Teaching Tibet: Chapter I

Index

 * CHAPTER I: LITERATURE REVIEW	16
 * FOUR DIMENSIONS OF KNOWLEDGE	17
 * THE SOCRATIC METHOD	24
 * THE GROUP INTERACTION METHOD	30
 * LECTURE	35
 * CONCLUSION	42

Chapter I: Literature Review
When determining the different goals I have for a course on Tibet, I will be primarily consulting a revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy for Educational Objectives, as outlined by Lorin Anderson and David Krathwohl. These authors, however, do not map educational methods onto their notions of learning objectives; they identify the end, but not the means to it. It is then my responsibility to synthesize their taxonomy of educational goals with a wide body of cognitive science and cognitive psychology literature, and also with my own knowledge of Tibet coupled with the limited experiential knowledge I have as a teacher of this subject to determine the instruction methods. This synthesis is a complex process, and requires some elucidation. The taxonomy is the foundation, and my own objectives for the course are based on this outline. The literature review provides the three methods as a means to accomplish these goals, and my knowledge of Tibet serves as the content – the beating heart of my course preparation. Anderson and Krathwohl’s organizational schema outlines four dimensions of knowledge and six dimensions of processes, forming a grid of educational goals. The question I ask is this: what do I want my students to remember? What do I want them to attain in terms of factual, conceptual, and procedural knowledges? In other words, what are my goals for the class? In what follows, I will explicate the four dimensions of knowledge as defined by Anderson and Krathwohl, and the depth that will be necessary for each. This explanation is in regards to the course as a whole, but this does not necessarily mean that the goals and hence the forms and depths of knowledge will not change from class session to class session…or even from lesson to lesson. This idea will be explored further in the curriculum section. For now, we must gain an understanding of these four dimensions of knowledge.

Four Dimensions of Knowledge
Using this taxonomy, factual knowledge refers to terminology, details and specifics, vocabulary, dates, people, etc. – basic facts. I want students to be able to recall facts and dates quickly to answer questions and help fill in the details in their way of thinking. Students should be able to understand and comprehend how different bits of information are connected and significant. They should be able to apply these facts to a paper or a presentation and also be able to analyze and evaluate facts for their accuracy and for their role within an overarching structural framework of concepts. In terms of the specifics for the course, and specifics for student learning, fully understanding the basics of Tibet – demographics, population, facts, figures, events, dates, various regions, religions, and so forth – will be vital. For example, knowing that the first monastery in Tibet was constructed at Samye, knowing that it was erected in 779, and knowing that it was built by the first two great Indian masters to visit Tibet (Shantaraksita and Padmasambhava), will all be essential knowledge. They must understand how to conduct research on a given subject, and present information, as in a paper, a project or presentation. Also, a firm grasp on the basics of Buddhism – knowledge about the Buddha’s life, the meaning of the Dharma (the teachings of the Buddha), the dissemination of Buddhism and the various traditions that exist – will be important, due to the fact that Tibetan culture and history evolved in tandem with the Buddhist faith. A teaching style perfectly suited for teaching this form of knowledge is the lecture style. It is most useful for content like this, because basic facts and terms need to be explored in order to learn the vocabulary of a given discipline. Lecture explores this content by quickly and efficiently elucidating the main points and the essential information. The lecturer must have a strong understanding of the content at hand, because all eyes are on them; they are the main locus of knowledge. It is not necessarily enough to simply lead the class and pursue one’s own notions of what is important or significant. Even in a practice as centralized as lecture, it will be profoundly more effective if the lecturer addresses students’ concerns and prior knowledge – a very conceptual way of approaching this method. This issue, as well as other potential uses and shortcomings of this teaching method will be addressed after the four dimensions of knowledge are elucidated. Continuing with Anderson and Krathwohl’s notions of educational objectives, the second element of conceptual knowledge contains categories, classifications, organizations, principles, generalizations, theories and structures of a given subject. I want students to be able to remember how different concepts and ideas fall into different categories. Students should understand how and why these categories are significant. They should know that a Regent refers to a position in the government, and that a Lama refers to a position in the monastery and that they are not mutually exclusive; the Regent was always a prominent Lama. Pupils absolutely must be able to apply their conceptual knowledge to new ideas and successfully integrate them into their pre-existing knowledge. This point is particularly important. We enter into every subject and every discussion with pre-existing knowledge, and the only way we can truly make sense of the new information is by integrating it into what we already know (or think we know). Equally important is revising these preconceived notions in the face of new facts and ideas; knowledge is equally concerned with displacing old notions as with discovering new ones. With such an influx of ideas also comes the need to analyze and evaluate the overarching organizational understandings that students have. I feel that for a class on Tibet, creating an individual mode and way of understanding the content is not only important, but that it happens whether one wants it to or not. Each student is coming from a different place, a different mindset, and so it necessitates that every one of them will approach the subject differently. For example, due to the fact that I read Harrer’s Seven Years in Tibet as my first introduction to the subject, everything I learned about Tibet related back to that book. Pupils will