College Quarterly
Fall 2003 - Volume 6 Number 1
Home

Contents

Essential Elements of 4 Teaching Methods: Linking Rubrics to Teaching

by Mary M. Banbury, Janice R. Janz, and Leslie M. McDermott

Abstract

Rubrics are an effective way to communicate the exact requirements of a specific task. The quality of the completed task can then be evaluated according to established criteria. This article describes how doctoral students, under the guidance of their professor, developed rubrics that they used to plan, implement, and evaluate their presentations. The article includes 4 comprehensive rubrics for the teaching methods of lecture, discussion, case, and role play. The article will be of interest to educators, staff developers, and school administrators.

A Professor's Perspective

At some point in our academic or professional careers, we all endured the soporific lecture, rambling discussion, chaotic case study, or aimless role play. Conversely, we all savored scintillating, provocative, meaningful, or authentic experiences with these same formats. The differentiating factor in almost every situation was the professor or the presenter. Although some people adhere to the adage, "Good teachers are born, not made," a review of the literature reveals a plethora of pedagogical research, discussion, and information dedicated to the making of good teachers. The phrase "the scholarship of teaching" has recently entered the academic lexicon.

It is imperative for educators to scrutinize learning theories, reflect on the teaching process, and explore instructional strategies. Linking rubrics to teaching is one way to achieve these goals. Therefore, I charged the students in my personnel preparation seminar with the responsibility of creating their own rubrics to assist them in planning, teaching, and evaluating selected types of presentations. The comprehensive assignment involved critically perusing the literature; evaluating, critiquing, and defending item selections; discussing and debating the pros and cons of each method; creating presentations; teaching actual classes; evaluating performances; and reflecting on the process. The rubric was the vehicle that transported each student through the preparation, implementation, and debriefing phases.

Developing the Rubrics

Our first assignment was to design our own rubric for evaluating the lecture method. We knew that eventually we would have to develop our own individual rubrics for four different teaching methods. These rubrics then would be used by our instructor and peers to evaluate our own real-life teaching. That seemed easy. As doctoral students, we had sat through hundreds of lectures, and we surely had strong opinions about the good and bad ones we had heard. But, when directly questioned about the elements that contributed to an excellent lecture, we realized that few of us had ever questioned the techniques or methods of our teachers. So, we turned to every graduate student's strongest ally–research.

The readings for this course were Teaching Tips (McKeachie, 2002), selected articles, and online sites that discussed various teaching formats (see References). Poring over these, we culled ideas about what lends salience to instruction. These ideas were compiled in lists. Initially, the collected ideas were chaotic and redundant. Sometimes they even contained conflicting advice. Once we had gathered all the available elements of a particular teaching method, we winnowed out the ones that were repetitive or confusing. We retained those that spoke strongly about our teaching beliefs, and were, we thought, essential to a particular teaching method.

The next step required us to step back from the lists that we had assembled in order to determine the underlying structure of the actual teaching process, such as planning, implementation, and evaluation. The stages that we selected differed in name and number. All, however, suggested preparatory, actual teaching, and debriefing phases. Suddenly, our jumbled lists of quality measures did not look so bewildering or unwieldy.

We moved down our lists, using highlighters to differentiate each stage of the teaching process, thematizing our data as if we were qualitative researchers. After clustering the teaching techniques into phases, another organizational strategy emerged - chronological sequence. For example, the actual teaching phase would obviously require that the teacher first introduce the material before checking to see if the students had understood major concepts.

Now that we had decided which qualities were essential to good teaching, we needed to determine the scale we would use to measure our own teaching performance. We came up with a variety of ranges. One student used a sliding scale or a continuum. Others chose the traditional Likert scale, using anywhere from three to seven discrete points. One student lightheartedly chose headings such as "You bet!" "Sort of," and "No way!" to categorize the ratings.

Having researched, selected components, and organized our teaching rubrics, we shared them with our fellow students and professor. Lively discussions arose over nearly every decision we had made. We changed our rubrics throughout the critiques, becoming more satisfied with each iteration. Not one of the rubrics remained unchanged after hearing our classmates' ideas and suggestions.

