On Wednesday, March 27, 2013, the Center of Ethics and Religious Affairs, along with several student organizations including Westminster Presbyterian Fellowship, Hillel, Lutheran Campus Ministry, the Vedic Society and Unitarian Universalist Students hosted Filmmaker Nathan Lang and screened his acclaimed documentary, God in the Box.

This film, which received its world premiere at the 2011 Heartland Film Festival in Indianapolis, Indiana, follows filmmaker Nathan Lang and his crew across America as they explore the diverse and curious ways people 'see' God in their mind's eye―through the lens of this amazing Box. Filmmakers interview scholars, theologians, mythologists and an archaeologist who have joined the search for the origins of how we see God. 

Nathan's inspiration for the film grew out of his curiosity about what people think about when they think about God. Through a leap of faith, he and his crew scrapped together the funding necessary to construct a box, equipped with a camera and microphones, and travel cross country to places like Alabama, California, Washington, D.C., New York, among others 

The experience of those in the film who entered the box, drew pictures, told their stories, and in some cases, agonized over the idea of God was powerful. Nathan engaged the audience in a dialogue that followed the film about what Penn State students, staff, and community think about God and the diverse viewpoints in the film. Some spoke about their unshakable faith in God in their lives. Others who identified as Humanists or Buddhists talked about treating each other with respect and love. Why do we have to look to something outside of ourselves, they asked? Still others mentioned how part of the film's focus on the history dating back to the Greeks and Romans gave them new insights into the story of creation and how it seems to have evolved over thousands of years. 

The student fellows who work with me here at the Center for Ethics and Religious Affairs constructed a box of our own that is displayed in the lobby of the Pasquerilla Spiritual Center. Throughout the week, students, staff, and community have entered the refrigerator-sized box to answer questions about what God means to them, what God looks like, and so forth. We have received an overwhelmingly positive response to our box. Some have indicated how safe they feel in the box reading others' reflections. One student mentioned to me that "she enjoyed being in the box because it feels sacred, like God is here with me."  

We intend to continue this dialogue and are entertaining the idea of inviting Nathan Lang to return to Penn State and bring his box. He'd like to incorporate the Penn State community's thoughts and feelings and show the film again. He told me, "I have another idea and that is to explore the word 'love' and what that really means to people. You can love your partner, your daughter, your mother, friend or even your dinner. So, how do people view love?"

The conversation continues. I invite you to visit our box and contribute your thoughts and feelings. How do you see God? What does God mean to you? 

God in the Box is part of the Center for Ethics and Religious Affairs' Breaking the Box: Exploring Religious Stigmas and Misconceptions Film Series. The series runs from February to April and includes light hearted comedies as well as eye-opening documentaries. Through this series, the Center for Ethics and Religious Affairs hopes to encourage students to break out of their own faith boxes and explore their own and others' religious and spiritual traditions from various viewpoints.

For more information, please contact 814-865-6548 or cera@sa.psu.edu.

 I was impressed with the commitment to dealing with difficult topics and tackling issues head on that the college displayed. the program was excellent, beginning with a panel whose members talked about how they had dealt with the aftermath of the Sandusky charges and the trial and sanctions this summer. The panel presentation was followed by vigorous and honest discussion from everyone present. It was a great opportunity to see the possibilities for struggling in meaningful ways in the curriculum  and co-curriculum. 

What All Teachers Should Learn from Jazz-band Teachers

Our schools are broken. Here's the fix.

Published on April 29, 2012 by William R. Klemm, D.V.M, Ph.D. in Memory Medic

I just came back from a jazz festival at Katy High School in Texas that show-cased student stage bands from ten schools mostly near Houston, but some as far away as Beaumont and Brownsville (the latter band stole the show).

The festival was also a teaching event, with each band or ensemble performing for 30 minutes, followed by 30 minutes of critique from six professional jazz musicians (two of whom were music professors at universities). The critiques were shared with the small audience consisting almost exclusively of family and friends, even though this festival was advertised for the general public. Performances were staggered so that if you didn't want to hear a critique you could go hear a student combo and vice versa. The facilities were magnificent, highlighted by the presence of a natatorium, impressive athletic fields and stadium, and a Performing Arts Center where the festival took place. If Texas schools are hurting for funds, it certainly wasn't evident at Katy High School.

