Resources

Focuses on the social aspects of college life in the United States. Transformation of students; Transitions' production of changes in students' ways of knowing; Power of ideas; Faculty role; Public self; Multiple and competing commitments.

Three classroom climates in courses focusing on inequality are identified, those of resistance, paralysis, and rage. In resistant classes, students deny the importance of class, gender, race, and other lines of stratification or fail to see their structural sources. In paralyzed classes, students are so overwhelmed by the pervasiveness of inequality that they become debilitated and depressed; social structures are reified, giving them a false aura of inevitability. In enraged classes, the existence of stratification sparks so much anger that students lash out in an unfocused manner that is often blind to the complexities of stratified societies. In this article, I offer suggestions for responding to each of these three classroom climates.

Most white, middle-class citizens see society from a monocultural perspective, a perspective that assumes, often unconsciously, that persons of all races are in the same cultural system together. This single-system form of seeing the world, is blind to its own cultural specificity. People who see persons of other races monoculturally cannot imagine the reality that those "others" think of themselves not in relation to the majority race but in terms of their own culturally specific identities. This paper presents an "interactive phase theory" with regard to race that is intended to reassess school curricula in terms of heightened levels of consciousness concerning race. In the context of U.S. history courses, five phases are presented: phase one: all-white history; phase two: exceptional minority individuals in U.S. history; phase three: minority issues, or minority groups as problems, anomalies, absences, or victims in U.S. history; phase four: the lives and cultures of people of color everywhere as history; and phase five: history redefined and reconstructed to include all people. (DB)

When I ask myself-Does gender matter in college teaching and learning?-I come up with two mutually contradictory answers. One is, I don't know. The other is yes. Because it's hard to frame an argument around two contradictory propositions, I shall tell you a story instead of presenting an argument. In stories, conflicts and contradictions are allowable and even desirable. The story I'd like to tell is about the ways in which my thinking about gender and teaching and learning has evolved over the years.

Argues that if teachers wish to see greater recognition and reward attached to teaching they must change the status of teaching from private to community property. Need to reconnect teaching to the disciplines; The problem with student evaluation forms that are identical across the disciplines; More.

Discusses how departmental cultures inhibit or support effective undergraduate teaching. Isolation of individual faculty members due to fragmented communication patterns; Resource constraints; Inappropriate evaluation and reward systems; Characteristics of departments that support effective teaching; Collegial departmental processes; Collegiality and quality improvement.

This article discusses the evolution and impact of ethnic and women's studies on college campuses, noting the existence of about 700 ethnic and 620 women's studies programs. It responds to common criticisms (e.g., such programs emphasize differences and thus foster divisiveness) and notes challenges, both personal and institutional, offered by these programs.

In this article, I take Anderson and Scanlon's observation about clergy malaise and pastoral vulnerability as the starting point for my own reflection on supervision and formation in the context of theological education and ministerial formation. Using a number of insights derived from the recent work of Robert Kegan, In Over Our Heads: The Mental Demands of Modern Life, I offer an alternative attribution theory for understanding clergy malaise and go on to explore the implications of this theory for those of us involved in theological education and the formation of candidates for ministry. In accord with Anderson and Scanlon, I agree that clergy malaise is a symptom of a heightened sense of vulnerability. I am somewhat hesitant, however, to identify the cause of such vulnerability as an inadequate formation for ministry. Thought I readily acknowledge that an inadequate formation may exacerbate the phenomenon, I believe Kegan's analysis alerts us to a more probable cause, namely: the limited capacity of the individual minister to meet the mental demands of modern life.

Journal Issue. (This issue, and all "Spotlight on Teaching" issues prior to 1999, are not available on the AAR website.)