Gina's Teaching Observation

Gina Goldblatt’s Teaching Observation

Logistics

Class Title: Short Fiction

Class Instructor: Georgina Kleege

Date Observed: 2\24\10

What is the class size? 17 (2 auditors)

What is the make up of the class? 9 women 8 men, undergrads and 2 auditors

How is the class physically arranged? The class was arranged around a long conference table. There were floor to ceiling bookshelves on one side. There was a white board opposite it. There was a large window taking up most of the wall opposite the door.

What is the social atmosphere of the class? The students were quieter at first but playful and congenial. As the class progressed most people seemed comfortable participating and incorporating humor. They dealt with each other pieces with care for the most part. Comments flowed nicely and bounced off of each other in a conversational tone.

What time did the class start? 1:30 PM

Substance:

What were the activities of the class? The class critiqued two student stories.

What were the goals stated for the activities? Georgina stated the first goal in the form of a question: What is going on in this story? (thematically) The students were to provide feedback of what is working what isn’t and why. They were encouraged to make suggestions as to how one might approach the issue at hand. Georgia also made a point of saying that all of the feedback was mere opinion and that they were entitled to their opinions just as the writer was entitled to take their advice or leave it.

Was text used? Yes. The students’ stories were used.

It was a discussion-based class.

Fifteen out of seventeen students participated. One male and one female were silent the entire class.

Describe interactions among peers and with professor:

Georgina served as a self-proclaimed “traffic cop” in that she set the tone and guided the discussion but let the students take on the life of the conversation and critique. She started with the question “What was this story about?” After a bit of discussion she asked a second round of questions. These were: “How valid a sense of character did you get from this reading? What did you want to know more about? Where would this go?” More student dialogue took its course and she interjected to summarize and provide opposing views as well as clarify some points that were made. Lastly, she asked the author if they had any questions for the class. During the discussion she nodded and offered agreement and acknowledgement of different points of views.

Outcome

What was the atmosphere of the class? The atmosphere was congenial and comfortable. There was a lot of humor and a little bit of chummy teasing. They seemed at ease with each other for the most part. They also disagreed very respectfully and presented opposing views without meeting backlash. Rather people said several times during class “oh, I can see how that makes sense. I didn’t see that before.”

Did the substance of the class have an impact? I believe it had to. The students were critiquing each other’s work. This puts a certain pressure on it that is not present were the critique to be of a famous work or of someone’s work who wasn’t present. They were only on their second class of work shopping each other’s pieces, so it was also a relatively new practice for that particular group of people.

How did the professor engage the students? How did the students engage each other? The professor would guide the discussion with questions and pointers when she saw fit. The students bounced off of each other rather naturally and provided support and counter points. Some students posed questions as well. They asked, “How did you feel about this?” or “What was your reaction to this?”

What was your general impression of the effectiveness of the class?

I was impressed. I thought the atmosphere was very respectful and open. There was humor and taking turns and being supportive. I felt the professor was effective as a guide. She was not absent nor was she intrusive. The students engaged each other effectively and seemed invested in what they were providing feedback on.

Did you talk to the professor and what did you learn?

Yes. I learned about her approach to teaching creative writing, her history of teaching, and some of her personal history. She found creative writing to be both an exiting subject to teach and a scary one. She brought up the point that you cannot control the subject matter since students bring in their own stories. You cannot prepare in this sense. In teaching literature or English you can be prepared for the material since you choose it. In a creative writing class there is always the element of surprise. This can be daunting. She also had an interesting take on critiquing. Students only provided written critiques of two student stories. They were encouraged to write on the manuscripts and participate in class but only responsible for two written responses. This was to ensure that the quality didn’t wane as the semester progressed. I also learned that Georgina has been at Cal since 2003 and teaching Creative Writing in some capacity since 1991. She grew up in what is now the East Village in New York City and her parents were both visual artists. She was quite an inspiring and lovely person. I really enjoyed my time in her classroom and the chance I got to get her personal view on teaching and writing.