I was astonished at how accomplished these students were. I asked myself, "How did those kids learn such complex music? The music played was mostly the big-band music of Goodman, Basie, Kenton, Ellington, and others from the eras of swing and "progressive/modern jazz of the 50s and 60s." 

Jazz fans everywhere lament that jazz seems like a dying art form overwhelmed by the simpler music of country, rap, hip-hop, and whatever it is that most kids listen to these days. But the professional "coaches" at the festival reassured the audience that "jazz is in good hands." Fortunately, many school and university music programs teach jazz.

Learning to playing any musical instrument is hard, but playing jazz is the ultimate challenge. In jazz you not only have to know the tunes, you have to use the chord structure and complex rhythms to compose on the fly. A jazz professor from the University of North Texas counseled in one of his critiques, "I know you have sheet music you have to follow, but when you hear something in your head, play it. That's what we (jazz musicians) do - improvise!"

Another jazz professor, during a critique session had two bands re-play a number from their performance. About one third of the way through, he silently and casually walked through the rhythm section (piano, guitar, bass, and drums) and picked up the sheet music. The kids went right on playing without skipping a beat, because they had already memorized the sheet music. His point was they were using the sheet music as a crutch and not engaging with each other. Musicians talk to each other with their instruments, and listening is a big part of jazz improvisation. Students needed to be engaged with what each member of the rhythm section was doing, and, moreover, the rhythmic section needed to interact with the saxes, trombones, and trumpets.

Hearing such wonderful music from children raised a nagging question. Why can't kids master complicated science, math, language arts, or social studies? Why does everybody struggle so mightily to get kids to pass simple-minded government-mandated tests in academic subjects?

And then it hit me. Jazz-band teachers do the right things in teaching that other teachers need to learn how to do.

Two things are essential in teaching, the professionalism of the teacher and the motivation of the students. Most school jazz programs provide both. Sad to say, this is not so true of traditional curriculum.

Consider professionalism. It was clear that these band directors really knew what they were doing. Some had professional playing experience. Most, I am certain, were music majors in college. Think about what they have to do. They take young kids who know little about music beyond humming a tune and teach them music theory, teach them to read music, and teach them to play the different instruments in a band. And then they have to teach students how to compose on the fly. You can't do that without being a real professional.

As for motivation, teaching and learning jazz involves clearly identifiable motivating features. Jazz-band teachers can't take credit for some of these features, but creative teachers in other subject areas can think of similar motivating things they could be doing, based on what is involved in jazz.

First, there is passion. Jazz stirs the emotions, from blues to ballads to hot swing. If Benny Goodman's music doesn't make you want to jump up and dance, you better check your pulse to see if you are still alive. That brings up this point: jazz is fun! Learning chemistry, for example, is almost never considered by students to be fun, but teachers should be thinking of ways to make it fun. 

Some academic subjects do have intrinsic emotional impact. If, for example, the emotions of history students are not stirred by the Federalist Papers, or the turmoil of the Civil War and the country's other wars, then history is not being competently taught. If the beauty of the laws of physics and chemistry or the biology of life are not evident in the teaching of science, it is the teacher's fault. 

Second is that jazz is personal. A jazz student intellectually owns his instrument. He or she owns the assigned space on the bandstand. One critiquing musician at the festival reminded students they own that space and if the sheet music stand or the audio at their station was not left just right from the previous band, they must fix it. It is now their space.

How well a student has learned jazz is public knowledge. They can't hide. What you know and can do is on public display, all the time in practice sessions with fellow band members and, of course, in public performances. In marked contrast, it is against the law for teachers in other subject areas to reveal grades on individual performance, even within the more private area of the classroom. The belief system in education these days is that you should not allow an unprepared and under-performing student to be embarrassed. What dingbat policy maker came up with that? I know; it comes from the perverse politically correct movement that ignores the reality that self-esteem needs to be earned.