Scribbled over, with arrows swooping across the pages, and grammar edited, our rubrics were revised and refined in light of what we had learned in our seminar. The improved rubrics were put into a finished state so that they could be copied for each classmate and for the professor. In this way we knew what each member of our seminar believed to be the signal features of four teaching methods. We would measure each class member's teaching before a never-before-seen class in one of the four instructional methods with their own evaluative tool, one specifically designed for the assigned teaching method. Each of us would try to measure up to what we individually had decided were the defining standards of quality for lecture, discussion, case study or role play.

Four Teaching Methods

1. Lecture Method

What is the lecture method? The lecture method uses speaking or visual demonstrations to transmit new information, clarify existing knowledge, or explain concepts.

What are the benefits? The lecture method:

  • is inexpensive.
  • is conducive to groups of various size
  • can be modified according to the audience, subject, or allotted time.
  • provides an opportunity for the instructor to demonstrate interest and enthusiasm.
  • is often preferred by some participants interested in facts and high grades.
  • is familiar and has clearly defined roles for the instructor and participants.

What are the Concerns? The lecture method:

  • is passive and limits participants to listening and note-taking.
  • may be less effective for long term retention than methods where participants
  • are more actively involved.
  • does not provide opportunities for participants to apply higher levels of learning
  • (e.g., problem-solving, analysis, evaluation).
  • is not suitable for participants with non-auditory styles of learning.

Lecture Rubric

Directions: Please circle the number that best describes your evaluation of the lecture you observed. The numbers range from the lowest "1 - Strongly Disagree" to the highest "4 -Strongly Agree." Circle N/A if the behavior is not applicable to this particular class/session.

1 – Strongly Disagree 2 – Disagree 3 – Agree 4 – Strongly Agree N/A – Not Applicable

Planning
Selects central themes and key issues/ideas to present 1 2 3 4 N/A
Determines pertinent learning objectives 1 2 3 4 N/A
Places the topic within the context of the course 1 2 3 4 N/A
Prepares participants for the lecture (e.g., prior reading, research) 1 2 3 4 N/A
Plans for activities to involve participants (e.g., paired discussions, board work, minute papers) 1 2 3 4 N/A
Plans for visuals to supplement lecture (e.g., handouts, skeletal outline, advanced organizer) 1 2 3 4 N/A
Implementation
Includes objectives/essential questions for the lecture in the introduction 1 2 3 4 N/A
Provides an overview of the lecture 1 2 3 4 N/A
Uses the introduction to gain participants' attention (e.g., a provocative question, controversy, dilemma) 1 2 3 4 N/A
Presents content logically and clearly 1 2 3 4 N/A
Explains concepts in understandable terms 1 2 3 4 N/A
Links theory with practice 1 2 3 4 N/A
Connects content with learners' experiences 1 2 3 4 N/A
Uses numerous concrete examples to illustrate concepts 1 2 3 4 N/A
Presents concepts in small blocks of time (e.g., 20 -30min.) 1 2 3 4 N/A
Paces the lecture, allowing time for participants to reflect on critical points 1 2 3 4 N/A
Provides the opportunity for the lecturer or the participants to summarize important concepts at regular intervals (e.g., every 20-30 min.) 1 2 3 4 N/A
Uses technology effectively (e.g., PowerPoint, slides, overhead transparencies, videos) 1 2 3 4 N/A
Uses visual aids effectively (charts, drawings, chalkboard) 1 2 3 4 N/A
Varies learning activities (e.g., minute papers, paired discussions, brainstorming.) 1 2 3 4 N/A
Uses time effectively (e.g., spends more time on important or difficult concepts, leaves time for summary) 1 2 3 4 N/A
Involves the participants:
  • solicits questions
1 2 3 4 N/A
  • acknowledges learners' comments checks for understanding (e.g., pausing for learners' questions, questioning, soliciting
1 2 3 4 N/A
  • summaries of concepts)
1 2 3 4 N/A
Uses a teaching style that is appealing:
  • demonstrates enthusiasm for material
1 2 3 4 N/A
  • appears to be spontaneous (e.g., doesn't rely on notes)
1 2 3 4 N/A
Speaks clearly 1 2 3 4 N/A
Maintains eye contact 1 2 3 4 N/A
Uses voice intonation, gestures, movement to maintain attention 1 2 3 4 N/A
Uses elements of surprise and humour 1 2 3 4 N/A
Uses verbal cues (e.g., words like "first" or "finally," phrases like "most importantly" or "on the exam") 1 2 3 4 N/A
Employs effective transitions 1 2 3 4 N/A
Monitors audience (e.g. gauges alertness, boredom, confusion) 1 2 3 4 N/A
Questioning and Debriefing
Asks questions to monitor understanding 1 2 3 4 N/A
Provides for a summary of the key ideas of the lecture (e.g., student leader, review of lecture, visuals) 1 2 3 4 N/A
Reiterates learning objectives 1 2 3 4 N/A
Connects lecture to prior lectures/previously learned material/common experiences 1 2 3 4 N/A
Encourages learners to learn more about topic (e.g., follow up readings, assignments) 1 2 3 4 N/A
I like that you ...
I wish that you had ...
Additional Comments:

2. Discussion Method

What is the discussion method? The discussion method is a formal discourse where the instructor uses questions to stimulate participants to examine topics in greater depth.

What are the benefits? The discussion method:

  • actively involves participants with the issues related to a specific topic.
  • provides an opportunity to develop and apply higher order thinking skills.
  • assists in arriving at group consensus.
  • identifies the participant's level of understanding.
  • offers the opportunity for participants to learn from the various perspectives of others.
  • allows for interaction among participants as well with the instructor.

What are the concerns? The discussion method:

  • relinquishes instructor control, which may result in digressions.
  • may result in monopolization or detachment of participants.
  • involves careful planning to stage the discussion and develop appropriate questions.
  • may break down if the instructor insinuates an opinion too early in the discussion.
  • may be difficult to conduct in a large group.

Discussion Rubric

Directions: Please circle the number that best describes your evaluation of the discussion you observed. The numbers range from the lowest "1 - Strongly Disagree" to the highest "4 - Strongly Agree." Circle N/A if the behavior is not applicable to this particular class/session.

1 – Strongly Disagree 2 – Disagree 3 – Agree 4 – Strongly Agree N/A – Not Applicable

Preparation
Develops clear learning objectives/essential questions 1 2 3 4 N/A
Develops the essential questions for topic 1 2 3 4 N/A
Prepares participants for the discussion (e.g. prior reading,
lecture, common experience) 1 2 3 4 N/A
Prepares for a discussion that is clearly within the context
of the course 1 2 3 4 N/A
Decides time limit for discussion (e.g., entire class; 20 min.) 1 2 3 4 N/A
Plans discussion questions (e.g., gives advance study questions, assigns short papers) 1 2 3 4 N/A
Plans techniques that facilitate discussion:
  • arranges size of group to maximize discussion (e.g., 4-6 members)
1 2 3 4 N/A
  • considers various methods to maximize participant interaction (e.g., buzz groups, inner circle, participant - generated discussion questions)
1 2 3 4 N/A
  • encourages using people's names (e.g., name tags, introductory activities)
1 2 3 4 N/A
  • arranges seating to encourage eye contact among participants
1 2 3 4 N/A
Implementation
States clearly defined goals for the discussion (e.g., essential questions) 1 2 3 4 N/A
Discusses guidelines for participation (e.g., staying focused, demonstrating mutual respect, using good listening skills) 1 2 3 4 N/A
Establishes expectations for participation (e.g., defines learning objectives, stresses value, awards points) 1 2 3 4 N/A
Sets the stage for discussion (e.g., prior reading, common experience, slides) 1 2 3 4 N/A
Initiates the discussion with an open-ended question, a philosophical question, a controversy, a dilemma, or other thought-provoking statement 1 2 3 4 N/A
Facilitates discussion:
  • waits for participants to respond to questions (e.g., 5-20 sec.)
1 2 3 4 N/A
  • offers few opinions/ideas-usually responds by asking facilitating questions that require clarification, elaboration, justification, redirection, etc
1 2 3 4 N/A
  • restates or paraphrases responses at times to verify and model the importance of listening
1 2 3 4 N/A
  • intervenes with participants who monopolize discussion (e.g., appoints observers to evaluate discussion, redirects)
1 2 3 4 N/A
  • encourages participant-centered discussion (e.g., redirects participant questions to other participants)
1 2 3 4 N/A
  • monitors body language (e.g., eye contact, arm position)
1 2 3 4 N/A
  • manages conflicts (e.g., reference to experts, two-column method)
1 2 3 4 N/A
  • keeps group focused
1 2 3 4 N/A
Uses visuals to record discussion (e.g., chart paper, chalkboard) 1 2 3 4 N/A
Provides time for participants to process and synthesize discussion comments 1 2 3 4 N/A
Summarizes main ideas and key points from time to time. 1 2 3 4 N/A
Questioning and Debriefing
Uses questions that:
  • stimulate discussion (e.g. open-ended, brain teasers, controversies)
1 2 3 4 N/A
  • are essential to the goals of the discussion
1 2 3 4 N/A
  • develop and connect concepts
1 2 3 4 N/A
  • require exploration (e.g., clarify assumptions, check quality of analysis)
1 2 3 4 N/A
  • encourage participants to comment on related ideas of classmates
1 2 3 4 N/A
  • challenge evidence or provide another point of view
1 2 3 4 N/A
Manages time to permit opportunity for final resolution or summary 1 2 3 4 N/A
Provides time for a summary of the discussion (e.g. participant summary, leader summary) 1 2 3 4 N/A
I like that you ...
I wish that you had ...
Additional Comments:

3. Case Study Method

What is the case method? The case study method uses detailed scenarios of real-life situations that require participants to identify a problem, explore alternative solutions, and develop a plan of action.

What are the benefits? The case method:

  • involves active participation.
  • can be motivating.
  • provides the opportunity to bring the "real life" into the classroom.
  • offers the opportunity for participants to consider provocative issues and situations.
  • exposes participants to a variety of perspectives.
  • encourages the development of critical thinking skills such as analysis, synthesis, evaluation, and decision-making.
  • increases student repertoires for dealing with situations.
  • enhances retention of key points or ideas.
  • permits the application of theory to practice and practice to theory.

What are the concerns? The case method:

  • may use a case that is not always linked to the learning objectives.
  • can be time-consuming to implement.
  • is often only supplemental to reading and/or other methods of teaching.
  • does not present knowledge in a formal, comprehensive, or systematic manner.
  • may be unfamiliar, cause anxiety, or be considered irrelevant.
  • may result in digression.

Case Study Rubric

Directions: Please circle the number that best describes your evaluation of the case study you observed. The numbers range from the lowest "1 - Strongly Disagree" to the highest "4 -Strongly Agree." Circle N/A if the behavior is not applicable to this particular class/session.

1 – Strongly Disagree 2 – Disagree 3 – Agree 4 – Strongly Agree N/A – Not Applicable

Preparation
Employs a case that:
Relates to course content and objectives 1 2 3 4 N/A
Focuses on a provocative dilemma or issue 1 2 3 4 N/A
Presents various perspectives 1 2 3 4 N/A
Portrays both observable event(s) and internal thoughts/feelings of characters 1 2 3 4 N/A
Conveys sufficient detail 1 2 3 4 N/A
Uses dialogue 1 2 3 4 N/A
Allows for alternative actions/solutions 1 2 3 4 N/A
Is clear, well organized, and minimizesextraneous details 1 2 3 4 N/A
Captures participants' interest 1 2 3 4 N/A
Is authentic 1 2 3 4 N/A
Links theory with practice 1 2 3 4 N/A
Encourages application of course content is appropriate in length (e.g., 1-2 pp. for a 50 min. session) 1 2 3 4 N/A
Decides on techniques to facilitate discussion, such as:
  • selecting size of the group (e.g., 4-6 members, large group)
1 2 3 4 N/A
  • learning names of other group members (e.g., name tags)
1 2 3 4 N/A
  • arranging seating that encourages eye contact
1 2 3 4 N/A
Implementation
Explains the case study method (e.g., authentic situations, complexity of issues) 1 2 3 4 N/A
Allows sufficient time to read the case 1 2 3 4 N/A
Allows sufficient time for reflection 1 2 3 4 N/A
Assures that participants comprehend the details of the case. 1 2 3 4 N/A
Discusses expectations of the assignment (e.g. identifies issues, various perspectives, possible solutions) 1 2 3 4 N/A
Records participants' descriptions of characters 1 2 3 4 N/A
Guides participants through an analysis of the issues and records a list of participants' responses 1 2 3 4 N/A
Facilitates and charts discussion of actions/solutions 1 2 3 4 N/A
Incorporates reality checks 1 2 3 4 N/A
Questioning and Debriefing
Uses questions/probes that are:
  • thought provoking (e.g. open-ended)
1 2 3 4 N/A
  • explore the issues
1 2 3 4 N/A
  • clarify various perspectives
1 2 3 4 N/A
  • encourage analysis of contributing factors
1 2 3 4 N/A
  • generate and critique options
1 2 3 4 N/A
  • project possible outcomes
1 2 3 4 N/A
  • elicit evidence to support opinions
1 2 3 4 N/A
Provides adequate wait time (5-20 seconds) for participants' to respond to questions 1 2 3 4 N/A
Maintains an appropriate level of leader involvement:
  • listens carefully
1 2 3 4 N/A
  • allows participants to carry the discussion
1 2 3 4 N/A
  • maintains a nonjudgmental stance
1 2 3 4 N/A
  • challenges assumptions
1 2 3 4 N/A
  • discourages premature solutions
1 2 3 4 N/A
Uses visuals for group debriefing (e.g., records of various group responses) 1 2 3 4 N/A
Summarizes the discussion (e.g. student summary, leader summary) 1 2 3 4 N/A
I like that you ...
I wish that you had ...
Additional Comments:

4. Role Play Method

What is the role play method? The role play method is centered around an authentic scenario that focuses on critical issues such as an event or dilemma. Participants are assigned or volunteer for roles that can be scripted or open-ended. Role play provides a group with a problem-solving experience during which issues, various perspectives, actions, and consequences are explored.

What are the benefits? The role play method:

  • provides an authentic experience for participants.
  • is a useful strategy for developing professional skills.
  • may be motivating for participants since it involves real-life experiences.
  • actively involves participants in the learning process.
  • encourages social interaction.
  • presents the opportunity to play out issues in a non-threatening environment.
  • provides insights for participants regarding their own and others' perspectives and assumptions.
  • presents situations beyond the participants' repertoire of experiences and challenges them to think beyond the familiar.
  • integrates theory and practice.

What are the concerns? The role play method:

  • involves risk-taking since the instructor must relinquish control of the learning environment
  • may result in uninvolved observers.
  • alienates participants who do not respond to the public nature of role play.
  • may become uncomfortable, confrontational, or unmanageable.
  • is time-consuming (e.g., prepare material, set stage, describe roles, conduct role play, debrief).

Role Play Rubric

Directions: Please circle the number that best describes your evaluation of the role play you observed. The numbers range from the lowest "I - Strongly Disagree" to the highest "4 - Strongly Agree." Circle N/A if the behavior is not applicable to this particular class/session.

1 – Strongly Disagree 2 – Disagree 3 – Agree 4 – Strongly Agree N/A – Not Applicable

Preparation
Places the activity within the context of the course (i.e., issues are relevant to course objectives) 1 2 3 4 N/A
Develops clear objectives for the activity 1 2 3 4 N/A
Chooses an appropriate format for the role play (e.g., role descriptions, guide cards, improvisation) 1 2 3 4 N/A
Decides on a way to choose role players (e.g., asks for volunteers, assigns) 1 2 3 4 N/A
Designs ways to involve all participants (e.g. players, observers) 1 2 3 4 N/A
Implementation
Prepares the participants for the activity:
  • introduces necessary course content for the activity (e.g., prior reading, lecture, discussion)
1 2 3 4 N/A
  • explains the role play format
1 2 3 4 N/A
  • defines the objectives of the activity
1 2 3 4 N/A
  • discusses clear expectations of the assignment (e.g., problems/conflicts to be addressed)
1 2 3 4 N/A
  • allows participants to ask questions about the process
1 2 3 4 N/A
Presents a role play that:
  • is authentic
1 2 3 4 N/A
  • is meaningful to participants
1 2 3 4 N/A
  • is detailed and clear
1 2 3 4 N/A
  • explores a problem
1 2 3 4 N/A
  • allows for various alternatives
1 2 3 4 N/A
  • allows for different perspectives
1 2 3 4 N/A
  • stimulates interaction
1 2 3 4 N/A
encourages participants to actively control their own learning 1 2 3 4 N/A
promotes group interaction skills (e.g. empathy, listening, consensus) 1 2 3 4 N/A
Allows participants to ask questions, clarify the content of the role play 1 2 3 4 N/A
Involves persons not taking a direct part in the role play (e.g. assigns tasks, asks them to help players develop their characters, appoints participant observers) 1 2 3 4 N/A
Keeps a low profile during the role play 1 2 3 4 N/A
Intervenes or redirects if necessary 1 2 3 4 N/A
Allows sufficient time for:
  • full exploration of the issues and development of roles
1 2 3 4 N/A
  • accomplishment of the objectives
1 2 3 4 N/A
  • a wrap-up of the discussion (e.g., 5 minute warning)
1 2 3 4 N/A
  • Records observations/questions/salient points/solutions
1 2 3 4 N/A
Questioning and Debriefing
Concludes with discussion of what has been learned:
  • summarizes key points
1 2 3 4 N/A
  • relates the experience to general principles or theory
1 2 3 4 N/A
  • ties experience to the objectives outlined in the introduction to the role play
1 2 3 4 N/A
Allows for discussion of the experience:
  • reflections of the role play participants
1 2 3 4 N/A
  • reactions from the observers
1 2 3 4 N/A
  • critiques of the role play experience
1 2 3 4 N/A
  • suggestions for improvement
1 2 3 4 N/A
I like that you ...
I wish that you had ...
Additional Comments:

From Theory to Practice

Newly familiar with the important elements of four teaching methods, we were instructed to teach a class within our area of expertise, using one or more of the methods. Once we selected topics, we used the rubrics we had developed to plan our teaching experiences.

The planning phase was simplified because of our rubrics and the knowledge we had gained in researching and constructing them. We followed our own advice on planning, implementing, and evaluating our teaching. We felt more confident and competent creating a cohesive and effective instructional activity because we had a clear idea of what we wanted to accomplish and how to do it. We would follow the map we had already constructed.

When we finally faced our teaching challenge, each class member and our professor had a copy of the rubric we had designed for our chosen teaching method. As we taught, our peers and teacher used our rubrics to evaluate what we had accomplished. Having put our theories into practice, we would now see how well we had met our respective expectations.

The culminating activity was a debriefing session, where our classmates and professor discussed our teaching performances' strengths and weaknesses, using our personally developed rubric to guide the discussion. We had participated in one of the most sensible and authentic educational assignments imaginable, and we came away with a keener sense of the art and craft of instruction and a greater confidence in our ability to teach.

References

McKeachie, W.J. (2002). McKeachie's teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers (I Ph ed). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co.

Resource Web Sites:

Lecture Method

Enerson, D., Johnson, N., Milner, S., & Plank, K. (1997). Teaching with the lecture method. Retrieved October 24, 2003, from Pennsylvania State University, The Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching Web site: http://ww-w.psu.edu/celt/PST/PSTlecture.html

University of Chicago (2000). Lecturing. Retrieved October 24, 2003, from The Center for Teaching and Learning Web site: http://teaching.uchicago.edu/handbook/tac05.html#lecture

University of North Carolina (1989). Thoughts on the lecture method. Retrieved on October 24, 2003, from The Center for Teaching and Learning Web site: http://www.unc.edu/depts/ctl/fyc6.html

Discussion Method

Barnett, M.A. (n.d.). Encouraging participants' participation in discussion. Retrieved October 24, 2003, from University of Virginia, Teaching Resource Center Web site: http://trc.virginia.edu/Tips/DiscParticipation.htm

Enerson, D. & Plank, K. (1997). Teaching with the discussion method Retrieved October 24, 2003, from Pennsylvania State University, The Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching Web site: http://www.psu.edu/celt/PST/PSTdiscussion.html

Redfield, J. (2000). Teaching at Chicago: Discussion teaching. Retrieved October 24, 2003 from University of Chicago, Center for Teaching and Learning Web site: http://teaching.uchicago.edu/handbook/tac09.html

Welty, W.M. (1989). Discussion method teaching how to make it work. Retrieved October 24, 2003, from http://trc.ucdavis.edu/trc/TAprograms/SCT/readings/discmethtchR.pdf

Case Study Method

Huiskamp, G. (2000). Learning with cases. Retrieved October 24, 2003, from http://www.fau.edu/polsci/1930/cases.html

Role Play

Simulations Training Systems (2002). Learning through experience. Retrieved on October 24, 2003, from http://www.stsintl.com/index.html


Mary M. Banbury, Janice R. Janz, and Leslie M. McDermott are professors at the University of New Orleans. They may be contacted through: mbanbury@uno.edu or (504) 280-6655

Contents

• The views expressed by the authors are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of The College Quarterly or of Seneca College.
Copyright ©
2003 - The College Quarterly, Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology