Teaching's still going pretty well this semester -- I'd put it in the B+ / A- range, which is pretty good for me. I was thinking about this the other day while walking home from class, how a letter grade scale actually works pretty well for my lit. teaching. It'd look something like this:
- A range: Totally prepared, know the material backwards and forwards, can lecture animatedly and/or lead an engaging discussion, have devised clever methods to keep students engaged all through class in active learning, plus cool homework afterwards
- B range: Don't know the material quite as well (often true the first time I teach a course), but sufficiently for course purposes, have read plenty of supplemental material (history, criticism, etc.) to bolster conversation, can lecture coherently and lead a class discussion without stumbling
- C range: Underprepared on material -- have read primary sources, but haven't made up lecture notes, or done supplemental reading to give me coherent structure for class discussion or clear goals for what I want them to get out of the text -- if this pattern persists throughout the course, leads to a frustratingly random course for the students, and a sneaking suspicion that the professor doesn't quite know what she's doing
- D/F range: Haven't actually finished the reading one is supposed to be teaching, totally flail in class, some if not all of the students are aware of your incompetence and even openly contemptuous of it, misery all around for everyone
But now I have to go back to my grading. Sigh. Thankfully, 'grading cheerfully' isn't anywhere on my list of what it takes to be a good teacher.