Louise Milone: Teaching Philosophy

I have had the privilege of teaching two very different student cohorts who were learning within diverse study environments and with distinct personal considerations. For seven semesters, I was a teaching assistant at the University of Georgia, assisting professors with their American history survey courses, including discussion classes for which I developed and implemented the lesson plans. This class is a requirement for all Georgia state university students. Twice I also taught a college-level history survey course for a group of women incarcerated in a Georgia prison. I developed the theme and syllabus for the class – Women in American History – and put together a 192-page “book” of primary sources as the base material for the class. The program is sponsored by Common Good Atlanta; based on the Clemente prison teaching program. I have been invited back for Fall 2023.

It may seem that students experiencing these disparate learning environments would require equally diverse teaching methods. To some extent, that is true. For students who are incarcerated, it is important to remember that their environment is frequently noisy, chaotic, and sometimes violent. My classes in prison have been diverse, including students from every class, ethnic group, and level of previous education beyond high school. They have included students’ educational backgrounds, from getting a GED in prison to being doctoral candidates. However, I believe the basic requirements for a class environment conducive to learning are the same for all cohorts.

It is imperative to create an atmosphere of respect, trust, and safety, thereby engendering the kind of environment that fosters open discussions in which every student feels safe in expressing their thinking about the material provided. Creating that atmosphere is my responsibility. If I expect every student to respect the dignity, privacy, and talents of their fellow students, I have to show that same respect while maintaining control of my classroom. Since I feel that respect for all my students unless proven otherwise, it becomes natural to engender that atmosphere and to continue to foster it throughout the semester. 

Because I approach history as an intellectually contested space, active learning is a necessity in my history classroom. That does not mean that there are no established facts. Events happened at particular times involving identified people in a defined location. Interpreting how those events happened, why historical figures acted as they did, and how space and time had an impact on events form the nexus of historians’ work. Student awareness of the methods and materials historians use to do their work makes their educated evaluation of the presented material possible, whether it comes from academic or public sources. These principles underpin my activities for all my classes.

 One of my major learning goals is to give students the tools to write a historical essay in which they fashion a thesis, make an argument, and back it up with evidence. This is not just a skill for success in history classes, it is an important life skill. I make that point by examples – writing a memo to protect your job, budget, or staffing levels or proposing learning a new skill, or starting a new project in a professional environment. 

For historians, primary sources are the fundamental building blocks of their research. Learning to analyze the who, what, why, and for whom of a primary source is a basic skill necessary to learning history. I provide a 12-point guide to analyzing a primary source at the beginning of each semester, along with similar material on analyzing secondary sources, taking notes in college, and writing a thesis statement. As an example of a class on analyzing primary sources, I did the following: 

After explaining the difference between primary and secondary sources and how they are used in historical research and writing, we reviewed the “Meeting of the Black Ministers,” and “How to Analyze a Primary Source.” I broke the class into groups, where they worked together to answer the questions raised by each of the 12 points. Each group then reported their findings to the class (combination of Peer Instruction, Content Form and Function Outlines, Case Based Learning, and Decision-Making Activity). As a class, we then responded to each group’s report. Their homework assignment was my method of assessment. The students analyzed a provided 1863 letter to President Lincoln asking him to create a “Freedmen’s Bureau.” I provided the original handwritten copy and a typed text of the letter. Most did very well. (Learning for the Individual Working Alone). 

In a second example using active learning, during a class on the Cold War, I presented material on the Joseph McCarthy hearings. The material for this lesson was Margaret Chase Smith’s 1950 Senate floor statement in which she talked about the importance of respect for the truth, the rights of all Americans, and why protecting those rights superseded considerations of party, her strong Republican loyalty notwithstanding. Since all students are now accustomed to receiving information through technology as well as from written material, I started with a short lecture providing context, reminding them about the national and international conditions that led up to the Cold War that we learned in the previous class, and about who McCarthy was and why he held these hearings (Retrieval Practice). I then played the video that showed him questioning Annie Lee Moss, a low-level federal employee. 

Next, we went through each of Chase’s passages, pausing at each one (Pause Procedure) to discuss it together as a class, what Smith was saying, why she would want to make a particular point, and what they thought about that point. Was Smith right to make the speech? What was she risking politically, and personally? Since McCarthy continued his hearings after Smith made that speech, was it worth the risks? (a form of Think-Pair-Share). The discussion was brisk and interesting. Most concluded that she did the right thing. They asked if she was risking her Senate seat. I pointed out that she could have lost the next election, but also that she had just won a six-year term. Most still believed she took a courageous stand but also pointed out she likely would not lose re-election just because of this speech. They were right. She did not. Most also believed it was worth the risk because she was being true to herself, standing up for the rights of the people who were being targeted who did not have McCarthy’s power to fight back, and that Smith left a legacy for them as Americans and as women. A few thought she was “that time’s Liz Cheney” (Decision-Making Activity).

I applied to the doctoral program at the University of Georgia when I was 68, started the program at 69, and will receive my Ph.D. at 74. I find it astonishing that at this advanced age, I have found my calling. Working with my students energizes me, gives me hope for the future of my country and my planet, keeps me thinking, learning, and writing. I am so privileged to share the invigorating experience of learning with my students. Therefore, I am dedicated to providing an inclusive learning environment, the basis of any successful educational situation.