<\/p>\n rory dicker<\/a> <\/strong>(women\u2019s and gender studies program, english department) shared her activism project from wgs 150: sex and gender in everyday life.\u00a0 in this course, students learn about the social constructions of gender and gender roles, and in the process they encounter many illustrative examples of inequality. rory, like others who teach courses that acknowledge inequality, knows that this experience can be \u201cdispiriting,\u201d as she explains in her assignment instructions<\/a>. rather than leaving students with the impression that there are only problems and no solutions, that theory without action is sufficient, and, more importantly, that the students are powerless in the face of social injustice, rory assigns a project that gives students a way to explore and express their power within a problem they care about. <\/strong> samples include “dress down days” that draw attention away from external definitions of beauty, hands-on workshops in activities typically not taught to women (auto repair), discussion groups on violence against women, and various awareness activities with stickers, buttons, flyers, and the like.<\/p>\n to support the values of collaborative work and of thinking locally\u2014and to keep the work manageable\u2014the projects are conceptualized, planned, and carried out by well-structured groups and focused on the immediate campus community. she encourages students to \u201cbe<\/em><\/strong> creative<\/em><\/strong>\u201d (emphasis in original), to address \u201ca need that hasn\u2019t been met or a population that hasn\u2019t been served,\u201d and to design a project that effectively reaches audiences that might actually effect some change. she supports their work by offering help, telling them she wants their projects \u201cto be exciting, not agonizing.\u201d students are using their own voices, their own authority, but they aren\u2019t without support if needed.<\/p>\n the group assignment\u2019s components include the following:<\/p>\n students also write individual self-assessments, reflecting on both the processes they used <\/em>(\u201chow and why you decided to do this particular project, how you knew that this work was needed or would be useful, and how you performed your activism,\u201d as well as their rationale for designing their surveys, brochures, etc., as they did) and their lessons learned<\/em> in applying what they\u2019ve been learning to the vanderbilt community. while the project itself may effect some change in the community, these metacognitive components<\/a>–in which students reflect on and evaluate their thinking and learning–ensure an internal change (learning) within the students themselves.<\/strong><\/p>\n what do these students “produce”? <\/strong>materially, they produce a portfolio, but rory is quick to point out that the portfolios merely document the real work they\u2019ve created: their own self-authored action in the community based on what they\u2019ve been learning, the changes they effect, and their own emerging identities as agents within a larger social system.<\/p>\n —<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/cdn.vanderbilt.edu\/vu-wp0\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/59\/2018\/07\/09154556\/sap-logo1.jpg\" "\\"students"){kind=logo}
<\/a>the cft’s theme this year, “students as producers<\/a>,” has given me the opportunity to talk with <\/em>some talented and thoughtful colleagues across campus. on october 24, i brought together three of them to have a conversation on teaching about “producing, performing, & creating learning across the humanities: models of generative learning assignments<\/strong><\/a>.” their ideas were so rich that i’m devoting separate blog posts to each of them.\u00a0 up first, rory dicker.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/a><\/a>\n