rely on preexisting cognitive structures, but undoubtedly each student will internalize and group the information they receive in totally different ways. Returning to the class itself, I would like students to be able to analyze concepts, and understand how they connect to other topics, themes, facts and ideas. By this, I mean that they must create connections across ideas, like understanding how closely interconnected religion and society are in Tibet. The capacity to recall, comprehend and apply generalizations, categories, and conceptual and structural knowledge to new information is an essential skill to have in this context. Specifically, this need to recall creates a unique interaction between the factual (the information recalled) and the conceptual (the application and organization of information) that takes place within this element of knowledge. For example, Tibet’s extreme isolation created a more homogenous cultural setting, hence these ideas and generalizations, while they do not take into account every last Tibetan, will be useful. Students must be able to create individual modes of inquiry and ways of understanding subject content. Learning this material will affect each student personally, and so each student must develop some schemas for understanding this individually. For teaching conceptual knowledge, group interaction methods and task-based instruction seem most applicable. Working on these tasks and projects with group members (with guidance from the instructor) will give the students an individual feeling for the content, while also introducing them to some of the larger concepts that “float to the top” when studying Tibet – ideas such as Diaspora, the politics of nationalism, religious autonomy, cultural assimilation, environmental concerns, cultural preservation, religious practice, isolation, ritual and tradition. This highly learner-centered style will find students investigating issues and presenting information to their peers, requiring that they have an understanding of how their area of investigation fits into the bigger picture of Tibet. A deeper investigation into the uses and complications associated with the group interaction method will follow our discussion of the four elements of knowledge. Anderson and Krathwohl define procedural knowledge as knowing how accomplish a critical task. Methods of inquiry, techniques, skills and the like are included under this heading. First, remembering how to carry out a procedure, and also realizing how it is significant are both essentials. Next, a student must be able to apply a given task – such as carrying out a research project. Analysis of these procedures is also important for deepening an understanding of them. Creative new modes of inquiry are always welcome, and a new way of performing a task is useful, for although it is not necessary to reinvent the wheel, different approaches to a given task may reveal different information. Even entering different terms in different orders in a search engine will render new results. For a class on Tibet, procedural knowledge is not a heavy area of focus as is, for example, a course in mathematics. Students must have a firm grasp and a deep understanding of how to carry out these procedures, which are mostly methods for research and collecting sources. For example, they must understand the vast difference between Wikipedia and EBSCO search engines. Students should know how to evaluate content to check for accuracy. This involves reading the text very carefully for any oversights or inconsistencies, which also presupposes that students know what to look for. Students should also be looking to develop new ways of researching a given subject. The most suitable teaching method for this form of knowledge is the lecture method, given that students must simply understand the procedure before they can do it themselves. This is a perfect time for telling, when students are deficient in a very basic form of knowledge, which, in this case is both simple and essential. Finally, metacognitive knowledge refers to the understanding of cognition in general, as well as one’s own cognition, self-knowledge – how one learns best – and strategic knowledge. Students should remember how they have been taught different disciplines like history and religion in the past. They should understand and apply how and where they learn best. How does a specific student learn best? Do they work well alone, or with others? Do they thrive in group settings, or through lecture? None of these dichotomies are exclusive by any means, but rather they ask the ‘where,’ ‘when,’ and ‘how’ of learning. Students should be actively participating with the learning process, and be devoted to furthering their own learning, attentive towards how they need to improve. This can be done through meeting with students and speaking with them about their feelings towards their progress in the class and with the content, or through written assessments. For the purposes of the course I will be teaching on Tibet, it will be absolutely essential that they have a deep level of introspection and self-analysis concerning strengths, weaknesses, interests and prior experiences. I cannot, however, place the onus completely on them – I must also take an active role in cultivating the metacognitive element. To this end, assessment will become an important facet of the class, and will be addressed in Chapter III. Through something as simple as asking students if a lesson or lecture makes sense, I can help them identify knowledge gaps and help them express questions that persist. Connecting new information on Tibet back to preexisting ideas will also be essential to effective learning. I explored the concept of history as a discipline once when teaching about Tibetan history. Eliciting answers from students about their experiences with history instruction in high school created a perfect opportunity for students to connect their previous experiences to Tibetan history. Teaching this final kind of knowledge will find students working on a very personal level, as in the level of small groups and face-to-face interactions. Individual attention, either from other students and/or the teacher will be important for guiding students to realizations about their own meta-cognitive knowledge. Group interaction is not the only way to go about exploring metacognitive knowledge; the Socratic method is also perfectly suited for this process. Given the highly investigative form of the question-centered Socratic style, students must not only come up with answers, but must also explain how and why their answers make sense to them. This kind of inquiry requires a great deal of self-reflection. Given this layout, the primary the focus of the course will be on the factual content and structure, with a keen interest in the learner as an individual. Procedural knowledge, although important, will not dominate class time in the ways that the other three forms of knowledge will. To this end, I must grapple with how I choose to organize the relationship between facts and structures in the course. Will I start from the facts and move the students into thinking about larger abstract ideas when they have a substantial amount of prerequisite information, or will I create a ‘need to know’ by dealing with larger issues (some listed below) that prompt students to find out the missing information? This question will be addressed further in the curriculum section. Procedural knowledge and meta-cognitive knowledge will both be important elements to the classroom, but will transpire in different ways. Procedural knowledge will be explained when the time comes to research a final project. Meta-cognitive knowledge will be created, analyzed, and evaluated continually throughout the course through teaching styles, face-to-face interaction, group, and independent work. Factual knowledge and conceptual knowledge will dominate classroom instruction time. A course on Tibet is heavy in factual disciplinary knowledge; a long list of names, dates, events, institutions, traditions and practices is important. Of course, given the short scope of the class, only so much of this list can be incorporated into one’s knowledge – indeed, the mastery of even the most basic information on Tibet takes at least one lifetime to master. Conceptual knowledge is important because it contains the overarching organizational structures that students will carry with them. These are the same structures that students will then use to incorporate and organize new information. Another important aspect of the classroom will be assessing the extent to which students grasp these forms of knowledge. Though I am not clear on precisely the form or methodology the assessment element will take, it will be an essential topic (as I noted earlier) in Chapter III. The conceptual form of knowledge also defines some of the larger themes of Tibet – not only the four categories of history, religion, culture, and politics that are (for this course) the primary guiding subjects of exploration, but also general ideas that come about during the study of Tibet. Establishing this method for assigning teaching styles will be essential to this research portion of my Division III.

The Socratic Method
Can one really answer a question with another question? The Socratic method of classroom instruction relies on the question as the initial method of discovery – a discovery that is reliant on a student reaction to prompt further questions. The instructor uses a series of sequential and pointed inquiries to elicit student responses that delve further than “yes” and “no.” When a student suggests a solution to a problem or merely states one of their conceptions about a given topic, the instructor asks them to elaborate, or challenges their statements, prompting further explication from the student. This method unearths more about the way the individual student forms ideas, giving insight to both the teacher (who optimally is always striving to learn more about the individual learner) and student (who optimally is always striving to learn more about the way they themselves learn). The Socratic question places students in a position of greater responsibility for their own learning. Some argue that the name for this instructional style is not in fact Socratic, since “Socrates’ goal was to expose a flaw in the logic of his interlocutors to justify his own.” Following this definition, the Socratic method is not a tool for exposing students’ understandings free of judgment or expectation for the ‘right answer.’ Indeed, Socrates’ original conversational stages included 1. Wonder, 2. Hypothesis, 3. Refutation & cross-examination, 4. Accept/reject hypothesis 5. Act accordingly. Taking steps three and four into consideration echoes this point. Still, others argue that the Socratic method is in fact a useful tool for teaching students not just what to know, but how to think about it in a more open-ended sense. As is the case with any of the instructional methods under consideration in this chapter, there are multiple ways of interpreting their purpose and use. For the sake of this work, I will follow the latter definition of the term ‘Socratic.’ Within this context, the Socratic method is intended to encourage and elicit student responses, exploration and analysis of one’s own way of thinking about a given topic through pointed, sequential questions. Although there is little variability in the structure of the Socratic method (we will analyze the structure momentarily), it must naturally change every time a teacher uses it. The definition used in this work is chosen because it presents the greatest potential for student learning, especially when there is no right answer or intent to debunk a student’s logic. The structure of the Socratic style of classroom instruction generally consists of an instructor question, a student reaction, and a teacher prompt to further inquire into the nature of the student’s understanding. One should continue along this line of questioning as long as possible, creating a lesson out of exposing – without judgment – students’ way of thinking about problems or ideas. Similarly, Emily van Zee and Jim Minstrell mention the “Reflective Toss” as a similar method of inquiry. Their model begins with a student statement, is followed by a teacher question and is finished by a further student elaboration. The role of the teacher is that of a fact-checker, who, upon hearing student statements, delves further into them. This exploration of the answers given by classmates is done in a non-judgmental way in order to keep students active in the conversation. The teacher takes on an investigative role, prodding deeper and deeper. During such an investigation, students may come upon their own questions, which the teacher should be equipped to answer. Hence, it is important for the teacher to have a strong mastery over the subject matter, not only to be able to field student questions, but also to know which questions to ask in particular.

There are many potential benefits to be gained from this kind of classroom instruction. For, although it may seem very unconventional (in the sense that one might expect a teacher to instruct, and not ask questions of students), it can be used to encourage students to clarify their ideas, examine a wide variety of views, and also helps students to understand their own ways of thinking as well as the ideas of others in the discussions, readings, literatures, and so forth. Although the primary mode of inquiry is through questions, the instructor often repeats student statements, interjects information where appropriate and encourages other students to speak out by asking further questions and continually probing their understandings of problems and issues. Teachers must have some degree of flexibility, for while they may have specific goals and objectives in mind, the Socratic method often requires that the instructor adapt their goals dependent on the reactions elicited from the students. Another potential benefit of this style is that it can foster an environment that is conducive and respectful towards students’ ever-changing ideas. When students speak up in class and respond to these prompts or “tosses,” the answers are considered and pursued in a non-judgmental way by the instructor. Due to this, students begin to respect the ideas of their peers, as they begin see the potential validity in each statement. These present the best face of the Socratic method, but it would be an oversight not to point out some of the problems this instructional style can have. While the student-centered question-based method of teaching seems like an excellent model for the classroom, it may also have some shortcomings. This method has teachers spending almost all their time with questions, bringing a classic critique against this approach into the forefront: if teachers spend all their time teaching how to learn, will they actually cover any facts, data or basic concepts? Further, if the teacher is spending their time investigating one student’s knowledge, what is the experience for the other students? If they do not feel addressed or engaged, they may lose interest quickly. Will this method enable students to understand a rich body of factual content knowledge? Indeed, if the students never get an understanding of the factual content, or if the teacher becomes sidetracked on tangent after tangent, the simplest of goals is tossed by the wayside. Additionally, not all students are suited for following only the Socratic method, and the persistent questions may serve to confuse or frustrate students if not conducted properly. What can always be said about any one teaching strategy is that it is not right for everyone, hence the need for a repertoire of instructional styles. For example, where the Socratic method leaves off with providing a strong sense of organizational structure, the lecture method can help fill that structure with the factual knowledge that is necessary. Investigative projects like those found in group interaction methods can be a great help for exploring some of the questions posed with the Socratic method. Finally, it is essential to understand how the Socratic method can be useful for teaching students about Tibet. Following the taxonomy outlined earlier, this method most readily correlates to developing levels of conceptual knowledge and meta-cognitive knowledge. These two kinds of knowledge require a more personal level of exploration than factual or procedural knowledge, which, in contrast, are categories requiring less personal involvement. Due to the fact that meta-cognitive and conceptual knowledge both require the analysis, evaluation and creation of ways of thinking and overriding structural frameworks, they are prime for this method of instruction. The Socratic method can unearth the ways in which students organize different ideas, and can also expose what a student knows, what they think they know, and what they need to find out. Given the question-based, introspective nature of the Socratic style, it seems best suited for use when teaching students about Tibetan history, religion and politics. Using these open-ended questions to elicit student explanation, one can delve deeply into students’ understandings of difficult subject areas where a ‘right answer’ is not to be found. For example, engaging the students in a line of questioning about the nature of the political relationship between China and Tibet since 1950, inquiring about the complex connections between the four schools of Tibetan Buddhism, or asking students to explain how the Mongolians interacted with Tibetan domestic affairs provides opportunities for the instructor to investigate the depth of their understanding. This also creates a chance to see how aptly students can use historical records and texts on Tibetan politics to come to their conclusions. Given that history is often being remade and revised in order to serve political purposes, this method would be most aptly suited for instruction in these areas. Through the Socratic method, students will be able to question and investigate the presentation of different renderings of Tibetan Histories.