Third is that jazz is ultimate constructivism. All teachers know about constructivism, which is the idea that students have to do something to show they have mastered the learning task. Student jazz bands and combos demonstrate personal accomplishment all the time in rehearsals and stage performances. But in many traditional courses, the main constructive thing students do is fill in circles on a Scantron test answer sheet. In science, "science fairs" encourage constructivism, but these are usually one-time events. Students need to be doing something every day to demonstrate their learning. In English, how often to students write and re-write an essay, poem, or short story? Does anybody write book reports anymore? Do students spend hours of writing and editing comparable to what a jazz student spends in practice? In social studies, how many students are required to explain and debate capitalism, socialism, fascism, democracy, and republican government? 

Fourth, jazz is social. Jazz students perform as a group, either in a big band or combo. Recall the earlier example from the festival where the professionals had to emphasize this point by taking away the sheet music. Students had to learn to talk and listen to each other through their instruments. In traditional education, there is a movement called collaborative learning, the idea of learning teams, but many teachers don't use this approach or do it without regard to the proven formalisms needed for success. Regardless of academic subject, students benefit when they learn how to help each other learn.

Part of the social aspect off jazz is competition. In many schools, many students don't have to compete to get into a music class. But once in, they have to display learning in order to advance into more prestigious classes (think the "One O'Clock Lab Band" band at the University of North Texas). In whatever music lab they are in, they have to compete for "first chair" in their instrument section. It is like competing to make the varsity and then the first team in sports. Where is the equivalent in science, social studies, or language arts?

Unlike traditional education, where the goal is to meet minimum standards on state-mandated tests, jazz band directors make very clear their high expectations that everybody in each band class should become as proficient as they can. The whole point of their teaching is mastery and excellence. They expect excellence and they get it, as witnessed by festival performances such as I saw. Thanks to the unenlightened thinking of No Child Left Behind law, our public education has degenerated into "No Child Pushed Forward."

And finally we consider the matter of reward. Somewhere in the college courses of teachers they learned about "positive reinforcement," and most teachers try to use these ideas to shape the learning achievements of their students. But jazz performance provides public reward, in the form of public applause. Is there anything comparable in the teaching of science, social studies, or language arts? Is publishing (inflated) Honor Roll lists in the newspaper the best we can do?

So in a nutshell, the reason jazz students do so well is because their learning environment is built around:

• Passion
• Personal ownership and accountability
• Constructivism
• Social interaction
• High Expectations
• Reward

What I took home from this experience is a renewed feeling that outside of jazz music programs our schools are letting our children down. These young musicians prove that when motivated and challenged, they can do astonishing things. The printed program for the festival concluded with the comment, "The future belongs to those who are able to capture their creative intelligence. Jazz music education and performance develop the ability to create and produce the ideas that are individually unique." 

Why doesn't the rest of education do that?

This festival experience leads me to suggest:

Ten Commandments for Better Teaching

1. Love your students as yourself.
2. Be professional. Know the stuff you teach.
3. Instill passion for the content - especially, make knowing fun.
4. Make learning personal. Show students how to own their learning.
5. Take away the hiding places of unprepared and under-performing students. Let them embarass themselves.
6. Show students they have to earn self-esteem. You can't give it to them. Praise success and do so publicly when it is earned.
7. Require students to do things that show they have mastered what you are trying to teach.
8. Give students opportunities to "strut their stuff" in public, in and out of the class.
9. Help students learn how to work with others as a team.
10. Expect excellence. Do not teach to the lowest common denominator.

For the last two and half years, I've served as the director for Penn State's office of Student Affairs Research and Assessment. On May 1^st, I'll be starting a new adventure as a Senior Planning and Research Associate in Penn State's Office of Planning and Institutional Assessment. I am really looking forward to the chance to work in this office and to collaborate with old friends, but the change has also led me to reflect on what I have learned in Student Affairs.

I am not a natural "student affairs" type. As an undergraduate student I lived in a residence hall for only a few months, was never active in student organizations, and just generally didn't get involved in university-sponsored events outside of my academic major. As a student and researcher of higher education, I learned to value student affairs based on the research findings I studied that extolled the influence of cocurricular experiences (thanks Bob R. and Pat T.!) and on my interactions with friends and colleagues with student affairs backgrounds (thanks Jen D-G. and Emily J.!). But until I worked in Student Affairs and saw how hard its practitioners work, how closely they interact with students (many of whom will never have an extended conversation with a faculty member), how much they care, how much of themselves they give to their jobs, and how much students get out of the work that they do, I just didn't get it.

