Teaching Portfolio - University of Arizona



Teaching Portfolio

Monika J. Ulrich

Department of Sociology

Prepared for the Undergraduate Studies Committee

February 21, 2008

Table of Contents

Curriculum Vitae 3

Teaching Statement 6

Overview 6

Philosophy 6

Evidence of Teaching Effectiveness--Quantitative 9

Evidence of Teaching Effectiveness--Qualitative 7

Professional Development 7

Sample Course Materials 10

Introduction to Sociology (Sociology 101) 11

Movie: Trading Places 12

Gender Identities, Interactions, and Relationships (Sociology 222) 14

Syllabus 15

Paper #2 22

A Doll’s House Assignment 24

Gender Terminology Worksheet 25

Sociology of Families and Households (Sociology 321) 27

Recognizing the Author’s Personal Opinion Worksheet 28

Costs of Childcare 31

Sociology of Gender (Sociology 459) 37

Syllabus 38

Paper #3 50

Sociology of the Body (Sociology 448) 51

Term Paper (Summer 2007) 52

Syllabus (Spring 2008) 55

Quantitative Evaluations (Attached) 72

Curriculum Vitae

Monika J. Ulrich, M.A.

Department of Sociology Ph: (510) 282-5443

Social Science Bldg. 400 FAX: (520) 621-9875

PO Box 210027 mjulrich@u.arizona.edu

University of Arizona u.arizona.edu/~mjulrich

Tucson, Arizona 85721-0027

Education

B.S., Sociology, Brigham Young University, 2002

M.A., Sociology, University of Arizona, May 2005

Thesis title: Foster Parent Satisfaction: Differences by Gender

Doctoral Candidate, Sociology, University of Arizona

Working Dissertation Title: Dual Daddies: Low-Income Non-Residential Biological and Residential Non-Biological Fatherhood.

Comprehensive Exams

Fall 2005 Sociology of Gender Honors Pass

Spring 2006 Sociology of the Family Pass

Research

My research centers on the intersection of the family and gender. I am particularly interested in men’s reproductive experiences and their transition to fatherhood. I have used a broad range of qualitative and quantitative methods in my research, including interviews, ethnography, basic regression, and structural equation modeling. My dissertation focuses on how low-income men negotiate fathering roles and identities with two sets of children: their biological non-residential children and their non-biological residential children.

Academic Honors

2003 Fellowship, University of Arizona

2003-2005 Graduate Assistantship, University of Arizona

2005-Present Graduate Associateship, University of Arizona

Presentations

August 2005 International Foster Care Organization, Madison Wisconsin. “Foster Parent Satisfaction: Differences by Gender”

August 2006 American Sociological Association, Montreal, Canada. “Gender Labor: The Construction of Masculinity and Femininity in Childbirth Education Classes.”

August 2007 American Sociological Association, New York, New York. “Foster Parent Satisfaction: Differences by Gender.”

[forthcoming] April 2008 Pacific Sociological Association, Portland, Oregon. “Irresponsible Speech: Clarifying the Differences between Behavior and Identity in Sexuality Research” with Cindy Cain, Jason Crockett, Karen Gordon, Sarah Strand, and Megan Wright.

[forthcoming] April 2008 Pacific Sociological Association, Portland, Oregon. “One Skill Embedding in Sociology Courses”

[forthcoming] April 2008 Pacific Sociological Association, Portland, Oregon. “Manly Birth: Hegemonic Masculinity in Childbirth Education”

Publications

Ulrich, Monika. 2007. “Assessing the Costs of Childcare: An In Class Activity (Activity/Exercise)” in Sweet, Stephen, Marcie Pitt-Catsouphes, Joshua Mumm, Judith Casey, and Christina Matz. 2007. Teaching Work and Family: Strategies, Activities, and Syllabi. Washington DC: American Sociological Association

Ulrich, Monika. 2007. “The Differences between Sex and Gender” in Anderson, Erin and Susan J. Ferguson. 2007. Teaching the Sociology of the Body: a Collection of Syllabi, Assignments, and other Resources. Washington D.C.: American Sociological Association. P. 157

Ulrich, Monika. 2007. “Writing on the Body (Activity/Exercise)” in Anderson, Erin and Susan J. Ferguson. 2007. Teaching the Sociology of the Body: a Collection of Syllabi, Assignments, and other Resources. Washington D.C.: American Sociological Association. P. 159

Ulrich, Monika. 2007. “Family and Gender Violence Discussion” in Barbara Keating. 2007. Teaching and Gender and Violence: A Collection of Instructional Materials, 4th edition. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.

Ulrich, Monika. 2007. “Sociology of Race, Race as a Social Construct, In-Class Activity” in Cunnigen, Donald. 2007. Teaching Race and Ethnic Relations: Syllabi and Instructional Materials, 5th edition. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association. p. 359

Papers in Process

“Gender Labor: Teaching Fatherhood in Childbirth Education Classes”

Status: I am in the process of the final revision prior to journal submission

“Foster Parent Satisfaction: Differences by Gender”

Status: I am incorporating feedback I received from Families in Society

Research Experience

2003-2005 Research assistant to Sarah Soule, Ph.D. Analyzed social movement data from 1963-1987 and recent changes in state employment law.

Teaching Experience

Summer 2005 SOC 222 “Gender Identities, Interactions, and Relationships”

Fall 2005 SOC 101 “Introduction to Sociology”

Spring 2006 SOC 222 “Gender Identities, Interactions, and Relationships”

Summer 2006 SOC 321 “Sociology of Family and Households”

Fall 2006 SOC 321 “Sociology of Family and Households”

Spring 2007 SOC 459 “Sociology of Gender”

Summer 2007 SOC 448 “Sociology of the Body”

Spring 2008 SOC 448 “Sociology of the Body”

2006-Present SOC 4321 Correspondence Course: “Sociology of Family and

Households”

New Courses Developed

Sociology of the Body

Professional Memberships

American Sociological Association

Society for Women in Sociology (SWS)

Pacific Sociological Association

Society for Women in Sociology—Tucson (founder, President)

University Service

2005-2006 school year Undergraduate Studies Committee Graduate Student Representative

Professional References

Louise Roth, Ph.D. University of Arizona, Department of Sociology, PO Box 210027, 400 Social Science Bldg. Tucson, AZ 85721 (520) 621-3525 email: lroth@u.arizona.edu

Jane Zavisca, Ph.D. University of Arizona, Department of Sociology, PO Box 210027, 400 Social Science Bldg. Tucson, AZ 85721 (520) 621-3531 email: zavisca@u.arizona.edu

Erin Leahey, Ph.D. University of Arizona, Department of Sociology, PO Box 210027, 400 Social Science Bldg. Tucson, AZ 85721 (520) 621-9351 email: leahey@u.arizona.edu

Louis Hicks, Ph.D. St. Mary’s College of Maryland, Chair, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, St. Mary’s City, MD 20686 (240) 895-4915 email: lehicks@smcm.edu

Ashley Hunsaker, B.S. University of Arizona, Department of Sociology Alumni 3079 N. Sparkman, Tucson AZ 85716 (520) 808-7272 email: hunsaker@u.arizona.edu

Teaching Statement

Overview

I have taught eight courses while a graduate student:

SOC 101 Introduction to Sociology

SOC 222 Gender Identities, Interactions, and Relationships (2 semesters)

SOC 321 Sociology of the Family (2 semesters plus correspondence course)

SOC 448 Sociology of the Body (2 semesters)

SOC 459 Sociology of Gender (2 semesters)

Philosophy

I have three major goals as a sociology instructor: I want students to learn how social theory matters, I want them to learn how to think, and I want them to believe sociological research. I believe that my role, as an instructor, is to be an enthusiastic and knowledgeable resource that students can draw from as they develop themselves in these three areas.

First, I want students to see how social theory matters. To do this, many of my courses, readings, activities, and even exams run in two phases: we learn some social theories, and then we practice applying those theories to a variety of real life situations. For example, after learning the difference between biological essentialist and social constructionist approaches to gender, we watch clips from a TV show and practice identifying which approach the television characters are using. I believe that it is by actually practicing sociological principles that students are able to see the connection between social theory and their lives.

Second, I want students to learn how to think. Students in my class spend a substantial amount of time learning how to recognize bias and problematize the sociological literature that they read, lectures that I give and their social world. I want students to develop the skill of healthy cynicism and critical thinking. I define critical thinking as the ability to recognize logical flaws, tolerate ambiguity in social debates, understand and empathize with positions that threaten deeply held values and beliefs, and identify biases in written and oral presentations. I organize many of my course activities around practicing these critical thinking skills.

Third, I want students to believe sociological research. Many students are able to recite sociological research, theory, and conclusions, and even apply these principles in exams. However, I realized recently that even my top students did not necessarily believe the information that they had been taught. My new goal as a sociology instructor is for students to actually believe the social constructionist viewpoint, believe that social inequality exists, and believe that sociological research is superior to common sense. I often anonymously poll students to directly ask them whether they believe what they’ve just been taught and, if not, what they do believe. I then use those responses to craft the next lecture.

To help students accomplish these goals, I strive to empower them as much as possible over the course organization, structure and content. I believe that when students take control over their own education they become more invested in the outcome. For example, this semester, individual students are able to select whether to write a comprehensive term paper or whether to do additional reading. Because I believe that people learn best through teaching, I also work to put students in teaching and facilitating roles.

As a role model to my students, I personally work to practice evidence-based teaching rather than practicing common-sense teaching. I am convinced by recent research that the learner-centered teaching practices I use are more effective than traditional teaching methods. I am committed to ongoing learning about best teaching practices.

Professional Development

I am pursuing the Certificate in College Teaching organized by the University of Arizona Teaching Center. This certificate requires three courses on teaching, including a supervised teaching course. I have had five teaching exercises and activities included in teaching manuals produced by the American Sociological Association. In 2005-2006, I served on the Undergraduate Studies Committee, where I had the opportunity to help revise the teaching requirements for graduate students. In April, I will present a teaching-based paper at the Pacific Sociological Association meeting about embedding basic skills in Sociology courses.

Evidence of Teaching Effectiveness--Qualitative

Qualitative evaluations offer a more complete picture of what students experience in my courses. The following excerpts are taken from written comments on official student evaluations. Complete qualitative evaluations are included in this folder.

I liked how Monika was really passionate about social issues, and it was obvious she knows a lot about the subject.

Instructor knew her stuff. Taught with excitement.

Professor Ulrich really seemed interested in her subject and teaching.

Teacher unbiased and amazing!

Monika is a great motivator who did an outstanding job in teaching this course this semester. I enjoyed it very well!

The instructor was very enthusiastic. She likes to teach. We need good teachers nowadays.

Monika is an amazing teacher. She tries very hard to present the information in many different ways.

The instructor’s enthusiasm made the class that much more interesting. I was willing to learn more knowing the instructor cared about the class.

Professor Ulrich has a good teaching method that makes her students reflect on the reasons they have the opinions and perceptions they hold.

Teacher was unbiased and presented both sides of arguments. I loved how she made us think, question, and form our own opinions. This was an awesome class.

Monika has an exceptional amount of enthusiasm for teaching!

Ms. Ulrich was a great teacher. Very enthusiastic, well organized, and always made class enjoyable.

The instructor was really effective. I enjoyed her teaching and enthusiasm for the subject.

The instructor knew her stuff and taught with excitement.

Really helpful teacher in and out of class.

Great professor. Very interesting and respectful.

You related to us well and used a variety of teaching and testing methods

Learned an exceptional amount. She taught with great knowledge. One of the best teachers I’ve ever had. Great learning environment.

I thought this class was very interesting and it made me think about things that I maybe never thought about in that way before.

Evidence of Teaching Effectiveness--Quantitative

The table below represents a selection of quantitative data provided by official student evaluations. Numbers in parentheses are comparison means provided by the Office of Instructional Assessment, University of Arizona. Complete teaching evaluation data is available in the appendix. The University of Arizona asks student to rank their course experiences on a five point scale (1=low quality and 5=high quality). I am pleased that students have ranked my courses above average in six of the eight courses I have taught.

| |Overall Teaching |Overall Rating of the Course |Amount Learned |Overall Instructor Comparison|

| |Effectiveness | | | |

|Soc 222 |4.6 |4.0 |4.2 |4.4 |

|Gender Identities, |(4.3) |(3.9) |(4.0) |(3.9) |

|Interactions, and | | | | |

|Relationships | | | | |

|Soc 222 (Spring 06) |4.5 |4.0 |4.0 |3.9 |

| |(4.1) |(3.7) |(3.7) |(3.7) |

|Soc 101 |4.6 |4.4 |4.4 |4.5 |

|Introduction to Sociology |(4.1) |(3.7) |(3.7) |(3.7) |

|Soc 321 |4.5 |4.1 |4.2 |3.9 |

|Sociology of the Family |(4.3) |(4.0) |(4.0) |(3.9) |

|Soc 321 (Fall 06) |4.0 |3.6 |3.7 |3.5 |

|Sociology of the Family |(4.2) |(3.8) |(3.9) |(3.8) |

|Soc 448 |4.1 |3.5 |3.7 | |

|Sociology of the Body |(4.3) |(4.0) |(4.0) | |

|Soc 459 (section 2) |4.6 |4.1 |4.3 |4.3 |

|Sociology of Gender |(4.2) |(3.8) |(3.9) |(3.8) |

|Soc 459 (section 3) |4.5 |4.2 |4.2 |4.3 |

|Sociology of Gender |(4.2) |(3.8) |(3.9) |(3.8) |

Sample Course Materials

Materials are organized by the difficulty level of the course.

Introduction to Sociology (Sociology 101)

There are two very different approaches to teaching Introduction to Sociology. First, a teacher can use this course to get students interested in majoring in Sociology. Second, a teacher can use this course to teach basic sociological principles to students who will probably not pursue a career in Sociology. I tend toward the latter. My goal in Introduction to Sociology is to teach future lawyers, doctors, engineers, bank accountants, and other non-Sociologists what a social construct is, how to make sense of sociological research, and how sociology differs from related fields.

I use the movie Trading Places (included) to practice applying terms that the students have already learned. In this comedy, two wealthy friends debate whether nature or nurture is responsible for success. They do an experiment where they force one of their wealthy White employees to swap roles with a poor, Black con artist. The film portrays multiple subcultures, exemplifies a poorly organized experiment, and discusses the nature versus nurture debate in an accessible way.

Movie: Trading Places

Sociology 101, Section 1

Introduction to Sociology

Fall 2005

Movie: Trading Places

The movie Trading Places[1] efficiently reviews several of the themes we have discussed so far in this course: the scientific method, four dimensions of sociology, culture, subculture, norms, sanctions, culture shock, and the nature versus nurture debate. I encourage you to fill in this worksheet as you watch the movie.

A. This movie portrays two major subcultures: rich and poor

| |Rich |Poor |

|What are examples of argot that belong to | | |

|each subculture? | | |

|What are some informal norms of each | | |

|subculture? | | |

|What are the sanctions for violating | | |

|informal norms in each subculture? | | |

|What are crimes (formal norms) committed by| | |

|each subculture? How are they sanctioned? | | |

|What is the role of women in each | | |

|subculture? | | |

|How is sexuality portrayed in each | | |

|subculture? | | |

|How do the two subcultures dress | | |

|differently? | | |

|How are the houses decorated differently? | | |

|(ie. Ophelia’s house and the mansion) | | |

|How are people addressed in each | | |

|subculture? | | |

|How do the two subcultures obtain and | | |

|consume food differently? | | |

B. The Dukes do a scientific test of sorts in this movie. Their primary question is: “is social class determined by nature or nurture?”

1. Substantive

What is the answer to this question:

2. Theory

Does this movie use any explicit theory?

Does this movie create any theory?

3. Methods

Do the Dukes test their primary question using quantitative or qualitative methods?

Which method, specifically, do they use?

Do they follow the steps of the scientific method: Define the Problem (Note: How do the Dukes operationalize “wealthy” and “poor”?), Review the Literature, Formulate a Hypothesis, Collect and Analyze Data, Develop the Conclusion? Can the Dukes be confident of causality, not just correlation, in their conclusion?

What are the errors of their test, scientifically speaking?

4. Intent

Are the Dukes trying to understand a phenomena or change a phenomena?

C. How do Dan Akroyd and Eddie Murphy experience culture shock when they enter the opposite subculture?

D. Is this movie evidence of “nature” or “nurture”? How? Do you agree with this conclusion? If you disagree, what was wrong with the scientific test that led to erroneous results?

E. How is this movie racist?

Gender Identities, Interactions, and Relationships (Sociology 222)

Gender Identities, Interactions, and Relationships is an unusual course: it is designed as a lower-division course on gender with a specialization on social psychological theories of gender. However, most of the students who take this course have not had any previous course work in gender. Therefore, this course must provide a basic introduction to gender and simultaneously focus on social psychological theories.

I organize this course in two major units: a theoretical unit and a topical unit. In the first unit, we learn eight theories about gender. After learning the first four theories, we read a play as a class and practice applying the theories to scenes in that play (exercise included). After learning all eight theories, we read an additional play and practice applying all eight theories to that play. In the second unit, students apply these theories to institutions and inequalities.

I assign a series of three progressively more difficult papers in this course. In the first paper, students write about a “gendered moment.” In the second paper (included), students consciously cultivate a gender moment and connect it to a social theory. In the final paper, students connect gender moments and social theory to social institutions. For example, they might talk about how social exchange theory analyzes a certain gender dynamic in the classroom.

I have also included a Gender Terminology Worksheet in this section, although I have used versions of this worksheet in many classes. This worksheet teaches students to distinguish between commonly confused terms related to sex and gender. It also sparks discussion. For example, students often disagree about whether “sex” or “gender identity” should be used to determine sexual orientation. This ambiguity is often very uncomfortable for students and leads to productive discussions about why people do not like ambiguity in gender definitions.

Syllabus

Sociology 222, Section 1

Gender Identities, Interactions and Relationships

Spring 2006

1:00-1:50 MWF

ILC 119

Instructor: Monika Ulrich

Office: Social Sciences 436

Office Hours: 2-3:30 Monday and Wednesday

Email: mjulrich@u.arizona.edu

Phone: (520) 621-5765

Course Objectives and Goals

This class is designed to explore what gender is, where it comes from, how it is changed, and how it impacts social institutions. This course focuses on social psychological theories and explanations of gender. We will examine two main questions:

1. What is gender? How is gender created, maintained, and changed? What are the social psychological theories about gender?

2. How do social psychological gender theories apply to real life social institutions and inequalities, including sexuality, the family, education, employment, and religion?

We will work together to answer these questions by studying biological and social theories that discuss gender differences, reading original texts that have gender implications, and applying our knowledge of theory to these texts. Along the way, we will hopefully gain a better appreciation of how gender impacts both men and women, how gender norms can be harmful or helpful, and how social scientists do research.

The first half of this course is devoted to mastering social psychological theories related to gender. This means that we will focus on micro-level processes that impact gender. We will also present staged readings of two plays about gender and identify theoretical themes about gender in these scripts. The second half of the course is spent examining how the social psychological gender theories that we have studied apply to several different social institutions and inequalities.

Course Materials

Reading materials from this course will come from four sources. All readings are required.

1. Howard, Judith A. and Jocelyn Hollander. 1997. Gendered Situations, Gendered Selves. London: Sage Publications.

2. Gilman, Charlotte Perkins. 1998. Herland. New York: Dover Publications.

3. Ibsen, Hebrik. 1992. A Doll’s House. New York: Dover Publications.

4. Wilson, August. 1995. Fences. New York: Plume Books.

5. Materials will be found on the Electronic Reserves (ER) System at . The password is: howard.

Course Requirements (Grades and Assignments)

30% Midterm

30% Final

30% 3 Short (2-3 page) papers (10% each)

10% Class Attendance (10 days X 1% each)

Examinations will cover material from the reading and from the lectures, including guest lectures. The final exam is not cumulative. Detailed information about examinations and papers will be handed out in class. I will take attendance randomly on eleven days throughout the course. If you are present for all eleven of these days, you will receive all of the attendance points plus one extra credit point. If you miss one day, you will receive 100% on attendance. If you miss two days, you will receive 90% on attendance. Attending all eleven days that attendance is taken is the only extra credit option in the course.

Course Grades

A 90-100%

B 80-89%

C 70-79%

D 60-69%

E ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download