The Group Interaction Method
The second of three teaching strategies under consideration is the group interaction style, also called the cooperative learning method. This teaching style relies on grouping students together in order to encourage learning on a social peer-to-peer level. Optimally, it encourages students to explore content together while simultaneously holding each student accountable for their own learning. I use this term “group interaction” to define a certain synthesis of various structures found throughout the literature. They all vary to different degrees in terms of how they tackle the role of the teacher, as well as how they define the purpose of these exercises. There is no one singular “cooperative method,” and each style varies from the next. Some versions of this style have students discussing a topic, or investigating a problem to come to a common explanation. I selected certain methods because I felt they properly addressed many major points, and took full advantage of learning in a peer-centered, social context. The cooperative process, as defined here, can be loosely understood in terms of six steps, as defined by Ivy Tan, Christine Lee and Shlomo Sharan. First, when students are put in teams of at least three, they are given a multifaceted question that is posed to the whole class. Three students are certainly preferable to two, due to the fact that the third student can deepen the pool of knowledge the group participants share and can serve as a tiebreaker. Next, groups plan their investigation, wherein every student in the group is given a role or a task to accomplish. The students themselves should assign these individual roles, but since students will take cues from the instructor, the teacher should help negotiate these roles, assuring that each student has a task to complete. The main point here is to assure that all students gain an equal opportunity for learning. Third, each grouping executes the investigation and moves onto the fourth step, which is planning the presentation of their information. This can take many forms – an exhibit, a skit, role play, construction of a model, demonstration experiment, written report, posters, a PowerPoint presentation, etc. Students then execute their presentations in front of the class, and the teachers and students evaluate the projects. During this final sixth part of the process, students and teachers should be looking for four major points in the presentation: the final product, the knowledge acquired, how well the investigation was carried out and the experiences of students during the process. The teacher should be a guide and assist students when it is necessary, however before going into when exactly it is necessary, one should first know that the sharing and construction of knowledge must take a horizontal – as opposed to vertical – form. To give an example, in the lecture style of classroom instruction, the dissemination of knowledge is very much vertical: the teacher stands at the top, and the students must take in the knowledge given out from the instructor. In a horizontal classroom, however, the focus is moved from the teacher to the individual,  and what individuals can accomplish when working together in unison with others toward a common goal. The teacher is as much a part of the construction of knowledge as the students are. To what extent a teacher should provide structure to students will vary from one context to another. However, when students are flagging in managing their small groups, when they have difficulty with their investigation or presentation, or when other potential problems (which are to be discussed) arise, the teacher should step in to provide some guidance. This method can have many positive implications for the classroom. It is used in order to put the responsibility of understanding on the individual and group levels. The underlying concept is that a group of students has a wider depth and breadth of knowledge combined that they call pull from than that of the individual student. The social nature of this method is also intended to cultivate a positive and pleasurable learning experience for the student. Group interaction and the feeling of inclusion can help build resilience to adversity, foster greater success, social competence, empathy, responsiveness and communication skills, greater flexibility, self-reflection and the capacity to conceptualize abstractly when solving problems. This way of teaching – in the way I have defined it – is centered on the idea that learning, when done socially, is fun. The group setting also provides an atmosphere that may feel less threatening than the wider classroom scenario. Being in close contact with peers on a smaller individual level can allow students to express ideas they may be shy about if they were in a more open, exposed environment. Students involved in these kinds of lessons, who have found group investigation useful, felt positively about their levels of achievement, their social relationships, their learning skills and their ability to pursue knowledge. All of these positives are not without their potential shortcomings, however. The cooperative method can carry some serious complications along with it. This method is weakened by the fact that students will at one point or another, study alone – they simply cannot always study in small teams. Some feel uncomfortable about new social scenarios created by the formation of a group, and prefer to work alone. Some of the problems concerning this classroom instruction method enter into the realm of personal preference as to which teaching style is best suited for the individual. Others still feel that students lacked the expertise that a teacher could provide. Working and depending on others can also sometimes lead to academic freeloading, bickering or exclusionary tactics between students, which greatly hinders the academic environment. This is precisely why an essential part of the structure is for the teacher to work alongside students in their small groups to ensure that all students have tasks, and share an equal degree of involvement with the group. Group interaction disintegrates quickly without an equal distribution of work. In order to combat these problems, the instructor should develop tasks that require the whole group to rely on each individual member, create an environment for face-to-face interaction and closely assess individual responsibility. Face-to-face interaction is vital for the same reason that interpersonal skills factor into the cooperative effort – it provides a meaningful connection to learning as every student in the classroom is interacting and transferring knowledge. The assessment of individual responsibility gives the teacher a sense of the distribution of tasks, and can work with groups to even the weight. When analyzing the group interaction method in terms of its use when teaching Tibet, it has the potential to be a useful instructional tool. The emphasis on multifaceted questions as a basis for investigation is perfectly suited for Tibetology, given that there is often more than one answer for any question, and a topic like Tibetan history can instantly bring multiple subjects under one umbrella: religion, environmental concerns, and nationalist politics, for example. Historical events require multiple conditions to occur; one can never find a single source for any event. The dense nature of subjects like history and politics make the cooperative instructional method perfectly suited for teaching students about factual content-heavy curriculum on Tibet. This cooperative method of instruction is perfect for teaching students about sensitive topics like Tibetan culture. Rather than give out answers and definitions, or vainly attempt to explain culture by vainly drawing vast generalizations, it is much more productive to teach pupils questions, and have them explore and investigate, using the question as a starting point. It requires the student to ask: “What do we know? What do we think we know? What do we need to find out?” This style of discovery requires making sense of information for oneself, and comprehending it to a degree where one feels comfortable speaking and presenting in front of the class. Rather than use a top-heavy structure to teach about Tibet, I suggest that students will find it more meaningful to work with each other and understand content in a more cooperative way.

Lecture
Recently, some educators have looked upon lecturing as a plague on the face of pedagogy. Due to its traditionally top-heavy, vertically oriented hierarchy with teacher at the top and student at the bottom, some even advise that the teacher abstain from lecture completely. However, in certain circumstances, lectures can be precisely what the student needs to fill gaps in their understanding of a subject. As we have examined the uses of the Socratic method and group interaction method, what does the lecture format have to offer to the teacher? We will examine the structure of the lecture method, the positives and shortcomings it may carry with it, as well as how it can be useful for teaching Tibet. The lecture model I propose here is mixed, meaning that it incorporates student responses and input, questions and opportunities both inside and outside the class to apply what has been learned. I follow this definition because in my course on Tibet, I do not plan to have one teaching style that I use for one day and then a new one for the next – this betrays my goals. I suggest that covering many different subjects and ideas of varying complexity requires a hybridized, multi-faceted teaching methodology; a synthesis of different teaching styles. Hence, every instructional method I will use will be mixed, and none will be excluded from my lesson plans, unless deemed inappropriate. The point of the lecture is primarily to provide students with understandings of specific facts, methods and procedures, as well as guide and draw intellectual inquiry from the students. Lectures are most appropriate when the teacher’s objective is to present new information, when that information is not readily accessible and also when it is necessary to generate some enthusiasm about the subject area. Lecture is also a very useful tool when the lecture precedes a task students will do on their own, and also if the information is original or must be assembled from various sources. Furthermore, by presenting contrasting cases, a teacher can create student awareness of the voids and gaps in their own understanding, presenting a perfect moment for lecture. By analyzing two differentiated sets of cases (for example, by analyzing different records of history from the Tibetan and Chinese perspectives), students become open to hearing a lecture about the main points of each, how they differ, and how these differences are directly tied to political and cultural concerns. Further, students are more sensitive to information they may have missed, had they not prepared by studying these cases. All of these contexts for lecture rely on a teacher’s expertise and students’ lack of information. Students often enter the classroom with little to no preexisting knowledge about a very specific content area (like Tibet). Indeed, how can one set out on a journey of self-motivated and self-directed exploration if they have no background, and no concept of where to start? If students are asked to do such a task in this state, they may find they have been given a long enough rope to tie themselves up with. For this very reason, it is essential to use multiple instruction methods. Some successful conditions for the lecture itself include beginning with a brief prerequisite information review, exposing what students are familiar with. It is remarkably important to understand what students know already in order to connect new information to prior knowledge, creating what Kenneth Kiewra calls “external connections.” Explicitly stating a set of goals in clear, unambiguous language sets the focus and pace of the lecture. It is important to present new information in small steps, continually referencing it back to what they know, while simultaneously moving the specificity of the content from broad to specific, and from simple to subtle. To this end, the mechanics of the presentation should be sound, replete with clear and detailed instruction, pronunciation and careful articulation. The lecture method I am describing has no room for an arrogant teacher who must never be challenged. Eliciting student responses and communication is a must, as well as providing students with active practice (a perfect opportunity for the group interaction method), and providing feedback on student statements. Reviewing the main points of a presentation is an excellent way of finishing up. These conditions do not exhaust the list, but simply suggest a useful procedure for lecture style instruction. They provide for a consideration of the needs of the teacher giving the presentation, as well as of the students who must interpret and make sense of the information in their own terms. There is often a sentimental nostalgia attached to descriptions of teachers using this instructional strategy. It conjures up images of a cantankerous old genius who speaks “with enthusiasm and authority about a subject they love.”  