Student Affairs practitioners work to develop attitudes and skills that are important in developing the "whole student", but that doesn't mean that these are simply add-ons to the main academic goals of the university.  In what discipline or what office are skills like leadership, teamwork, and ethical decision making not important? What workplace wants to hire a person with unhealthy habits that lead to excessive sick days and low energy? In what community are people who live sustainable lifestyles or become involved in community government and organizations not valued? Student affairs programs and staff are not just there to provide something productive for students to turn their energy towards between classes on the weekends - they are a key part of the learning experience in American higher education. Students may not know what "student affairs" is exactly, but if you ask a college graduate about the people that had the greatest influence on their educational experience, chances are a student affairs practitioner's name will come up.

Over the last couple of weeks, I've had the pleasure of watching the capstone presentations of graduating students in Penn State's College Student Affairs (CSA) program. What an amazing group of graduates! The CSA program is designed to bridge theory and practice and it requires/forces students to constantly reflect on their learning and their experiences to make the connections. Watching them inspired me and it reminded me how important and meaningful it can be to give one's self time to reflect. I hope that I will take that lesson with me to my new job and that I won't forget it again when things get busy in the future. Even though I will always be more at home on the analytical side, I feel very lucky to have had the opportunity to engage so closely with student affairs practitioners and to have had the chance to observe first-hand how important they are in the academic enterprise.

Direct assessment is based on analysis of student behavior or artifacts (tests, papers, etc.) that demonstrate students' skills and abilities. Indirect assessment is based on reported perceptions of students' skills and abilities. So, for example, a Pulse survey that asks students to rate their ability to communicate effectively is an indirect assessment, and an evaluator's score of a student's presentation is a direct assessment.

But, only faculty can do direct assessment, right? Wrong! Admittedly it is easier to do direct assessment when you can require students to do something in order to pass a class, but it isn't impossible to do outside of the classroom. Let's start with the low-hanging fruit - those Student Affairs programs in which students are already required to meet certain requirements in order to participate. For example, resident assistants, peer educators, student employees, and student organization leaders all have to meet certain requirements in order to hold their positions. Direct assessment can be incorporated into these requirements. For example, peer educators need to have certain knowledge in order to do what they do effectively. A simple knowledge-based quiz administered before their training and after their training can provide direct evidence of knowledge gained. Further, you can go the extra mile and give them the quiz 3 months down the line to provide direct evidence of knowledge retention over time.

If you want to do direct assessment of an educational program or some other activity where you want to minimize student "work" in order to maximize student participation, you have some other options. For example, students are frequently asked to provide feedback about events via a short survey. It is possible to insert one or two questions (closed- or open-ended questions) that ask students to demonstrate what they learned or how a program affected their perspective. I believe it was Aimee who talked about this and when I inquired, she indicated that in her experience students were willing to complete these questions as long as they could be answered quickly and concisely.

Okay, but what if I want to assess higher-level skills, such as leadership ability among student organization leaders? Well, first you need to define the critical components of leadership ability. That's no small job, but you have some options. You might develop a rubric that could be used to do a 360-degree evaluation of a student leader. Members of the student organization, the organization's adviser, and other key people who interact with the leader might be asked to provide feedback using the rubric. Another option would be to require your student leaders to participate in reflective writing - probably not possible for every club president at Penn State, but perhaps with a few key leaders or with a group of RAs or peer educators you could make this work. For students that maintain an online portfolio, reflective writing about their experiences and learning can provide artifacts.

These are just a few ideas to get you thinking. What I took away from this session is that the key to direct assessment in Student Affairs is to focus in very tightly on critical or essential knowledge. This will help keep the task manageable.

The program studied is one sponsored by the Bonner Foundation and the study measured the impact of a service learning program in a cocurricular setting. At Penn State, a service learning task force is soon likely to define 'service learning' as only possible within the context of the curriculum in a formal, classroom setting, but this study shows that a well-structured co-curricular setting can be effective as well.

UOGP is working tirelessly to internationalize students' curricular and co-curricular experiences on and off campus, supporting them in the transformational journey to become globally responsible citizens. The Office of Student Activities has long desired to add an international component to their leadership development programming efforts in an effort to more thoroughly develop and prepare students to be effective leaders in a global society.

GELE began with a brief welcome by Kristin and then we transitioned into the first segment, "Building Community." Students spent time in the large group introducing themselves by sharing their major, class standing and country of origin followed by the history of their name, teaching the rest of the group how to say hello in their native language, and finally they were asked to select a card with a picture on it that best represented what they were feeling at that moment about their participation in GELE.

 After a wonderful dinner the group was divided into the two fictional cultures that make up the BaFa BaFa cultural simulation. One group immediately became Alphans as members of the Alpha culture and the other group Betans as members of the Beta culture. Members of each culture are escorted in smaller groups to visit the opposite culture. When visiting the new culture it is quite apparent that the visitors do not speak the native language nor do they understand and/or respect the traditions and customs of the new culture. BaFa BaFa is designed to give participants a complex understanding of what it is like to try and become a member of a culture completely different from your own.

BaFa BaFa ended with a large group conversation where participants were asked a series of prompts in an effort to get each participant to reflect on their experience while engaged in this activity but also how it relates to their real life experiences. Questions ranged from "describe the other culture" to "how receptive was the other culture of your visit?" to "what emotions are you currently experiencing?" The most humorous, but effective,  response of the night came when one participant was asked to explain her view of both cultures and she said" the Alpha and Beta cultures were like a mullet - the Alphas were a party in front while the Beta's were  all business in the back." Finally the large group was divided into four smaller groups to further discuss the events of the evening. These small group discussions were peer-facilitated by four past GELE participants and allowed the students to reflect on the global climate at Penn State.

Saturday morning we awoke to find another beautiful sunny day, although a bit chilly until the frost melted! After a hearty breakfast the group headed outside to participate in a community service project.  The community service segment is important because it allows for direct implementation of the concept of "thinking globally and acting locally." The large group was divided again this time into three smaller "work" groups.  A "leader" of each group was randomly chosen, their responsibility was to effectively guide their team in the successful completion of the project at hand.

We met with Ranger John while he explained the service project as well as the need for staining the three foot bridges located in the front and back of the Inn.  He also made sure to explain to the participants how they needed to be extremely careful not to contaminate the soil by accidently spilling stain because this in turn would contaminate the water table. To prevent any sort of contamination, the students covered the immediate area of each bridge with large sheets of plastic. Once each bridge had its plastic in place students were given the necessary materials needed to both sand and stain their bridge. Despite the bright sun, it was still a bit chilly outside and as result each team leader decided to work their teams in 10-15 minutes shifts so that when students were off shift they could go inside and grab a hot beverage. This was a very effective motivator and the bridges were completely stained in no time and Ranger John was extremely pleased with the students' productivity.

Throughout the two hour project each group was observed engaging in meaningful conversations, laughing, and even dancing as one creative group even managed to obtain a laptop in order to play music.  All in all it was a fun, energizing, and productive morning.  Upon the completion of the project students were greeted by Charli Lehman-Program Director for Service.  Charli engaged the entire group in a meaningful reflection about their service experiences. By using the "ripple effect" Charli was able to help the students make the connection between the service they just completed and the impact that it will have on people that they will never meet.  The students ended the morning by articulating how participating in the service project directly impacted them. Comments ranged from; "we had fun" to "improving society and the environment" to "it allowed us to give back" to "it helped me to recognize the privileges that I have".

Charli joined the students for lunch and the meaningful conversations continued.  After lunch there was a segment entitled, "Attitudes & Attires" This was a panel discussion facilitated by international scholars (currently studying at Penn State) from 5 different countries dressed in traditional "business" attire from their native country. The countries represented were; India, Laos, Thailand, Sri Lanka, and Sierra Leone.  Each panelist spent time sharing the tradition of their native dress as well as what the dress would be like for the opposite gender, as well as some of the cultural traditions from their countries.  They discussed topics such as the dress code for school-aged children, the birth of a child, the naming of a child, wedding ceremonies, the business climate, polygamy, and the level of personal modesty associated each culture. The panel was a series of questions and answers between the panelists and the students. The panel was fun, engaging and educational and there was no doubt that the students enjoyed interacting with theses invited guests.

The next two segments were run concurrently. In order to allow for a deeper conversation the participants were again split into two smaller groups and then they rotated between the two segments, "Leadership Around the World" facilitated by Gina Hurny, Nimisha Thakur, and Katia Esarey and "Global Ethics" facilitated by David Miller-Martini.  The "Leadership Around the World" segment began by asking students to shout out adjectives and characteristics that answered the question, "what is leadership?" Through short bios and video clips, students were then introduced to five past/present  prominent world leaders including; Queen Rania of Jordan, Mahatma Gandhi, Liu Xiaobo, Bill Clinton, and Margaret Thatcher. Students were then asked to discuss the common characteristics demonstrated by each of the leaders and what role those characteristics play as they strive to become global citizens. The take-a-way from this segment is best represented by Ciulla (2003) "the meaning of the word leadership is not defined by scholars-it is determined by the way people in a culture use it and think about it."

The "Global Ethics" segment featured some opening comments from David about the importance and characteristics of global ethics, a cultural role play that tested the participants' ethical beliefs, and finally a passionate discussion by the student that left them wishing this segment was at least another 30 minutes longer in length. This segment set the foundation for on-going conversations over dinner as well as spilling over late into the night following the last segment of the day, The International Showcase.

The Intercultural Showcase segment was designed to allow a platform for the GELE participants to share something unique about their culture of origin.  Participants had the opportunity to learn first-hand about a wide-variety of traditional customs including; attire, music, dance, toys, games, and spoken word from Japan, China, Thailand, Kazakhstan, Africa, and the United States. The Showcase was not only entertaining but very educational.  The students all enjoyed the opportunity to learn and the fun atmosphere of the evening was capped off by the American tradition of a campfire with s'mores. Several of the international students had not yet experienced this American delicacy and the reviews were mixed, ranging from "delicious" to "it's just not for me."

Sunday morning was designed to prepare the students to make the connections between thinking globally while acting locally. Charlie Brooks, The Inn Keeper, started our morning off by highlighting all the features and amenities of the Inn that has it competing for a LEED (Leadership, Environment, Energy, Designs) Certified Gold rating.  73% of the construction waste from the Inn was kept out of the landfills because it was disposed in a more environmentally sound manner.  Some of the most unique features of the building itself are: that the countertops in all the units are made from recycled auto glass and the countertops in the conference rooms are made from sunflower seed hulls, the building is heated and cooled using geo thermo technology, rainwater is harvested and used to flush the toilets, every inch on harvested rainwater results in 1500 flushes, 80% of all lumber used to actually build the Inn and all of the furniture used within came from regionally sourced materials, meaning less than a 200 mile radius form the building site, and finally the building itself is built on an East-West axis in order to make the maximum use of full Southern exposure.

After concluding the remarks by Charlie the students were treated to a segment on Global Leadership-Global Challenges facilitated by Neil Brown.  Neil started off by simply asking each student to share how their current major plays a role in sustainability. The conversation was easy to relate to and for some of the students the connection was easy to make for others it was far more difficult and they need to rely on their peers to help them out. Next Neil asked them to think about sustainability being defined as "thoughtful progress."

The take-a-ways from this segment included noting that poor communication prevents effective collaboration, that we each come into every situation with our own lens of perception, and that global leadership is a complex system made up of four components.  The four components are collaboration, strategy, innovation, and communication.  Finally, Neil reminded us that global leadership needs to be about the movement not about the individual and that the first follower is always the most courageous.

This incredible weekend ended with a final segment facilitated by Kirk Simmons. Kirk engaged the participants in a free flowing conversation about the global climate at Penn State.  This segment organically morphed into the participants sharing what GELE meant to them and how they could take all that they learned and experienced back to campus with them.  Our time at the Nature's Inn ended with lunch and several requests for group photos. Then it was back on the bus to head back to campus.

There is no way to effectively measure the immediate impact that this weekend has had on the participants and facilitators. However, based on the energy, excitement, and meaningful conversations that occurred over the past weekend we have all been impacted in ways we may not even be able to articulate until days, weeks, or even years later.

Due to the high demand and the lasting effects of this program, GELE will be duplicated in the spring during the weekend of March 16^th -18^th.

For more information about the Global Engagement Leadership Experience http://www.global.psu.edu/dgrp/gli/