The Seminars and Curriculum Units

From its inception, a tenet of the Institute’s approach has been to determine its offerings annually in response to the needs for further preparation and curriculum development that the teachers themselves identify. In 2002 this process, as described later in the report, resulted in the mounting of six seminars, four in the humanities and two in the sciences.

The seminars were assisted by a contribution from the New Haven Public Schools. With major support from endowment revenues the Institute offered the following four seminars in the humanities:

With support from the Sherman Fairchild Foundation and funds from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute grant to Yale the Institute offered the following two seminars in the sciences:

The following overview of the work in the seminars is based on the descriptions circulated in advance by the seminar leaders, the Guide to Curriculum Units, 2002, and the curriculum units themselves. Each Fellow has prepared a curriculum unit that she or he will use in a specific classroom. Each Fellow also has been asked to indicate the subjects and grade levels for which other teachers might find the curriculum unit to be appropriate. These are indicated parenthetically here for each unit.

Survival Stories

The curriculum units in this volume grew out of a seminar that focused on American survival narratives, both fictional and non-fictional. The narratives read together, representing stories of survival from the seventeenth century through the twentieth century, invited seminar participants to consider the relationship of telling stories to the survival of great hardship.

The readings were divided into three sections. The first section compared narratives from English settlers held captive by Native American tribes during King Philip’s War with an autobiographical account by Olaudah Equiano, an African held as a slave in England and the West Indies. The second section examined American slavery and its literary legacy, both in slave narratives and in the writing of Harriet Beecher Stowe, Richard Wright and Ishmael Reed. The third section gathered together twentieth-century fiction that responds to war and survival—be it World War I, the Nazi concentration camps in World War II, or the Vietnam War. This final section included work by Ernest Hemingway, Art Spiegelman, Cynthia Ozick, and the poet Simon Ortiz.

Against the backdrop of these readings, the members of this seminar explored many other kinds of survival in their own research and writing. The first four units in the published volume focus on particular historical moments of difficulty and the life stories of individuals who survived those times. Dina Secchiaroli builds her unit around readings about the Holocaust that blur the line between fiction and non-fiction. In choosing such readings she allows students to exercise their critical faculties and to explore how both truth-telling and imagination can become part of the effort to survive. Virginia Seely also uses different genres to bring students to a personal and humane understanding of history and survival—in this case, the history of slavery and the survival of young people caught within that “peculiar institution.” Marlene Kennedy’s unit, engaging the history of the Great Depression and Pearl Harbor, relies on fiction (novels and films) to teach children how imagination can not only help young people to survive difficult times but also increase understanding of history. In a unit written for very young students, Jean Sutherland uses a variety of materials, including film, diaries, and biography, to show how young people have survived their culture’s discrimination. Her focus on Anne Frank, Ryan White, and Ruby Bridges takes fourth-graders to different places and different moments in history to observe how three exceptional children drew on the resources of family, friends and education in order to make a meaningful life in the face of prejudice. Because students can easily identify with the young narrators and protagonists of the literature these units include, the curricula promise not only to teach reading, writing, and history, but also to encourage students to use their imagination, living into the historical predicaments in which each story is set.

(image available in print form)

The seminar on “Survival Stories.” (Clockwise from bottom left: seminar leader Amy Hungerford, Fellows Jean E. Sutherland, Geraldine M. Martin, Sandra K. Friday, Yolanda U. Trapp, Virginia Seely, Kevin P. Inge, Marlene H. Kennedy, and Amber Stolz.)

The next three units in the volume take up the idea of cultural survival. Waltrina Kirkland-Mullins frames the story of the slave trade with a hands-on exploration of Ghanaian culture prior to slavery and its survival in the lives of slaves and their free descendants in the Americas. Yolanda Trapp focuses on how a person’s native language can survive as part of that person’s life and self-worth when she or he moves to a new place with a new language. Using bilingual books—most in Spanish and English—she shows how appreciation and celebration of linguistic diversity can coexist with students’ need to learn the language of their new home. Sandra Friday in her unit shows how new cultural practices—especially in visual art, music and poetry—blossom when individuals and groups are challenged with prejudice, poverty or other kinds of adversity. Her materials include poetry, Jacob Lawrence’s paintings, and rap by the African American philosopher, Cornel West. These materials show how art in its various forms communicates both public and personal history.

The last three units in the volume look at survival with an eye towards the contemporary application of survival lessons taken from literature, film and music. Kevin Inge uses a variety of readings—historical, autobiographical, and fictional—in asking his students to think and write about what helped characters in the stories to endure troubles in their lives. Amber Stolz aims also to give students survival resources they can use in their own lives, appealing to their sense of identity as teenagers by assigning readings, films, songs and creative projects that take up problems most teenagers encounter. The unit allows students to read and write about family difficulties, the issues of peer pressure and sex, the challenges of school, and the question of race. Finally, Geraldine Martin takes survival lessons to the very youngest students using the stories of Faith Ringgold. Through creative puppetry, art, and writing activities, Martin asks children to think about how family, friends, and the escape provided by imagination can help a person to weather difficult times and to accomplish seemingly impossible things.

Almost every unit in the seminar volume includes at least one activity in which students are invited to make the leap from academic work to personal expression. The Fellows discovered that survival stories have remained a staple of American writing since those narratives of captivity written by settlers and slaves in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The survival story provides a ready form for transforming private pain into culturally recognizable meaning.

Curriculum units, and their recommended uses, included: “The Holocaust: Survival Stories,” by Dina K. Secchiaroli (English Literature, History, and Photography, grades 7-12); “Looking at Human Struggle through the Language Arts Curriculum: The Faces of Slavery,” by Virginia A. Seely (Language Arts, Reading, and Social Studies, grades 5-12); “Jewels of Endurance,” by Marlene H. Kennedy (Language Arts and Social Studies, grade 6); “Surviving the Struggle: Ruby Bridges, Ryan White, and Anne Frank,” by Jean E. Sutherland (Reading, Language Arts, Social Studies, Science, and Social Development, grades 3-8); “Middle Passage: A Journey of Endurance,” by Waltrina Kirkland-Mullins (Language Arts, Social Studies, and Social Development, grades 1-5); “Our Children are Learning to Survive,” by Yolanda U. Trapp (Language Arts, Social Studies, and Science, grades K-4); “His Story, Her Story, Our Story: Narrating History through Art,” by Sandra K. Friday (English and World Literature, grades 9-12); “Child Survival Stories: Hope to Cope,” by Kevin P. Inge (History, Language Arts, and Science, grades 5-7); “Survivor: Not Just a TV Show,” by Amber Stolz (English and Character Education, grades 7-12); and “Willie and Friends: Overcomers in the Land—Stories by Faith Ringgold,” by Geraldine Martin (Reading and Language Arts, grade 1).

Exploring the Middle East: Hands-On Approaches

The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 brought the Middle East to the forefront of American consciousness. Students of all ages had questions: Why did it happen? Who did it? Why do “they” hate us? This placed teachers in the position to answer these questions, but many had few answers themselves.

These units developed from a seminar intended to address these questions. The seminar focused on contemporary politics of the Middle East. It was intended not only to help teachers understand the “high politics” of the region—the battles between elites that have led to the establishment of borders, wars and peace, and changes in political regimes—but also to allow them to examine how these politics affected individuals’ everyday experiences. In addition to using conventional academic materials, the seminar used contemporary feature films from the Middle East, memoirs, and novels to explore the attitudes and concerns of the people in the region. After exploring this material, teachers returned at the end of the seminar to the questions of what motivated the attacks on September 11th, and how the United States could respond.

In their units, the teachers chose to focus on the question, “Who are the people in the Middle East?” The first two units, those by David Howe and Angelo Pompano, explore the societies, languages, customs, religions and geography of the region. David Howe’s unit does so cross-nationally, comparing Egypt, Iraq, Israel and Saudi Arabia, while Angelo Pompano’s unit explores diversity within a single case, Lebanon. The third unit, by Judith Zurkus, also gives teachers and students an opportunity to examine the religion, culture, lifestyle and materials in the region, although in this case with an emphasis on Islamic Art.

(image available in print form)

The seminar on “Exploring the Middle East: Hands-On Approaches” (Left to right: Fellows Mercedes O'Bourke and David Howe; seminar leader Ellen Lust-Okar.)

In writing their units, these teachers grappled with the question of how to teach children about “the other.” They pay particular attention to the diversity within the Middle East and to the extent to which the lives for children in the Middle East are similar to those of their students. Recognizing the diversity in the region and allowing students to see how their experiences match those of children in the Middle East help to counter the tendency to stereotype the people in the region. As Angelo Pompano writes, “By seeing the diverse Arab subcultures within the Lebanese culture, it is hoped that the students will understand that it is impossible to make generalization about Arabs just as it is impossible to make generalizations about any group.”

The three complementary units also provide hands-on learning experiences for elementary and secondary school students. David Howe gives students the opportunity to create a game, establishing the rules of play, the style of the board, and other features of the game in addition to gathering the information on the Middle East. Angelo Pompano establishes a framework through which a team of teachers can work together, combining learning experiences that culminate in a traditional Lebanese festival. Judith Zurkus provides a way for students to recreate Islamic art, focusing on textiles, metalwork, calligraphy and miniature paintings. In each case, the emphasis is on allowing students to explore their own creativity as well as the region.