This classroom conductor is charismatic, humorous and devoted to enhancing their students’ conceptualizations of information, while simultaneously providing charm and cultivating classroom interest. The role of the teacher in this method is a fairly obvious one; they are the focal point of the dissemination of knowledge. This is not to say then that the teacher’s role holds only one dimension, or that he/she should dominate every part of the classroom. The teacher is given a higher level of autonomy and independence, but with it comes the responsibility to inquire into students’ understandings and test and challenge their abilities. The teacher must bring whatever preexisting knowledge the students have into the fold – otherwise, their lecture was pointless from the beginning. The teacher may use tools like memorization or drills to get students to think about certain concepts or practices effortlessly, thereby “automatizing [sic] aspects of problem –solving, and so freeing the mind for more abstract thoughts.” Some lecturers even view the instructional method itself as a tool, citing the importance of the “good lecture”  which is so impassioned, charismatic and enthusiastic that it compels students to become interested in the content. This speaks to one notion that teaching is “at bottom, performance art.” In the end, the role of the teacher within the lecture format is that of master of information and ruler over the classroom to a large extent – but this carries with it the added task of the lecturer to be a talented speaker – interesting, focused, organized, curious about student ideas and previous experiences, and open to new questions, dissent and independent thinking. I will address the qualities that I hope to exhibit as a teacher during the discussion of the curriculum. Lectures can have great benefits in certain contexts. Lectures set a clear expectation of and access point (the teacher) to the discourse. They give students straight answers and much needed content to fill gaps in their content and procedural knowledge. If a student has to know how to light a Bunsen burner, how to conduct research online, how to properly fold a khata, the best way to learn may just be as simple as being shown how to do the task, and then doing the task oneself. Lecturers often suggest that the teacher is an irreplaceable model of learning and education. Having this “master learner” at the front of the classroom, teaching what they have learned to an audience of learners is designed to give students prerequisite knowledge they may not be equipped with. Particularly with the successful use of the aforementioned method of the impassioned lecture, the teacher can truly become a character, and optimally, a legend. There are many criticisms of the lecture method of instruction, however. One occasionally encounters a stereotypically bad lecturer who is stodgy, inflexible, and closed-minded; a speaker who knows one way of functioning in the classroom, and chooses to run with it at the exclusion of all others. Some educators who have come to use only constructivist methods suggest that teaching by lecture is intrinsically cut and dry, painfully dull and overbearing, and always delivered by someone who is hopelessly self-important and must dominate every aspect of instruction. Similarly, the top-heavy lecture style of instruction can lead to a disregard of student interest and prior knowledge – which is precisely what this strategy is meant to combat. To this end, a study of students’ claims against the use of lecture suggested that they are irked when a professor gives a test that does not correspond to the lecture, when the lecture is disorganized, when the lecture is delivered in monotone and when lectures are too fast, and the lecturer does not slow down, even when asked to. These negatives represent the potential pitfalls of lecture, and the ways in which it can break a classroom. These concerns are not just the musings of academics and education experts; they are very much my own concerns about lecture, as well. It is for this reason that I emphasize balance between instruction styles, because no one teaching method is perfect. When consulting the taxonomy I followed for mapping out course goals, I noted that lecture was most useful for establishing factual knowledge and procedural knowledge. These two forms rely mostly on facts and terms, how to use specific techniques or perform tasks. In this case, open discovery of how to do research online for academic peer-review sources may not be the best route – indeed, simply showing students how to do it in a demonstration would be a much faster, more straightforward way. It is duly noted that lecture can be employed in other ways – for example, group work or procedural tasks can be followed up with discussion and a lecture to clarify questions and gaps in students’ understanding. While I am not opposed to using lecture in this way, given the scant classroom time I will be working with (twelve hours of instruction time), I prefer to relegate lecture to the procedural and factual elements of the classroom. For, while I do want to blend these teaching methods, I simultaneously also hope to understand how I can employ and understand each method individually. The lecture method is best served for teaching Tibet in largely two ways. First, it is very useful for teaching students how to research social science articles, and how to conduct analyses of anthropological and ethnographic studies on Tibet, which are procedural elements and important skills for Tibetology. Students new to the realm of researching sources for their works absolutely must learn this essential skill. Secondly, lecture will be important in giving students a strong background on the basics of Tibet – demographics, cultural norms, and some views of daily life – as well as explanation of essential concepts within Tibetan history and religion. From the historical point, students may not readily see connections between events closely related to each other, or even how some events are conditioned by other occurrences hundreds of years in the past. As a student who has spent time examining a large number of these connections and their consequences, I am in a prime position to teach students the content to fill both subtle and basic voids in their understanding due to a lack of experience in the subject. Similarly, dense philosophical concepts like that of emptiness are going to require an explanation of some of the basic root concepts. In a content-rich subject like the study of Tibet, there will be ample room to lecture while also keeping an even balance with Socratic and group interaction methods.

