“You get what you get. On the first day you go into the class and there they are; it’s up to you to teach them.”¹

However much experience you may have acquired as a teacher, one of the biggest challenges is preparing for a new module. This challenge is compounded especially when your cohort of students is not homogeneous (i.e. students from different disciplines, different levels, different backgrounds such as prior academic knowledge and work experience). Such differences often translate into different learning abilities, expectations and ultimately, learning outcomes.

This article is written with the experience of having taught a Singapore Studies module for the first time in Semester 1 of AY 2003/2004. I will focus on some of the problems encountered in teaching a heterogeneous cohort and the management of a module, particularly a new one.

Background

The Module. The module which I co-taught with a colleague was SSD 1203 “Real Estate Development and Investment Law”. The purpose of this Singapore Studies module was not only to provide content knowledge but also to enable students to gain an appreciation of the critical issues confronting Singapore and develop analytical skills. The module offered the students an inter-disciplinary approach to the subject by looking at Singapore’s historical, geographical and political development (See http://www.fas.nus.edu.sg/ssm/).

The Students. The following were the features of my cohort of 147 students taking SSD 1203:

• Students of various levels (Year 1–4) from various faculties in NUS—Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, NUS Business School, School of Computing, School of Design and Environment, Faculty of Engineering and Faculty of Science;
  
  
• Only a minority had had previous exposure to a Law module;
  
  
• The foreign students did not have as much background knowledge on Singapore as the local students.

Some Specific Challenges and adjustments

Teething problems. In the initial weeks, several students asked me over email: “Why is there so much Law?” I responded by reminding them about the module’s title. Though I was initially amused, the students’ question revealed that they had opted for the module without realising what the module was about! This was somewhat disconcerting, as full details of the module were available on the Integrated Virtual Learning Environment (IVLE).

Obtaining references. Students were reluctant to make their way to the C J Koh Law Library where most of the listed references were. Instead, I was often swamped by requests for the materials to be reproduced for them. However, I steadfastly refused to provide these, thus reminding the students of the importance of independent and self-directed learning.

Just give us the answer! Since the module emphasised the development of analytical and legal argumentation skills, there were no specific outcomes or one ‘right’ answer to the tutorial questions. This made the students anxious about answering the questions initially. However, with practice and continued emphasis of the learning objectives of the module, the students became accustomed to the style of approaching the tutorial questions.

“But what do you want?” As a result of their unfamiliarity with the subject, students constantly posed this question to my colleague and I. This made me more aware of my expectations of the students and helped me ensure that these expectations tallied with the intended learning outcomes discussed above.

Difficulty of scheduling make-up classes. This was indeed a practical problem when a class fell on a public holiday. Some solutions included webcasting the lecture or scheduling a Saturday tutorial.

An enriching learning experience for all

Tutorials were bonding time. I decided at the beginning of the module that pre-arranging tutorial sub-groups to comprise students from different faculties will result in more productive discussions. With some simple ice-breakers and self introductions, the initial awkwardness was overcome. The upshot was that new and lasting (cross-faculty) friendships were formed.

Varied perspectives. I received a myriad of fascinating responses to both the tutorial questions as well as questions posted on the IVLE. These responses reflected the students’ different backgrounds. Students majoring in Economics would focus on the economic viability of a particular legislative provision, while those majoring in Sociology would highlight the sociological implications of a legislative provision. I could also tell which responses came from the Engineering and Science students. They would often post responses such as “Definitely the plaintiff would succeed in this case!” This could be due to their training to provide concrete and definite solutions to problems. In such cases, I had to intervene and point out that it’s seldom a definite outcome could be forecast in legal disputes; rather, much depended on the technique of legal argumentation adopted. By doing so, I made all the students realise that developing skills in legal analysis and argumentation is more important than arriving at a specific solution or outcome.

Useful lessons for the teacher

In summary, it is not possible for any teacher teaching a new module to a heterogeneous cohort to foresee and be prepared for every situation which may arise. However, to enhance your teaching and the students’ learning experience, the following are some useful information which you could bear in mind when teaching a heterogeneous group²:

• The students’ age: this can mean differing levels of social and emotional development;
  
  
• The students’ learning styles (visual, auditory, concrete or abstract): this can help you determine your teaching methods and learning activities to facilitate maximum learning for as many students as possible and;
  
  
• The students’ thought patterns: this can help you understand better their cognitive development.

With this first and highly rewarding experience in teaching a cross-faculty module, I can appreciate better, the following:

“…the diversity of…opinions…does not arise from some being endowed with a larger share of reason than others, but solely from this, that we conduct our thoughts along different ways, and do not fix our attention on the same objects.”³

¹ Davis, James R. (1997). Better Teaching, More Learning. American Council on Education/Oryx Press Series on Higher Education. p. 61.

Back to the article

² Ibid., p 62.

Back to the article

³ Descartes, Rene. (1637). ‘Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason, and Seeking Truth in the Sciences’. Part 1. http://www.4literature.net/Rene_Descartes/Discourse_on_the_Method/. (Last accessed: 19 January 2004).

Back to the article