate badly, and he decided that it was imperative
to find a way to record his interpretation, in order to preserve it.
He invented a form of dance notation, in which he painstakingly recorded
every second of his 10-minute dance. This score survived the First and
Second World
Wars, but the key — which explained what all of the little symbols meant — was
lost amid wartime displacements of people and property. The result was that
we had a complete score of the ballet in the choreographer’s own
hand, but no one could decipher it.
The key to Nijinsky’s symbols remained lost until the 1980s, when it
was discovered quite by accident in a small metal suitcase in the basement
of the Bibliotheque National in Paris. The key allowed Nijinsky’s
score to be translated into Labanotation, the international language we
use today
for recording and transmitting choreography.
The
new Labanotation score of Nijinsky’s “Faune” (sample
pictured, left) became the subject in 1989 for an ambitious foray into
small group tutorial instruction
at The Juilliard School. That year, my tutorial students became the first
dancers
in the world to read the new translation in order to generate their own
performance of “L’Apres-Midi d’un Faune.”
There are a few things worth emphasizing about this project.
• The undergraduate students were working with a unique primary source.
• The students were encouraged to think for themselves and to have confidence in their own conclusions about Nijinsky the man and artist.
• The project was a supplement to normal dance classes and was far more advanced. Every tutorial student deciphered thousands of complex notation symbols.
• Expressivity and performance ability were increased. The students were challenged to embody and present their understanding of Nijinsky through performance.
There were specific outcomes to the tutorial, among them a performance at
Lincoln Center that The New York Times called “a fresh look”;
a volume of an international journal dedicated to the project, with an
article written
by one of the undergraduate dancers; and, finally, my own commitment to
the extended possibilities of undergraduate education.
I became convinced that it is vital for faculty and students to create
opportunities to work and learn together beyond recognized course structures,
in the pursuit
of unusual levels of attainment by individuals and small groups. That kind
of exceptional work and learning, I have found, goes on all the time at
Lawrence.
One plus one at Lawrence
When I arrived at Lawrence, I began a personal voyage of exploration. Charged
with guiding a fine school, I needed to know what is distinctive about the
college.
I have scheduled numerous meetings with faculty and staff members each
week since my arrival. By the beginning of the academic year in September,
I had met separately with about 35 of the faculty; I intend to meet individually
with every faculty
member by the end of the year. My method, in fact, has been one-on-one.
I have asked the faculty, “What should Lawrence be known for?” In
practically every case, in one form or another, the professors have spoken
to me about
individualized instruction.
I regret that space constraints preclude my mentioning each person from
whom I have learned about individualized instruction at Lawrence. Here,
however,
are a few of the stories.
David
Cook (pictured, right), professor of physics and the Philetus E. Sawyer
Professor of Science, told me about the students who work as research assistants
in
the signature
labs of the physics department. This work not only trains undergraduates
in advanced research techniques but also serves to help make the students
more
competitive for summer research and internship positions at other institutions
and for entry into prestigious graduate programs. Physics majors and faculty
members also spend a weekend together at Björklunden each January.
The contact established during these weekends makes it even more likely
that
students will feel comfortable stopping by faculty offices to ask questions
and discuss
their work.
Students in many areas of the sciences have opportunities to assist faculty
with laboratory research. Phyllis Odoom, ’05 (pictured, left),
spent the summer working in the lab of Beth
De Stasio, ’83, associate
professor of biology and the 
Raymond
H. Herzog Professor of Science. Phyllis studied the effects of
chemicals secreted by insect predators on the body shape of their crustacean
prey. Support for the research comes from a joint Merck/American Association
for the Advancement of Science grant for interdisciplinary research by
Lawrence faculty and students.
Such collaboration doesn’t only happen in the sciences. Natasha
Prouty, ’05 (pictured, below),
studied gallery practices this summer with Frank
Lewis, director of exhibitions
and curator of the Wriston Art Center. The internship helped Tasha prepare
for her international study in Florence this fall.
Fieldwork is another way individualized instruction occurs. Associate
Professor of Geology Jeff Clark and his students, such as Jorene Hamilton, ’05,
have been collecting data about urban run-off and its effects on the water
quality of the Appleton area. The water-quality data is being used for Jorene’s
honors project in geology, and the findings will be provided to Mayor
Tim Hanna and the Appleton City Council, to enable them to craft more-informed
water
policy.
The City of Appleton is influenced in other ways by the individualized
instruction occurring at Lawrence. Mary Markowitz’s installation
of a public artwork on the exterior of a downtown climbing center is
a wonderful example of that.
After apprenticing with Assistant Professor of Art Rob
Neilsen on his art
piece that spent the summer on display at Navy Pier in Chicago, Mary, ’05,
proposed, fabricated, and installed her own artwork on the façade
of a local business. When she went to de-install the work two weeks later,
as
scheduled, the climbing center decided instead to purchase her piece
in order to retain it permanently.
Further afield,
Lawrence students regularly interact with their professors on international
study trips. The $1.5 million Freeman
Foundation grant the college received in 2001 has supported many such ventures. This past
summer,
five linguistics and four religious studies students joined Professors
Gene Biringer (music theory/composition), Terry Rew-Gottfried (psychology),
Kuo-Ming
Sung (Chinese and Japanese), and Dirck Vorenkamp (religious studies)
on a Freeman trip to China and Tibet (pictured, right).
Individualized instruction allows students to develop their abilities
more fully, as in a master class with conservatory artist-in-residence
Dale
Duesing, ’67; to master more advanced material and techniques than is possible in regular
class settings, as seen in the advanced printmaking of Laura Corcoran, ’03,
a student of Assistant Professor of Art Joseph
D’Uva; and to receive
targeted guidance, as with coaching by Timothy
Troy, ’85, associate
professor of theatre arts and the J. Thomas and Julie Esch Hurvis Professor
of Theatre
and Drama.
Faculty members may also benefit from the involvement of their students
in their own research programs. This fall, Professor of Psychology Bruce
Hetzler presented research on which he had collaborated with
co-author Elizabeth Martin, ’03,
at an international congress in Heidelburg. Professor Hetzler
has made ten conference presentations and has had research published
in 15 scientific
publications with students as co-authors. Others on the faculty similarly
encourage student collaboration in their research and publications.
I have discovered that one-on-one interactions are encouraged at Lawrence
in ways that chemistry professor Karen Nordell says “complete the circle
of education.” Those who have been mentored, or noticed as an individual,
have the ability and motivation in turn to offer that experience to a
younger student through such efforts as LARY (Lawrence Assistance Reaching Youth);
the PRYSM (Partners Reaching Youth in Science and Math) program, which
partners Lawrence women undergraduates with an interest in science and/or
math with
eighth-grade girls from an Appleton middle school; and Big Brothers/Big
Sisters, among others.
Alumni have told me that memories of close faculty-student ties are what
make Lawrence especially dear to them. It is noteworthy that these fond
recollections are sustained even as Lawrentians rise to prominence. If
you have been following
the news, you may have noticed a certain preponderance of our alumni
in Wisconsin state government, where Lawrence currently is represented
by
Supreme Court
Justice Lewis
Butler, ’73; Secretary of Commerce Cory
Nettles, ’92; and Lieutenant Governor Barbara
Lawton, ’87. When Justice Butler was
appointed by Governor Doyle earlier this year, he credited Lawrence with having
a formative influence on his career: “I had some wonderful mentors there
who were very helpful. I love that school.” Justice Butler has
worked as a Lawrence mentor himself, advising young alumni about the
importance
of careers in public service.
Lawrence leads the way
At this stage in my investigations of Lawrence at work, I have developed
a preliminary hypothesis: This college is awash in many forms of one-on-one
experiences.
Some of these are time-honored — such as tutorials, independent
study, honors projects, internships, and individualized instruction through
instrumental
and vocal music lessons. There also are relatively newer forms of one-on-one
learning that are extending the experience. These include actively involving
students in creative and research partnerships with professors, encouraging
students to co-author papers and conference presentations with faculty
members, engaging students in K-12 tutoring, and promoting peer leadership
roles through
involvement in the Center
for Teaching and Learning.
Not only is individualized instruction thriving at Lawrence, I sense — without
yet being able to prove it — that the college may, in fact, be
a largely unrecognized leader in making individualized instruction work
and,
with the
right encouragement, might serve as a national laboratory for expanding
public understanding of its implementation and positive outcomes.
We offer an exceptionally long list of instances of individualized instruction
at Lawrence. I propose that we begin now to study the subject more fully
and attempt to measure:
• The diverse and distinctive ways in which individualized instruction occurs at Lawrence.
• The amount of time spent on such instruction and its actual place in the faculty workload and the student workload.
• The outcomes of individualized instruction, from co-authored papers, to conference presentations, to public art works, to entry into more competitive graduate schools, to progress in our community.
These are, I submit, better measures of the quality of undergraduate
education than some of the more easily quantifiable — and highly
subjective — data
used by commercial rankings such as U.S. News and World Report’s “America’s
Best Colleges.”
I have come to believe that we should attempt to re-frame the debate
about what defines a high-quality undergraduate education. If we measure
individualized
instruction at Lawrence and disseminate those results, we will be taking
a position about what we consider to be a meaningful component of undergraduate
education, and we will be documenting that we are very good at it.
Keep in mind Nathan Pusey’s words about the relationship between the
development of the individual and the leadership that is necessary to improve
society. Pusey’s vision was that the community is best served when
individuals are developed to their highest degree, but his words also
presume that individuals
will think and act with the community in mind, not solely in their own
interests.
Individualized instruction is important for each of us; equally important,
however, are the ways in which we choose to act as we take what we have
learned beyond ourselves and into the world.
Lawrence Today, Winter 2004
As adapted from the president's Matriculation Convocation address of September 23, 2004