Conclusion
In this review, we have taken a look at the three different instructional styles that will guide my course on Tibetan history, religion, culture and politics. The Socratic method, the group interaction and the lecture style are three very broad, divergent methods of instructional teaching. A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy for Educational Objectives serves as the basis and foundation for determining the goals that I have for my students and the class as a whole. The three teaching styles, drawn from the cognitive psychology and cognitive science literature serve as the method through which I can address these goals in the actual classroom. We have seen how these methods differ in the forms of knowledge they can impart, their potential benefits and downfalls (which will be elaborated upon in the curriculum discussion), as well as how the role of the teacher changes, and the ways in which these goals affect the teaching styles I will be using. The literature will serve as a foundation on which my curriculum will be built. This discussion has been one of exploring the theoretical underpinnings that will support my course. Finally, I would like to address a few issues before moving on to the discussion of curriculum. Most importantly, the issues of balance, the role I will take as teacher, and roughly how the curriculum will take shape (although more on this will be presented in the second chapter) are of particular concern. More and more, I feel that this project has more to do with balance than it does with teaching, or even Tibet. I am not only arguing for using these styles to teach content on Tibet, but I am also arguing that all three of these styles must be used in concert with one another to create a well-rounded instructional session that will cover structural as well as factual content. I seek balance between teaching facts and structures, balance between telling and having students explore, and a balance between what my goals are, and those of my future pupils; what I eschew are extremes. If taken to the extreme, lectures are indeed boring, and stifle student interest in favor of what the instructor feels is appropriate. However, when constructivist notions of classroom instruction are used exclusively, similar results occur. At the extreme end of student-centered classrooms and group interaction, pupils are taught lessons deficient in factual knowledge, wherein “‘teaching nothing is okay because it allowed for self-discovery.’” When used to the exclusion of all other methods and instructional strategies, both the student-centered, and teacher- centered models of classroom instruction are detrimental. I suggest that any method taken to its extreme and used exclusively above all others is a promise for a terrible learning and teaching experience. It is diversity that makes the classroom experience colorful and rewarding. What is needed in this context is a balance between these extremes – a ‘middle path’ between more traditional and self-discovery models. My role as a teacher must be equally balanced. This role will change as the instructional styles change, as each finds the teacher performing different tasks and fulfilling different roles. When the Socratic method is used, my primary role as teacher will be an investigator, constantly asking students to reflect on the ideas they posit, and how they make sense. I will be openly working with all the answers I receive, not turning any of them away outright, but helping students to work through their misconceptions and brilliant ideas alike. When the group interaction method comes up, I will take a more backstage role, primarily serving to negotiate the roles students take within the group. In this context, I must ensure that all the students are sharing an equal amount of work, and help guide groups through the investigation and presentation processes. When lecturing, I will maintain a more central role in the classroom, as we discussed earlier. In short, all of the positive qualities of the teacher that I have mentioned within this literature review are all qualities that I hope to embody as a teacher. In the following section on the initial curriculum, I will be building the actual lessons that will be taught in class, including the texts students will read, the topics we will cover, and the questions I will present to them. In the exploration of this curriculum, I will reveal how the literature in this review will translate into the actual classroom instruction. What follows is my contribution to the ongoing dialogue I have researched, and it will clearly reflect the theoretical underpinnings I have used.