Curriculum units, with their uses, included: “Desert Fever: A Student-Centered Approach to Learning about the Middle East,” by David Howe (Language Arts and Social Studies, grade 4); “A Bash in Baalbek: Creating a Lebanese Festival,” by Angelo J. Pompano (Social Studies, Art, Music, and Language Arts, grades 1-6); and “Islamic Art: Exploring the Visual Arts of the Middle East,” by Judith Zurkus (Social Studies and ESOL, grades 5-8).

War and Peace in the Twentieth Century and Beyond

This seminar looked at the experience of major international conflicts in the past century. It was in part a historical overview, but—according to the seminar leader—not in the sense of history as “just one damned thing after another.” The group aimed to be analytical, asking why the conflicts occurred, and in what ways they shaped later events. The purpose was to use knowledge of the past to deepen our understanding of current and future conflicts in international relations, and enable us to share that understanding with our students. It was therefore a forward-looking enterprise. Some of the fundamental questions addressed included:

• How did use of the atomic bomb against Japan, and then reliance on nuclear weapons for deterrence, affect all international relations?
• What purposes can justify decisions to go to war, and what restraints on the use of violence in war may be possible or necessary?
• What contributes to the rise of international terrorism, and how can it be dealt with?
• What are the times and areas of the world where peace has been maintained—for example between prosperous democracies—and why?

This general orientation led to a variety of individual class sessions. Some were devoted to specific events, and others to more general issues of why wars happen and how they are fought, using several events as illustrations. Topics were, in order:

• Is international politics different from politics within countries?
• World War II: Why did it happen, and how did it end?
• The Cold War begins: How and why?
• Nuclear deterrence and the rise of limited wars: Korea and Vietnam
• The remarkably peaceful end of the Cold War
• Gulf War: In defense of oil and sovereignty
• The ethics and morality of war and deterrence
• Civil Wars: Enemies inside and out
• Terrorism and how to fight it
• The United Nations: What is it good for?
• A hope for peace: Some countries don’t fight each other
• What can Fellows take from our seminar back to their own teaching conditions?

The Fellows’ own projects, to compile teaching units for their classes and perhaps for adoption in whole or part by other teachers, reflect this mix of focus on single events and more general phenomena. Most of the units are intended for use as subunits of more general courses for students in grades 9-12, though two units clearly are intended for younger children. The unit writers identified films, videos, Web sites, simulations, and other educational materials to supplement readings and discussions.

(image available in print form)

The seminar on “War and Peace in the Twentieth Century and Beyond” (Clockwise from bottom left: Fellows John B. Buell, Joyce Bryant, Pedro Mendia-Landa, Burton R. Saxon, Ralph Russo, Russell H. Sirman; Associate Director Josiah H. Brown; Fellows David DeNaples and Elisha M. Danford; and seminar leader Bruce M. Russett.)

John Buell’s unit addresses the origins and development of just war theory and its implications for teaching history, analytical reasoning, and expository writing to high school students. Russell Sirman’s unit similarly reflects this desire to stimulate vigorous discussion among students by asking them to debate and argue the merits of difficult choices involving war and peace, through historical case studies. In his unit, Ralph Russo follows a more topical than event-oriented approach. He gives students a broad picture of what the UN can do to help resolve violent conflicts, and the limits to its abilities. This unit includes attention to role-playing and simulation, especially through materials available from the popular Model UN exercises. David DeNaples’ unit gives students of European and world history a background to the ethnic wars that have plagued much of the world in subsequent decades.

Elisha Danford is, like the other others, concerned with sharpening students’ analytical and expository skills, but does this in the context of decisions by the Vietnamese leaders, pursuing their own interests against those of involved great powers (China, France, the United States) at the end of World War II. Kristi Shanahan’s unit reflects her special interest in art history, as well as in French language and culture. She combines a history of French art (including that of refugees to France preceding and during the years of the Vichy regime) with methods of teaching students how to interpret a painting and to understand the intent of the artist.

In his unit, Burt Saxon confronts two conflicting perspectives on African Americans’ experience of racial discrimination in the military, and in American society as a whole. In a critical review of several writings, Saxon traces the history of discrimination, from the days of severe segregation to the contemporary degree of equality, asking the extent to which the military followed or led the wider society.

The two final units are addressed to younger students. Pedro Mendia-Landa offers a unit for possible use in elementary classes. In it he addresses the effect of war on children, using as a springboard three Dr. Seuss stories, and a focus on the experience of his own ethnic group, the Basques, in their struggle for greater independence from French and especially Spanish control. Finally, Joyce Bryant focuses on societal changes wrought by the need for female labor in the factories during World War I and again during World War II, and how women’s employment outside the home helped to empower them. It also addresses opportunities opened up for women in the military services, and how that changed the military, women, and the whole society.

Curriculum units, with their recommended uses, include: “Just War Theory and the Wars of the 20th Century,” by John B. Buell (U.S. History, grades 10-11, and World History, grade 9); “Questions of War and Peace: Using Case Studies to Teach the History of American Foreign Policy,” by Russell H. Sirman (U.S. History, grades 10-12); “Investigating Conflict Resolution through the United Nations,” by Ralph Russo (World History, Contemporary Issues, History, and Social Studies, grades 9-12); “Ethnicity, Nationalism, and Conflict in the Early 20th Century,” by David DeNaples (World History, grade 11, Western Civilization, grade 9, and Global Studies, grades 9-12); “Debating the Future of Indochina in 1945: Making Your Case,” by Elisha M. Danford (U.S. History, World History, and French, grades 7-12); “Expression under Suppression: The Artistic Response to the Occupation of France during World War II,” by Kristi V. Shanahan (Art History, World/European History, French and French Art, grades 9-12); “African Americans and the Military,” by Burton R. Saxon (U.S. History, grades 10-12); “History and War: What about the Children?”, by Pedro Mendia-Landa (Integrated Social Studies and Language Arts, grades 2-4); “How War Changed the Role of Women in the United States,” by Joyce Bryant (Reading, Social Studies, and History, grade 8).

The Craft of Writing

The seminar in “The Craft of Writing” was, in effect, a writing workshop. The participants read other writers and discussed their strategies. The Fellows wrote short pieces of various kinds and received one another’s appreciative and critical comments. And the group tried to spend more than the usual amount of time in discussing the process of writing curriculum units.

The seminar began its reading with Charles C. Mann’s challenging essay, “1491,” in The Atlantic Monthly, a brief essay by Pat Schneider in Heron Dance, and some poems by Roque Dalton and Jimmy Santiago Baca. The participants ended by selecting essays of interest from a current issue of The New Yorker—and spending most of their time talking about Louis Menand’s profile of Maya Lin, “The Reluctant Memorialist.” Between the beginning and the end, several lengthier texts provided a range of different modes of writing. Each, in some respect, was about the process of writing and how writing may express and clarify our experience. The Fellows read Anne Lamott’s Bird by Bird: Some Instructions on Writing and Life, Ken Wilber’s No Boundary: Eastern and Western Approaches to Personal Growth, and Mary Oliver’s book-length poem, The Leaf and the Cloud. The seminar covered read portions of A Cynthia Ozick Reader, edited by Elaine M. Kauvar, and Vicki Hearne’s Adam’s Task: Calling Animals by Name. And, for a different approach to the techniques of narrative and description, the Fellows looked at some chapters from Michael Chabon’s novel The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay.

Those curriculum units bring certain principles of writing—and of teaching and learning—to bear upon an array of school settings. Each unit in its own way shares the seminar’s concern to elicit authentic writing that comes from the live experience of the students. According to the seminar leader, the spirit of John Dewey hovered over the group’s collective efforts.

Robert P. Echter’s unit emphasizes the importance of friendly and familial relationships to the learning of writing, especially for students in grades one to four who are eligible for special education service. Shirley Goldberg brings together a range of specific strategies that she has tested with bilingual students who are learning to write English, some of whom may not be literate in their first language.

(image available in print form)

The seminar on “The Craft of Writing” (Clockwise from left: Fellows Robert Echter, Andrea Bailey, Joseph Raffone, Christine Picón-Van Duzer, Sean Griffin, Leigh Highbridge, Shirley Ann Goldberg; and seminar leader Thomas R. Whitaker.)

The next three curriculum units, by members of a team from Vincent E. Mauro Elementary School, aim to help students to become successful in writing through classes in Social Development, Social Studies, and Physical Education. Andrea Bailey seeks through detailed exercises in writing to engage, clarify, and modify the emotions of her third-grade students. Her unit is designed to work with the prevention program, Project Charlie. Christine Picón Van Duzer’s unit is, like Shirley Goldberg’s unit, intended for bilingual students in third grade. But it uses autobiographical narratives by young people and family stories, such as Carmen Lomas Garza’s Family Pictures/Cuadros de familia, to provide material that will elicit writing from the students. Joseph J. Raffone proposes to lead his fifth-grade students in Physical Education through a sequence of writing that will include journals, acrostic poems, short story compositions, and finally an interview modeled on those seen on ESPN’s Sportscenter.

The next three curriculum units direct their attention to the upper grades. Sean Griffin’s unit is intended for an eighth-grade English class in an arts magnet school. He will lead students through responses to a range of visual art toward an engagement both visual and literary with the work of James Thurber and Edgar Allan Poe—and compositions about their work. Judith Goodrich’s unit is intended for an eighth-grade class in American history. It makes use of an array of analytical and expository strategies, along with mapping and electronic resources, as it aims to elicit vigorous writing from students about history. Finally, Leigh Highbridge’s unit also addresses the craft of writing. This sequence for ninth-grade theater students begins with exercises in writing that are usually found in a vocational preparation situation, and it culminates in a production to be written, designed, and performed by the class.

Curriculum units, and their uses, include: “Learning Writing in the Context of ‘Inclusion’,” by Robert P. Echter (Writing, grades 1-4); “The First Six Weeks: A Writing Guide for Third Grade Bilingual Class,” by Shirley Goldberg (Language Arts and ESL, grades 2-3); “The Inner Voice: Writing as a Tool to Control Anger in the Classroom,” by Andrea Bailey (Writing and Social Development, grade 3); “The Craft of Writing through Narrative History,” by Christine Picón Van Duzer (Language Arts, ESL, and Social Studies, grades 3-6); “Integrating the Craft of Writing into Physical Education,” by Joseph J. Raffone (Language Arts and Physical Education, grade 5); “Writers as Artists, Artists as Writers: Response to Literature and Visual Arts,” by Sean Griffin (English, Language Arts, and Visual Arts, grade 8); “Improving Writing Skills in an American History Classroom,” by Judith Goodrich (Social Studies and American History, grades 6-8); “A Theater Workshop to Improve Character Development and Collaboration Skills,” by Leigh Highbridge (Acting, grade 9, and Technical Theatre Production, grades 9-10).

Food, Environmental Quality and Health

The seminar considered the histories of pesticides and nuclear testing, among other issues such as microbial contamination in food, mercury in marine food chains, artificial flavors and fragrances, water contamination, and genetic engineering of foods and animals. By comparing these cases, the participants learned that those promoting new chemical or biological technologies rarely understand their environmental or health implications. The producers’ primary goal is to gain government approval to move new products to marketplace as quickly as possible. As food markets are global, this creates an enormous burden for government to track and regulate the extraordinary diversity of contaminants and deliberate additives in the international food supply. Few governments have the financial capacity to test thoroughly for chemical residues or biological contaminants.

Wealthy nations face distinctive nutritional problems tied to diets high in fat, sugar and salt. Americans tend to eat more processed than fresh foods; more meat and fewer grains, fruits and vegetables. These habits are well correlated with patterns of cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and obesity. The seminar considered alternative methods to encourage healthier diets especially among school-aged children. Several teachers will administer dietary surveys to their students to make them more conscious of their dietary habits.

The Fellows debated what is truly worth worrying about, and the need for curricular innovation that somehow integrates available knowledge of ecology, medicine, and public health. Most of the teachers are involved in the sciences, but all recognized the important contributions of the humanities—especially history—and the social sciences to better understand the origin of the problems described above.

Abie Benítez designed a curriculum unit for kindergarteners who will explore basic questions such as: how plants grow, their need for water and sun, why children need food, the source of common foods, and basics of nutrition and taste. She will teach her unit to dual language students (Spanish and English), and the unit includes a variety of pedagogical strategies tailored to their strengths and needs. Raymond Brooks designed a unit for students in grades 6-8 that will help them develop more competitive science fair projects. It is structured to teach students to think logically and critically while exploring health risks associated with agriculture, food processing, and diet. Jennifer Chisholm created a health curriculum for middle school students. This unit is designed to teach students the relations among diet, nutrition, and wellness.

(image available in print form)

The seminar on “Food, Environmental Quality and Health” (Clockwise from bottom left: Fellows Joseph H. Lewis, Mary E. Jones; seminar leader John P. Wargo, Fellows Jennifer Chisholm, Judith D. Dixon, Gwendolyn Robinson, and Abie L. Benítez.)

Judith Dixon teaches fifth-grade science and geography and designed a unit that will inspire students to better understand the relations between aquatic environments and fisheries. This unit illustrates the potential to integrate basic concepts of ecology, especially food chain dynamics, with the study of diet and human health. Mary Jones teaches sixth-grade science, and her unit concentrates on defining a health promoting diet. Students will explore whether vegetarianism is a healthier lifestyle, as well as the strengths and limits of the government’s food pyramid recommendations and labeling efforts. Joseph Lewis is a middle school science teacher, and has created a unit to develop environmental science fair projects. He will focus on scientific method and teach this through two experiments, one exploring the effects of earthworms on plant growth, and another examining the effects of pesticides on earthworms.

Roberta Mazzucco’s unit for third-grade students gives them the opportunity to prepare a food diary, explore cultural variation in dietary patterns, the foundations of nutrition, the diversity of international sources of food, how food is processed, and how its quality is affected. The unit will also include a cooking experiment and taste testing. Joanne Pompano teaches blind or visually impaired high school students. Her unit examines the growth and development of the visual system, and the relations between diet and visual health. Jacqueline Porter is a middle school special education teacher of science and life science. Students will learn to recognize who is especially susceptible to food-borne illnesses—pregnant women, children, the elderly and those with other illnesses, and the most common sources of contamination. Gwendolyn Robinson teaches seventh- and eighth-grade science, and has created a curriculum unit that explores the health benefits of vegetarianism. She provides lessons that examine questions of nutrition, health and government policy, and that help students judge for themselves.

Curriculum units, with their uses, include: “Qué comes tú?/What do you eat?”, by Abie L. Benítez (Science, Social Development, and Social Studies, grades K-1): “Quality of Life Investigations: Risk Reduction,” by Raymond W. Brooks (Life Science, grades 6-8); “Food, Environmental Quality, and Health,” by Jennifer Chisholm (Health, Nutrition, Social Development, Science, and Home Economics, grades 5-8); “The Aquatic Environment,” by Judith Dixon (Science and Geography, grades 4-6); “Food and Your Body: How to Maintain a Healthy Diet,” by Mary Elizabeth Jones (Science, grades 6-12, Home Economics, grades 6-8, and Nutrition, grades 9-12); “Preparing for the New Haven Public Schools Science Fair through Environmental Science,” by Joseph H. Lewis (Science and Science Fair Preparation, grades 5-8); “You Are What You Eat: How Food Quality Affects Your Health,” by Roberta Mazzucco (Science and Social Studies, grades 2-5); “Healthy Diet, Healthy Eyes,” by Joanne R. Pompano (Science, Ecology, Environmental Science, Health, and Special Education, grades 9-12); “Nutritional Influence on Illness and Disease,” by Jacqueline E. Porter (Science, Life Science, and Home Economics, grades 6-8); “For Optimum Health: Revising the Food Pyramid,” by Gwendolyn Robinson (Health and Science, grades 5-10).

Biology and History of Ethnic Violence and Sexual Oppression

Recently, biologists studying animal behavior have started to make sense out of the confused field of violence. The key observation is that our closest animal relatives, the chimpanzees, exhibit the same kinds of violence that humans do. Chimpanzee communities slaughter each other in what might be called wars, males compete physically with each other for dominance, males batter females, and adolescence marks the onset of violent behavior.

Archaeologists and anthropologists find that these types of violence are almost universal in all human cultures and as far back in history as we can trace. This seminar discussed the biological and cultural roots of violence through history and across cultures, reading material from as diverse regions as India, New Guinea and China as well as the United States. The various units written during the course of the seminar explore and apply this information in ways that are appropriate for different school settings.

Kimberly Workinger’s unit explains the interplay of instincts and learning in the behavior of small animals usually kept as pets. The audience is agricultural-track students at the Sound School, but, since almost everyone has or knows pets, the unit should be widely applicable to other school settings. Carolyn Kinder’s unit applies the same biology-culture analysis to human violence. Anyone who has observed the uncontrollable rage and fear at play in an adolescent fight knows that a lot of biology is involved. By explicitly comparing violent behavior in humans with violent behavior in the two species of chimpanzee (common chimps and bonobos) the similarities and differences are made clear. Jessica Zelenski’s unit uses the “biological aspects and social constructions of motherhood” to discuss the terrible choices and situations which downtrodden women face. The approach is cross-cultural; the students will read three novels centering on Chinese women, an Indian (South Asian) woman and an American slave woman. All three discuss women fleeing an intolerable life to a new culture. Finally, Diana Otto’s unit deals with a literary exploration of violence. Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale envisions a future America that is engulfed in a religious war where the fundamentalists in control have instituted an extreme form of sexual oppression. This unit should generate discussion and controversy in any literature class.

(image available in print form)

The seminar on “Biology and History of Ethnic Violence and Sexual Oppression” (Left to right: Fellows Carolyn N. Kinder and Diana T. Otto; seminar leader Robert J. Wyman.)

The curriculum units, and their uses, included: “Basic Animal Behavior in Domesticated Animals,” by Kimberly J. Workinger (Biology and Vocational Agriculture, grades 10-12); “The Roots of Violence in Society,” by Carolyn N. Kinder (Social Development and Biology, grades 5-8); “Motherhood: Biological Asset or Social Liability?”, by Jessica Zelenski (English, grades 11-12); “Sexual Oppression and Religious Extremism in Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale,” by Diana T. Otto (English, grades 11-12).

The Process of Determining the Seminar Topics

Between October and December 2001, the teachers who served as Institute Representatives and Contacts for their colleagues had canvassed other teachers throughout New Haven elementary, middle, and high schools to determine the topics they wanted Institute seminars to address in 2002. (Please see Appendix for lists of teacher leaders.) The Representatives met together twice monthly and communicated individually with the School Contacts with whom they were responsible for staying in close touch. The Director of the Institute then recruited Yale faculty members who were qualified and willing to lead seminars that engaged the desired topics. Their specific proposals were then considered and approved by the Representatives.

(image available in print form)

School Representatives meeting. (Clockwise from bottom left: Director James R. Vivian, Representatives Sean Griffin, Sandra K. Friday, Mary Elizabeth Jones, Gail G. Hall, Jennifer Chisholm, Gwendolyn Robinson, Jean E. Sutherland, Joyce Bryant, Joanne R. Pompano; Sal Resendez; Representatives Kate Sturtz, Diana T. Otto, Robert P. Echter, Kristi Shanahan, Francine C. Coss, Jacqueline E. Porter, Joseph H. Lewis, and Raymond W. Brooks.)

In their evaluations, the 2002 Fellows indicated that the Institute Representative for their school had been helpful in many ways: by encouraging and assisting them to apply to the Institute, maintaining frequent contact with them, asking for their views on seminar subjects for the following year, and promoting the use of Institute-developed curriculum units. (Chart 1, reading from left to right, moves from the more helpful to the less helpful activities of the Representatives.) As a result, 29 (66 percent) of all Fellows said in the end that they had, while the program was being planned, sufficient opportunity to suggest possible topics for seminars. This is comparable to the rate of satisfaction indicated by the Fellows in 2000 and 2001 (59 and 75 percent, respectively).

The Fellows’ Application and Admissions Process

Having worked with teachers in their respective schools during the preceding months, the Institute Representatives met on January 8 to receive for distribution in all schools copies of the Institute application form, brochure, and descriptions of the seminars to be offered. At this meeting a general presentation of the subjects of the seminars ensured that all Representatives could explain to their colleagues the purpose of each seminar.

On January 15 the Institute held an open house for prospective applicants where any teacher might learn more about the planned seminars from the Representatives and from the seminar leaders, who attended and conducted discussions in small groups with interested teachers.

On January 22 the Representatives met to discuss their progress in working with prospective applicants and to hand in their own completed applications. The final deadline for teachers applying to the Institute was January 29. This date was selected so that teachers would apply in advance of the February school vacation. The office would then have the vacation period to process application materials, and the review of applications could be completed during February to provide the earliest possible notification to teachers who were accepted.

There are four principal criteria for teachers to be eligible for consideration as Fellows:

• The applicant must be a current New Haven school teacher who will be teaching in New Haven also during the school year following Institute participation.

• The applicant must agree to participate fully in the program by attending and coming prepared to all scheduled meetings and by completing research and meeting due dates in the preparation of a curriculum unit.

• The teacher must demonstrate in the application that his or her specific interests are directly related to the seminar as it has been described by the seminar leader.

• The applicant must also show that the seminar and the curriculum unit that he or she proposes to write are directly related to school courses that he or she will teach in the coming school year.

For some years it has been the policy of the Institute to allow no more than twelve teachers to enroll in any seminar. The small size of the seminars is necessary both for the collegiality of the Institute experience and for the individual attention that each teacher’s work in progress receives from the seminar leader and from other teachers in the seminar.

During the planning process 97 teachers expressed definite interest in participating in one of the seminars to be offered. Of those teachers, 31 were from high schools, 7 from transitional schools, 22 from middle schools, 25 from elementary schools, and 12 from K-8 schools. By the application deadline, the Institute Representatives, assisted by the school Contacts, had obtained applications from 62 elementary, middle, K-8, and high school teachers in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences.

The individual application form calls for the interested teachers to specify the subjects and grade levels they teach, the course or courses in which they plan to introduce the material they study in the Institute, and their willingness to meet each of the Institute’s requirements for full participation. The applicants also write a brief essay describing why they wish to participate in the seminar to which they are applying, and how the curriculum unit they plan to write will assist them in their own teaching. Writing this essay is, in effect, their first step in formulating a curriculum unit through which they will bring the material they study from the seminar into their own teaching.

The team application form requires the interested teachers to demonstrate how the team envisions working together in inter-grade and/or interdisciplinary ways and to outline plans for a culminating activity in the school. Teams may receive preference during the admissions process, and are required to submit a final report on their work together during the following school year. If a team is not admitted as such, however, the members of the team may be admitted to the program as individual Fellows. And the Institute encourages such Fellows to work as informal teams in their schools.

To support the school district’s efforts to attract and retain qualified teachers the Institute placed special emphasis in 2002 on identifying appropriate ways to assist individuals in their first year of teaching in New Haven. Late in 2001, to explore how the Institute might support teachers new to the district, and to determine whether participation as an Institute Fellow was feasible or desirable for these teachers given the substantial demands on them, the Associate Superintendent and the Institute Director convened two meetings at Yale. Teachers from five New Haven schools, all of which have Institute Centers for Curriculum and Professional Development, took part. Connecticut’s Beginning Educator Support and Training (BEST) program requires that new teachers prepare a portfolio—including extensive lesson plans, videotaped class sessions, and reflection—in their second year in order to be fully certified. The teachers who met in November and December 2001 with district administrators and the Institute Director brought a range of experience with the BEST program: first- and second-year participants in the program as well as individuals who had recently completed it and one who was serving as a BEST mentor. Four of the teachers had been Institute Fellows.

As a result of these discussions, the Institute determined that we should mount a pilot effort to recruit first-year teachers. We aimed to learn from their experiences whether the collegiality of the Institute and the development of a curriculum unit could assist them in entering the New Haven Public Schools and in completing the portfolio that teachers in Connecticut are required to prepare during their second year. An experienced Fellow agreed to be the coordinator of the pilot, which included presentations at district-wide meetings for the BEST program as well as the dissemination of informational literature designed especially for first-year teachers. Ultimately, twelve first-year teachers applied to participate in the Institute’s seminars in 2002.

All applications were reviewed by three groups: seminar leaders, school principals, and seminar Coordinators. The seminar leaders examined the applications for their relationship to the seminar subject. This afforded each seminar leader the opportunity, as well, to tailor or enlarge the bibliography for the seminar so that it would address the specific interests of the teachers who are accepted.

At the same time, the applications were reviewed in the applicant’s own school, in keeping with the decentralizing of administrative functions and decision-making in the school district. The Institute’s Representative for each school contacted the school principal or the principal’s designee, who is asked to review each teacher’s application. The intention is to increase awareness within each school of the projects that teachers wish to pursue in Institute seminars, to afford an opportunity for the principal and other educational leaders to examine the relationship between teachers’ applications and school plans, and to increase the likelihood that the teachers will have a course assignment in which they can use their curriculum unit. In this review, the following questions are posed:

(image available in print form)

Application Review meeting. (Left to right: Seminar Coordinators Abie L. Benítez and Angelo J. Pompano.)

• Is the applicant’s proposal consistent with, and significant for, the curricula and academic plans for your school?

• List the courses and/or the grade levels where the proposed unit will be used; if there are none, state “none.”

• Will the applicant be assigned next year one or more of these course in which to teach the unit?

• Please indicate any special merits or problems you find with the application.

When this procedure was introduced in 1998, Reginald Mayo, Superintendent of the New Haven Public Schools, had written to all principals: “We believe this is a highly promising way for ensuring that the assistance that the Institute provides to individual teachers and to teams of teachers has the best prospect for advancing each school’s academic plans.” This process informs the consideration of each application, provides each applicant pertinent feedback, and often provides a significant opportunity for Institute Representatives to talk with their principals about the Institute.

It is important that principals appreciate the nature and the significance of the curriculum units that teachers in their school will be designing, and we include here some excerpts from principals’ comments on the Fellows’ applications:

Her unit will address a new program starting with kindergarten and extending to the other grades on a yearly basis.

This proposed curriculum fits nicely into our science curriculum.

The applicant’s proposal is consistent with city/school expectations for curriculum development.

This unit will help support teachers in their efforts to develop and create Science Fair projects.

This unit will provide students with the opportunity to explore issues that are important to their education and welfare.

Nutrition is an important topic that not only directly influences health but also behavior. The entire staff can use the findings of this unit to share with their students.

This project will encourage the higher order thinking skills we are supporting at the high school level.

We are trying to encourage problem-solving and group discussion on issues of law and morality. This proposal supports those efforts.

This proposal is appropriate because of the large number of ESL [English as a Second Language] students in our program. It will enable the students and teacher to learn more about the Muslim culture.

As in the past, the Institute formed a group of teachers who served as Coordinators to assist with the organization and smooth operation of the seminars. The Director, with the assistance of the Steering Committee, selects these Coordinators from the group of Representatives who had earlier helped to plan the program of seminars. The Steering Committee is routinely involved in thinking about teacher leadership and identifying the positions for which individual teachers are most qualified.

There is one Coordinator in each seminar. They act as liaisons between the seminars and a Coordinators’ committee to facilitate the exchange of information and to provide teacher leadership without diminishing the collegial rapport within each seminar. A seminar Coordinator must be, and must intend to continue as, a full-time teacher in one of New Haven’s public schools. A Coordinator accepts the following responsibilities:

1. To work with school Representatives at the conclusion of the application process, to serve on an admissions committee to consider proposals for curriculum development submitted by teachers applying to become Fellows, and to make recommendations to the Director about whom to accept as Fellows.

2. To monitor the progress of a seminar through observation and conversation with participants, and to give progress reports at weekly seminar Coordinators’ committee meetings.

3. To report to the seminar members any organizational information which should be circulated, such as the schedule of any visitors and notice of Institute-wide activities.

4. To act as a resource for members of the seminar, providing information about unit-writing deadlines, guidelines for writing curriculum units, computer assistance available to Fellows, copyright procedures, and University facilities Fellows may use.

5. To be available to the seminar leader to provide information on Fellows’ perceptions of the seminar and on Institute policies generally, and to offer assistance as may be needed.

6. To assist with the smooth operation of the seminar by keeping track of Fellows’ promptness and attendance and the timeliness of their written submissions, and by encouraging Fellows to make and keep appointments for individual meetings with the seminar leader.

7. To attend and come prepared to weekly committee meetings with the Director (beginning February 6) and to take professional days as needed for the above purposes.

When the seminars began, each Coordinator would participate as a Fellow in a different seminar. At this earlier point they served as an admissions committee. They met after school on February 6 to conduct a first reading and discussion of the applications to their respective seminars. They then contacted all teachers whose applications needed to be clarified or amplified. On February 13 the Coordinators met for a full day, by taking professional leave, for their final consideration of the applications and their decisions. They met again two days later to resolve issues remaining in some applications.

During their review, the Coordinators considered the findings of the school administrators and seminar leaders and made recommendations to the Director about which teachers the Institute should accept. By these means, the Institute seeks to ensure that all Fellows participate in seminars that are consistent with their interests and applicable in the courses they teach. The Institute accepted as Fellows 62 New Haven teachers, 40 in the humanities and 22 in the sciences. Two teams of teachers—one group in the humanities and one in the sciences—were admitted with the expectation that team members would coordinate their curriculum units and work together during the school year, planning cross-grade and cross-department instruction and school-wide activities. One of these teams, from East Rock Global Magnet School, ultimately implemented its plans more fully than the other team, from Vincent Mauro Elementary School. A meeting of seminar leaders and Coordinators was held on February 26 to discuss the admissions process just completed, and to review the seminar and unit writing process and the policies and procedures of the Institute.

(image available in print form)

Joint meeting of seminar leaders and Coordinators. (Clockwise from left: Bruce M. Russett; Director James R. Vivian; Luis A. Recalde, Carolyn N. Kinder, John B. Buell, Abie L. Benítez, John P. Wargo, and Angelo J. Pompano.)

Consistent with the Institute’s aim to serve the largest possible proportion of all New Haven teachers, 30 (or 48 percent) of the teachers accepted in 2002 were participating in the Institute for the first time. Of these first-time Fellows, precisely half were in the humanities and half were in the sciences. More than one fifth of all the Fellows accepted (21 percent) were Black, nearly two thirds (65 percent) were non-Hispanic White, and 14 percent were Hispanic. Twelve were in their first year of teaching in New Haven.

The Fellows Who Were Accepted

Fellows came from all of the eight New Haven high schools, all of the six middle schools, two of the six K-8 schools, and one of the four transitional schools. Of the 22 elementary schools, half had teachers participating. The Institute first admitted elementary school teachers in 1990; this year 21 (34 percent) of all Fellows were elementary school teachers. Twenty-two (36 percent) were middle or K-8 school teachers, and 17 (27 percent) were high school teachers. Three schools had four or more Fellows; nine schools had three or more.

The participants included teachers from all stages of their careers. Perhaps reflecting the effort to recruit new teachers, 44 percent of Fellows were age 40 or younger (as compared with 30 percent in 2001). Overall, about 16 percent of the Fellows were 41-50 years old; 44 percent were younger, and 41 percent were older.

Consistent with the Institute’s effort to involve beginning teachers, as Chart 2 shows, more than one third of the Fellows (35 percent) had four or fewer years of total experience in teaching. This was almost twice the proportion of Fellows at that stage of their careers in 2001, when 19 percent had four or fewer years of teaching experience. In 2002 about one fifth (19 percent) of the Fellows had 20 or more years of total experience in teaching. Yet nearly one half (47 percent) of the Fellows had four or fewer years of experience teaching in the New Haven school system. Indicative of the need for the professional development that the Institute provides, three fifths (61 percent) of all Fellows have been in their present teaching position four or fewer years; more than three quarters (76 percent) have taught in their present position for nine years or less. Thus, even though half of the Fellows have twelve or more years of total teaching experience, an even larger proportion (61 percent) have four or fewer years of experience in their present position. These figures help to explain why many teachers say they need to develop their knowledge in subjects that they have been recently reassigned to teach, or curricular materials for students of a different age or background from those they have taught before.

(image available in print form)

The seminar on “War and Peace in the Twentieth Century and Beyond.” (Left to right: Fellows John B. Buell, Joyce Bryant, and Pedro Mendia-Landa.)

Moreover, as in past years—and as is the case in the school system generally—many of the 2002 Fellows did not major in college or graduate school in the subjects they currently teach. As Chart 3 shows, in no field did all Fellows teaching a subject have a graduate or undergraduate degree in that subject. In three fields—art, general science, and social studies—no Fellows had a graduate or undergraduate degree in a field they taught. Of the Fellows teaching in the field of English, only 38 percent had an undergraduate or graduate degree. Of those teaching mathematics, only one third had so much as an undergraduate degree.

Chart 4 shows the subjects Fellows taught in the 2001-2002 year of their Institute participation. Overall, more than three fifths (63 percent) of Fellows in the humanities and four fifths (82 percent) of Fellows in the sciences had not majored either in college or in graduate school in one or more of the subjects they taught in that year.

Understandably, therefore, when the 2002 Fellows were asked about the incentives that attracted them to participate in the Institute, they responded (as Chart 5 shows, reading left to right from the most to the least important) that the most important incentives were the opportunities to exercise intellectual independence (84 percent), to develop materials to motivate their students (82 percent), to work with university faculty members (82 percent), to increase their mastery of the subjects they teach (80 percent), and to develop curricula to fit their needs (73 percent). Indeed, incentives that might be imagined to be important for teachers with access to Yale University—credit in a degree program and access to Yale athletic facilities—were much less important for Fellows in the Teachers Institute.

As past Institute studies have shown, Fellows are in most respects highly representative of all New Haven teachers. So, for example, this year’s Fellows continue to reflect the gender and ethnicity of all New Haven teachers, though there are great disparities overall between the ethnic and racial characteristics of New Haven teachers and those of their students. (See Table 1 below.) Similarly, the Yale faculty members who have led Institute seminars generally reflect the wider faculty at Yale.

Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding.

	White			Black			Hispanic			Other
	non-Hispanic			non-Hispanic
	All	Male	Female	All	Male	Female	All	Male	Female	All	Male	Female
Institute Fellows, 2002	66%	23%	43%	23%	7%	16%	11%	2%	9%	0%	0%	0%
Institute Fellows, 1978-2002	69%	20%	49%	26%	6%	20%	4%	1%	3%	1%	0%	1%
New Haven Public School Teachers, 2002	73%	20%	53%	18%	4%	14%	7%	1%	6%	1%	0.3%	0.7%
New Haven Public School Students, 2002	12%	6%	6%	57%	29%	28%	30%	15%	15%	2%	0.8%	1.2%
Institute Coordinators, 2002	67%	33%	33%	17%	0%	17%	17%	0%	17%	0%	0%	0%
Steering Committee, 2002	75%	25%	50%	25%	0%	25%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Representatives and Contacts, 2001	67%	23%	44%	23%	3%	20%	10%	3%	7%	0%	0%	0%
Institute Seminar Leaders, 2002	100%	67%	33%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Institute Seminar Leaders, 1978-2002	86%	71%	15%	8%	6%	1%	5%	3%	3%	0%	0%	0%
Yale Faculty, 2002 (includes tenured and term ladder faculty)	85%	62%	23%	3%	2%	1%	3%	2%	1%	9%	6%	3%

Activities for Fellows

At the first organizational meeting of each seminar, held on March 5, 2002, the seminar leader distributed an annotated bibliography on the seminar subject and presented the syllabus of readings that he or she proposed that the seminar would consider. The Fellows described the individual curriculum units that they planned to develop. This afforded the members of each seminar an overview of the work they were undertaking together and the projects they would pursue individually. The bibliographies both introduced the seminar subject and guided Fellows as they began research on their curriculum units. According to one Fellow, “The selection of readings we covered was varied and interesting (mostly!). I enjoyed being given a reading list and then being able to discuss it. Our seminar had an outline but was flexible enough to incorporate anything that came up.”

Other Fellows wrote:

The subject was very interesting, and the texts to read were great. We were assigned texts to be in charge of and would come to class with a short presentation on how to teach this in our classes. This got us all thinking. People were not afraid to voice their opinions. There was a lot of camaraderie.

Especially appreciated was the reasonable length of the assigned readings. Most of the reading assignments could be completed in two to four hours which meant that all of the Fellows had completed all of the same reading for each meeting. This certainly contributed to the quality of the discussion.

(image available in print form)

The seminar on “Survival Stories.” (Left to right: Fellows Marlene H. Kennedy and Amber Stolz.)

The seminar leaders also commented on what they perceived to be the Fellows’ responses to the weekly readings. One said: “The Fellows were interested, did their reading (which I kept fairly short), and with a couple of exceptions they contributed freely to discussions.” He continued, “Leading the seminar was an entirely positive experience.”

Another seminar leader wrote:

My field is inherently interdisciplinary, and considerable maturity of judgment is necessary to understand the interplay between science and politics in decision making. The teachers were very strong in this respect, and they seemed quite engaged in the seminar discussions. There was consistently strong competition to get classroom “air time,” as most seemed quite engaged. This caused me to adjust my teaching style—less lecturing and more discussion as I tried to move through an agenda of questions and issues each week.

Before the second seminar meeting all Fellows met individually with their seminar leader to discuss their projects. The Institute requires that Fellows schedule at least two such conferences as part of the unit writing process; many Fellows, however, meet more frequently with their seminar leader. At the end of the program, almost all Fellows (93 percent) said that they had ample opportunity to discuss their choice of readings with the seminar leader.

During the period that preceded the regular weekly meetings, Fellows continued their reading, both preparing for the upcoming seminar discussions and working toward a brief prospectus of what their final units would contain. At the second seminar meeting, on April 9, Fellows submitted this prospectus, presented their revised unit topics, and began to discuss the common readings. The regular weekly seminar meetings began on May 7; thereafter Fellows continued to develop their units in stages, with a first draft submitted on May 28. The weekly meetings of the seminars continued through July 16, with Fellows submitting the second draft of their units on July 2 and their completed units by July 31.

For several years, Fellows have been asked to submit the prospectus, together with a revised topic of the unit and a list of appropriate readings, at the time of the second seminar meeting. This allows them a full six weeks to write a first draft. The due date for the second draft is late enough to allow Fellows ample time to address the comments they received on the first draft from other Fellows and from the seminar leader. Some seminar leaders have urged that the revised topic, preliminary reading-list, and first draft be submitted somewhat later, and some have informally instituted yet another draft between the first and second drafts. Every year, too, some Fellows are concerned that the writing of the unit begins before they have entered well into the seminar topic, or that too much work must be done at the end of the school year, when they are heavily committed to their teaching. Nevertheless, a majority of the Fellows have been satisfied with this schedule. In 2002 one said, “Timetables are hard to establish when you work in such an overwhelming circumstance which is inner-city teaching. Yet, the seminars start [meeting every week] when our year is just about to end, our busiest time of the year. This is a weakness but a blessing disguise; the Institute activity allows us to focus on what we want to do improve our teaching for the following year.” Overall 69 percent of the Fellows thought the unit writing deadlines occurred at the right time in relation to the school calendar.

The Institute attaches great importance to the process through which Fellows develop their curriculum units, and many Fellows commented upon the benefits derived from following this process. One said: “The writing process was overwhelming at times, but the collaboration in the seminars put me at ease. We were able to share our curriculums with our colleagues to learn what they were writing about and to receive feedback.” Another, who said that the seminar leader “nurtured us through the process” and that “it was wonderful,” wrote:

Information presented to us prior to the unit creation and during the writing of the unit was very detailed. I especially enjoyed the depth with which our professor corrected our unit drafts. I found the seminar to be very rewarding because I had an opportunity to meet with a diverse group of fellow educators who contributed much to the lesson assignments and the book discussions. I also enjoyed it when all of us were given a chance to present our units to the group. Another Fellow wrote:

Throughout the seminar, participants were given adequate amounts of time to complete required assignments. Opportunities to brainstorm with one another and to share preliminary drafts with our colleagues in the development of individual curriculum units were well fostered. [The seminar leader] allowed Fellows to express interpretations of covered materials in an open forum. Space was allowed for colleagues to agree to disagree. This resulted in stimulating, candid dialogue between teachers across grade levels.

At the conclusion of the seminars, most Fellows indicated that the program schedule (84 percent) and the guidelines for writing a unit (89 percent) had been useful to them to a great or moderate extent. This year 59 percent of the Fellows said they tried out the subject matter and 68 percent said they tried out the strategies of their units in their classroom. Of those who did, most Fellows (85 percent) said that this influenced what they included in the final units.

During the first two months of the program, which serve as a reading period, all Fellows also met together on Tuesday afternoons for a series of talks. These talks are designed to expose all Fellows to some of the work done in seminars other than their own, and in some cases to subjects and leaders of possible future seminars. Ordinarily, therefore, some current or prospective seminar leaders are included in this series. At the same time, some other faculty members are invited to speak on topics the school Representatives believe will be of particular interest to many Fellows, based on the interests expressed during the months of planning and canvassing the preceding fall.

In response to the teachers’ expressed interests, and because many Fellows had considered applying to more than one of this year’s seminars, the current seminar leaders gave all five of the talks in 2002.

• On March 12, Ellen Lust-Okar offered “a brief introduction” to culture and politics in the Middle East.

• On March 26, Robert J. Wyman discussed “Ethnic Cleansing, Chimpanzee Style.”

• On April 2, Amy Hungerford expanded upon one text, Art Spiegelman’s Maus, in addressing “Cartoons and the Holocaust.”

• On April 23, Bruce M. Russett tackled the question of “War Without End?” in remarks that were both retrospective and prospective.

• On April 30, John P. Wargo outlined his seminar on “Food, Environmental Quality, and Health” in remarks that focused on matters such as pesticides and the threat of water pollution.

This year the talks were especially popular among Fellows. The few criticisms primarily related to the use of precious time, and whether that time might have been used more effectively in different ways within the Institute. One Fellow said that the talks “should come later in the schedule allowing Fellows to meet with and get information from the seminar for which they are writing the curriculum unit.” A second said that the talks “took time away from working with the professor and researching topics.”

Still, most Fellows saw in the talks the purposes for which they were organized. Fully 100 percent of Fellows said that to a great or moderate extent the talks provided them intellectual stimulation, while most said they provided a sense of collegiality and common purpose among Fellows (86 percent). Four fifths (80 percent) said the talks were successful to a great or moderate extent in providing an overview of Fellows’ work in the seminars. A slightly larger proportion (86 percent) said that the Institute scheduled the right number of talks. One Fellow “felt the talks were a positive experience both for the content and the fact that they bring all of the Fellows together in a positive atmosphere.” Another characterized the talks as “worthwhile, interesting, and well-timed.” A third individual said they “were so interesting and mind-expanding and non-threatening for us teacher types.” Yet another Fellow observed: “Many of the professors were so engaging in their talks, that I wished I could be joining in their seminars as well.”

Many Fellows reported that the talks prompted them, to a great or moderate extent, to read about their topics (70 percent, compared with 51 percent in 2001), discuss the topics with their students (51 percent), and discuss the talks with other teachers (82 percent). In all three respects, these figures represented an increase over the prior year.

As in other recent years, the Institute scheduled a session on curriculum unit writing, well before the regular meetings of the seminars began. Before starting on their curriculum units, the Fellows all need to understand the central role that the process of writing plays in Institute seminars. As part of their admissions folder, all Fellows had received Institute guidelines and mechanical specifications for preparing curriculum units, which outline the Institute writing process and the five steps for Fellows’ formulating, reformulating, and enlarging their individual units. On March 19, the teachers serving as seminar Coordinators comprised a panel in leading a session on curriculum unit development.

(image available in print form)

2002 Workshop on Curriculum Unit Development. (Left to right: Seminar Coordinators Luis A. Recalde, Jean E. Sutherland, Carolyn N. Kinder, Angelo J. Pompano, and John B. Buell.)

The Coordinators spoke from their own experiences in researching and writing new curricula as Institute Fellows. Representing among them the elementary, middle and high school levels, the Coordinators spoke to all the Fellows on these topics: “Setting the Stage”; “Checking and Using the Index, Guides, and Reference Lists”; “Addressing Your Audience and Narrowing Your Topic”; “Following the Institute Process for Unit Development”; and “Aligning Your Unit with School Plans and District Goals.” Then the Fellows were divided into seminar groups, where each Coordinator led a discussion of purposes and practices in writing Institute curriculum units. This afforded an opportunity for the first-time Fellows to learn about the guidelines and other aspects of curriculum unit writing from experienced Fellows. It also encouraged experienced Fellows to share that experience and allowed all to discuss how the completed volume of units might display a range of teaching strategies and contain a standard form of annotation. By leading these discussions, the Coordinators also identified themselves as being knowledgeable about the process of writing curriculum units, so that other Fellows might seek their advice.

At the Coordinators’ weekly meetings with the Director and Associate Director, which were held on the day after seminar meetings, they discussed the progress of each seminar and gained an overview of the program. In addition, the Coordinators met with the seminar leaders immediately before the program began to provide them with information about the teachers who had been accepted and to begin to define their role in assisting with the conduct of the seminars. Both seminar leaders and Fellows acknowledged in their evaluations the essential role of the Coordinators. Ninety-five percent of Fellows agreed that the Coordinators provided teacher leadership without diminishing the collegial relationship within the seminar. Fellows found the Coordinators to be helpful either a lot (79 percent) or a little (21 percent) in providing information about unit writing deadlines; helpful either a lot (67 percent) or a little (30 percent) in providing information about guidelines for unit writing; helpful either a lot (60 percent) or a little (30 percent) in providing information about the use of University facilities; and helpful either a lot (62 percent) or a little (29 percent) in facilitating discussion of Fellows’ work in progress. Few Fellows found the Coordinators unhelpful in any respect. One Fellow said: “The seminar Coordinator was there when I needed her during the final writing [of the curriculum unit], playing an important and appreciated role of support and colleague.”

(image available in print form)

Seminar Coordinators meeting. (Left to right: Seminar Coordinators Jean E. Sutherland, Carolyn N. Kinder, Abie L. Benítez, Angelo J. Pompano, Luis A. Recalde; Director James R. Vivian; and Seminar Coordinator John B. Buell.)

To maintain current information on the program and to address any problems that arose, the Institute Director and Associate Director met monthly with the seminar leaders as a group. This also afforded the seminar leaders, three of whom were conducting an Institute seminar for the first time, an opportunity to talk with one another about their approaches to the seminar and experiences in it.

Rewards for Fellows

The seminars have always been regarded as the core collaborative experience of the Institute, and each year the majority of Fellows’ comments about the seminars have been strongly positive. Again this year their comments were often very enthusiastic indeed. One said: “Each person took their work seriously and seemed to have a real investment in producing a unit designed for their students.” This same Fellow believed the seminar leader “was skilled at involving everyone without pressuring anyone to participate.” Another participant noted, “The seminar seemed to fly by and we all seemed sorry to see it end. It was a great experience and I hope my unit will convey some of what I learned to my students.” A third “was very happy with the comments, help, criticism, and ideas I received from this seminar. My writing improved and I learned how to look at writing in a new way.” A fourth Fellow said, “This was a great seminar, probably one of the top five courses I have ever taken.” And a fifth added, “I looked forward to attending each of the seminar sessions because the topics were so interesting and educational. I have been a member of the Institute for seven years and feel this seminar was the most interesting and engaging.”

Others said:

With the help of the seminar leader, I was able to use the knowledge gained in the seminar to create a unit that will benefit my students by expanding their knowledge of the subject matter while at the same time building their self-confidence and allowing them to have fun. All of the Fellows in the seminar were wonderful to work with and each unselfishly contributed to the discussion from the point of view of their own area of expertise. It is this exchange of ideas between the professor and Fellows that most appeals to me.

(image available in print form)

The seminar on “War and Peace in the Twentieth Century and Beyond.” (Left to right: Fellows Pedro Mendia-Landa and Burton R. Saxon.)

I had a wide variety of experiences throughout the seminar. My first feelings were of fear and apprehension. Once I was able to adjust to the seminar meetings, I felt confident that I would be able to complete the task. Meetings with my seminar leader and other Fellows further solidified my confidence to be able to write the curriculum. The whole seminar process enhanced and fine-tuned my teaching skills.

The Yale faculty members who led seminars described their seminar in both specific and general terms. One seminar leader said, “I don’t know of any professional development for teachers—except for the kinds of things offered by NEH seminars and Bread Loaf—that is superior to its double focus on content in the humanities and sciences and application to the classroom.” Another remarked that “Every session ran overtime because the teachers had more to say than there was time. One first-year teacher,” according to this seminar leader, “said that she loved the seminar and reported how she was not waiting for a completed unit, but was using the readings in her classes this very year.”

Fellows themselves particularly relished a chance to talk and work with other teachers across the artificial boundaries that often separate grade levels, schools, and disciplines. One Fellow wrote: “I found the seminar to be very rewarding because I had an opportunity to meet with a diverse group of fellow educators who contributed much to the lesson assignments and the book discussions.” Another wrote: “The group of Fellows was particularly well-balanced providing for interesting discussion both in regards to the assigned reading and the Fellows’ units. There were three high school teachers, three from middle schools, and four representing elementary grades.” This participant observed that “Fellows also varied in their number of years of experience,” and that “Racially and ethnically the group was also mixed.” She concluded: “This mixture of teachers blended together extremely well. Everyone contributed and seemed to respect and even seek out the opinions of others.”

Several teachers commented on the inspiration they found in working together. As one described:

I very much enjoyed the intellectual stimulation of meeting with my seminar every week. It is easy to get trapped in the world of your own school and forget to have a life outside; I truly loved reading thoughtful materials and engaging in lively debates once a week. It made me feel more complete and having that stimulation made me more enthusiastic about working with my own students.

Another Fellow wrote: “The ‘bonding’ that occurred in the seminar, however subtle, had the effect of letting us know that our biggest problems and challenges in the classroom are universal rather than specific to us.” This Fellow said, “I think the Institute offers the emotional support so many of us need to do our work. This, in sum, is the biggest thing that I will carry over to the next year, especially when things get tough.”

A third said, “The group of teachers that partook in the seminar were people I could trust to be honest and receptive in their feedback.” This Fellow continued: “What is sorely lacking at some of our schools—that is the element of support and encouragement for work heartfelt and well done—was provided in the seminar group. Thank God and my colleagues for that.”

(image available in print form)

The seminar on “The Craft of Writing.” (Left to right: Fellows Christine Picón-Van Duzer, Sean Griffin, and Leigh Highbridge.)

Ever since the Institute’s inception, its participants and staff have been asked whether the co-professionalism among Yale faculty members and New Haven school teachers, for which the program is widely known, is authentic. The collegiality on which the Institute is founded is perhaps best illustrated by the mutual respect between Fellows and seminar leaders that the seminar experience engenders. One seminar leader, for example, said that this year’s seminar “was especially satisfying due to the energy and vigor of seminar discussions.” He asserted that “The Institute is playing a vital role in curriculum development within New Haven, attracting many exceptional teachers who have grown into important leadership roles within their own disciplines.”

Another seminar leader voiced similar respect for the teachers: “It has been good for me to understand the quality and commitment of most of the Fellows, and some of the challenges they face in doing a good job.” This seminar leader “came away with an understanding of how good they could be.” Not least, “I enjoyed it, and thought I was doing something worthwhile.”

In turn, Fellows expressed admiration for their Yale colleagues and for the collegiality that they helped to foster. One said, “My experience in the Institute this year was extremely positive. There were a number of reasons for this. First, the seminar leader was very good. He was very effective in leading discussion and raising important questions.” This participant also noted “the quality of the other Fellows in the seminar. They were all extremely well informed and provided a variety of useful perspectives on the topics under discussion. One Fellow who was perhaps not as well versed in the subject area raised such interesting questions that her contributions were equally appreciated. I felt I made connections with teachers at other schools which will prove invaluable in years to come.”

(image available in print form)

The seminar on “The Craft of Writing.” (Left to right: Fellow Shirley Ann Goldberg and seminar leader Thomas R. Whitaker.)

Such praise was common among Fellows. One said, “The seminar leader provided expert and useful information on this topic as well as specific information to assist each of us in our individual projects. He showed great interest in each of our topics and provided many useful suggestions.” Another Fellow wrote that a seminar leader “provided everyone with excellent ideas to include in our units. He was also very aware of the audience we were trying to reach: teachers and students. This was indeed a great experience!” A third participant said: “The professors were very well prepared, presented information in a digestible manner, and made themselves very accessible to the Fellows.” A fourth wrote, “Our professor was excellent. She was serious when she had to be but had a great sense of humor and an easy ability to laugh.” And a fifth said, “The quality of teaching, especially [my seminar leader] and also in each of the lectures, was excellent.”

Other Fellows wrote:

The seminar leader’s respect and appreciation for what each of the members was trying to do allowed for intellectual growth even though the subject was difficult. A great byproduct of the seminar was collegiality established among all seminar members. Although we had different ideas on how we would present the subject we were able to exchange ideas and feedback from each other for our units. Furthermore, we got to know the other members of the seminar better, allowing us to form a cadre of peers with similar interests.

Our seminar leader was very flexible. This I saw as a strength. He let us engage in as much discussion as we wanted in most instances. We were given the resources needed to get much of our research from the Internet. This saved time and money. Lastly, Fellows were truly treated as colleagues by the seminar leader.

People shared information and we really jelled as a group. Everyone was prepared and we each participated so that the seminar wasn’t pure lecture nor did any one participant overshadow the others. There were divergent opinions on some topics but everyone treated these ideas with respect. [The seminar leader] did an excellent job in organizing the seminar and in keeping the discussions moving along. Later in the seminar he gave us each a chance to review what we had done with our units and to ask the others for suggestions. He did an excellent job in helping us to organize our units and his insights were invaluable.

Relating Seminar Topics to Curriculum Units

Each Institute seminar must balance the complementary and inseparable but sometimes competing demands for studying the seminar topic and developing specific applications of that knowledge for school classrooms. The Fellows, coming from elementary, middle, and high schools, are obligated to develop curriculum units that have some demonstrable relation to the seminar topic, but they are free to work out curricula that enter territory not covered in detail by the seminar. The curriculum units, therefore, have a diversity of subject and approach that one would not expect in a regular university course on the seminar topic. As a result, discussions in the seminar, while doing justice to the common reading, can also range widely over substantive and pedagogical issues relating to the curriculum units. Some comments by seminar leaders and Fellows quoted earlier have already indicated that each seminar approaches these demands somewhat differently as seminar leaders strive to strike an appropriate balance.

In recent years the Institute has also encouraged Fellows to build into their curriculum units both subject matter and skills that are called for by the local curriculum framework—including a strong emphasis upon literacy—and the statewide Connecticut Mastery (CMT) and Academic Performance (CAPT) Tests. One Fellow said: “I made great efforts to incorporate a variety of learning strategies and approaches.” She was “conscious of including writing to build CAPT/CMT skills.” Another wrote: “It was rewarding to create a language arts unit that was integrated with the United States history aspects of the social studies curriculum and to be able to meet the goals, objectives, and standards of state and local curricula experts.” A third Fellow pointed out that her curriculum unit “includes a plan to address not only content area standards but also pedagogical standards.” And a fourth said: “Teaching is that much more fun when you are implementing your own curriculum following the district’s framework and standards.”

(image available in print form)

Fellow Sandra K. Friday and her student at Wilbur Cross Annex.

Ultimately, four fifths of this year’s Fellows (82 percent) said that there had been a successful balance in seminar between general study of the seminar subject and Fellows’ work in progress on their units. As one Fellow said: “Where appropriate [the seminar leader] provided information which amplified and explained the material we had covered in the readings. He provided ample time for Fellows to present and discuss their units.”

After the curriculum units were completed in July, they were compiled in a volume for each seminar. In September the volumes were deposited in the libraries of all elementary middle, and high schools, so that New Haven teachers, whether or not they have been Fellows, might use them in their own teaching. As in the past, the Institute prepared a Guide to the new units, based on synopses by the authors and their recommendations of the grade levels and school courses to which their units apply.

The Institute also updated the Index of all the 1392 units contained in the 155 volumes the Institute has published since its inception in 1978. The Index and Guide also were deposited in all school libraries and distributed to the teachers who serve as Institute Representatives for the schools. A full set of the new curricular resources was provided to those school district administrators who have responsibility for curricula system-wide.

Maintaining a library set of units has proved most difficult in those schools that do not have a full-time librarian or, in some cases, even a library. In 1993-94, the Institute therefore sought to determine the best location for Institute material to be deposited in every New Haven school. It has since continued to supply units missing from any collection, based on surveys distributed annually to schools, insofar as the volumes remain in print. As described below, the Institute has also created an electronic version that makes its curricular resources more widely accessible.

Results for the Participants

As in past years, Fellows in 2002 spoke of the results of their Institute participation especially in terms of intellectual growth and renewal. Just as the opportunity to increase mastery of the subject one teaches was an important incentive for most Fellows (80 percent) to take part in the Institute, almost all (93 percent) said that they had gained knowledge of their subject and confidence to teach it by participating in their seminar. Only one Fellow disagreed with the statement that the seminar helped with intellectual and professional growth.

Many Fellows described the Institute experience as having increased their professional confidence and morale, while nourishing their curiosity. They spoke of this confidence both generally and in terms of greater mastery of a particular subject. One observed, “My curriculum is continually strengthened every time I take a seminar and write a unit. My content knowledge is solidified and this affects my class in every way. I am a better teacher because of the opportunities the Institute has afforded me.” More specifically, a second Fellow “will be much more able to teach the foreign policy section of Advanced Placement United States history during the coming years.” A third Fellow explained that the Institute “has allowed me to do readings that otherwise I would not have had a chance to do. I feel more confident to cover a topic, which is now in the news.” After the experience, he said, “I’m ready for next year!”

Other Fellows wrote:

I believe that my participation in the Institute has helped me to grow professionally. I was able to meet teachers from different schools and to share ideas with them. As a teacher, I believe it is very important to continue to grow. How can we convey to students that education is important, if we are not living proof?

Fresh, new material is very motivating to me in the classroom. I thrive on creativity and through the Institute I can develop curriculum units of interest to my students and myself. The Institute makes available both time and resources to develop these units that otherwise would perhaps not happen.

Fellows spoke, too, of the access to Yale facilities they had gained from participation. From the Institute’s inception, all Fellows have been full members of the University community, listed in the directory of faculty and staff, and granted use of facilities and services across the campus. For most Fellows (90 percent) access to Yale’s academic facilities such as the library was an incentive for their participation, and 70 percent reported that membership in the Yale community had been greatly or moderately useful to them. According to one Fellow: “The Institute did a great job in providing access to materials that would be helpful to the Institute Fellows. Also, providing the use of Yale’s first class facilities is a huge bonus.” Another characterized “the use of Yale facilities” as “a major benefit in conducting our research and developing interest in related issues.” And a third said: “Continued access to the Yale libraries and academic resources is also important to developing good units. Attending class ‘on campus’ was exciting and made the experience feel more professional. Please continue these aspects of the program.”

Fellows see the results of the Institute as going beyond their own classrooms, and beyond the teachers who have themselves personally participated in the seminars. Almost all Fellows said that they plan to encourage or assist other teachers in using the unit they prepared; more than half said they planned to do so with three or more other teachers. As a group, the Fellows planned to encourage or assist a total of 141 other teachers.

(image available in print form)

Reception for Representatives and Contacts in Sterling Memorial Library. (Left to right: Gail G. Hall and Raymond W. Brooks.)

Fellows this year provided various accounts of the more extended influence the Institute has had, and will have, for themselves and their schools. One said, “I am new to the school where I’m currently teaching and will not only implement this unit but also let my team know of my unit and add it if possible to the second grade curriculum.” Another noted that he had “shared” the unit he had developed last year “with my colleagues who teach U.S. History II and they have made partial use of it. I will make further efforts in that area next year.” A third said, “The way my unit is constructed, teachers are forced to cooperate. English and art teachers must work together on this unit, making it a truly collaborative effort.” A fourth said, “I always try to write a cross-curriculum unit which brings together teachers of several disciplines. This results in an atmosphere of cooperation which is good for the school in general.” And a fifth recalled that her principal “commented that YNHTI Fellows have strong leadership skills, are good collaborators and are highly effective in carrying out tasks.”

Another Fellow, who noted that in the past she had seen her “colleagues (even if they are not YNHTI Fellows) make use of the Institute teacher resources,” further observed: “My curriculum unit will serve not only as an exciting social studies and language arts tool, but also as a social development resource. I have already shared aspects of my unit with several colleagues. Hopefully, they will consider implementing the unit in their classroom (they have already committed to using several of my bibliographic resources).”

Other Fellows wrote:

Since I planned for my unit to be used as a teaching tool for my staff in preparing them for the Science Fair, it will have a major impact for our school curricula. The teachers at my school will have a manual to help them with planning. I will also use my unit to get my students ready for the Science Fair. I feel that this is one of the most useful units that I have written.

I believe that half of the students in my school will be exposed to my curriculum. There are eight teachers in my program. During a 90-minute teaching block, I will teach this unit with another English teacher to one fourth of the students in the program, while an English teacher who is teaming with a social studies teacher will teach it to another one fourth of the students.

Each year we are attentive to the responses of both first-time and veteran participants because we want a high proportion of New Haven teachers to become Fellows and we also want the Institute to become a regular part of Fellows’ professional lives. Both groups cite their own rewards. One newcomer said:

As a first-year Fellow, I found the seminar both enjoyable and extremely beneficial. Also, I didn’t feel as overwhelmed as I imagined I might. The work completed will help me in my upcoming year. I will use the materials in a course that is being taught for the first time. So it feels great to begin with such a solid foundation.

Others wrote:

Personally, I would have benefited from discussing more of the seminar readings and material in the context of teaching rather than having general discussion. Nonetheless, the discussions were enlightening and I feel fortunate to have had the opportunity to partake in each session. Overall, the experience has been worthwhile because it has been engaging, professionally stimulating, and practical.

This is my first year in the Institute and the positives definitely outweigh the negatives. The only concern I had, throughout, was how to apply this college level learning to elementary school students? Especially the in-depth material we covered. My challenge was to pick and choose the information that would be 1) relevant; 2) interesting; and 3) beneficial for my students. The strength of the program is the people. The professor was amazing. She made available to us so many resources. She was also incredibly available! Via email and face-to-face contact, at one-on-one meetings and seminars, the lines of communication were always open. She must have reviewed my curriculum unit, or parts thereof, four times. In turn, my fellow participants added immensely to the [seminar].

One new Fellow pointed to the appeal of the Institute in comparison with more conventional staff development programming for teachers:

After a somewhat anxiety producing start, the seminar turned out to be the most intellectually stimulating in-service type activity that I participated in with other teachers this year. I have attended a number of worthwhile mandatory in-service trainings at school, yet a number of strengths differentiate my experience in the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute this year from my experience in other training activities. First, while many in-service activities at school are interesting, they are often too brief and without follow-up. Many often last one-half to one day. The continuity of attending the Institute [from March through July] allows for a more comprehensive experience. Second, working with fellow teachers is a strength. It allows teachers to support and critique teachers. Third, the structure of the seminar and location of the seminar are strengths. Attending “class” each week in the university setting creates more legitimacy for the experience. Being in a university classroom is intellectually stimulating. Moreover, being outside the school environment provides a refreshing alternative to “staying after school.” Fourth, and most importantly, completing the Institute results in a tangible and practical product—the unit—which can be directly applied to teaching.

Among the teachers who were participating in the Institute for the first time were the twelve individuals in the BEST program who were in their first year of teaching in Connecticut.