To combat this problem, conduct an instructional audit of your teaching units. This involves analyzing each lesson plan or activity and then choosing at least three different instructional techniques through which content can be acquired. For example, for a group of learners meeting two hours in a row, you might decide to use a mini-lecture, small group discussion, and a simulation exercise. In an online course, a brief lecture using YouTube, an audio link, or PPT slides with notes could be augmented by learners working independently on study material or participating in asynchronous discussion forums.

By using several different techniques for delivering information, you are varying the presentation modes, providing learners with opportunities to participate, finding ways of involving the learners in the teaching and learning process, and promoting the notion of learners taking more responsibility for their own learning. Becoming actively involved in the instructional transactions helps learners take increasing ownership for what takes place. For more information, read Assimilating a Personalized Approach into Instructional Processes.

A teaching environment that is well tended promotes more active participation in the learning experience. Human creatures, like other creatures, tend to establish territories. Adjustment of things in our personal spaces is another of our interesting habits. We do this to give meaning to our space and to create a sense of comfort or familiarity. Personal space needs and territoriality in instructional settings can be dealt with by making sure that the spaces are not overcrowded and that each adult has adequate space for working and for storing personal items. Further, any barriers that are physical should be dismantled if the teacher wants to convey an atmosphere of collaboration in the learning experience.

As we move increasingly to online or blended learning that combines both physical space connections and online discussions, the learning environment needs to be even more carefully considered. The implications of such changes for how people interact successfully with each other will be the subject of a future essay. For more information on this topic see Where we Learn Shapes our Learning.

It is not easy, initially, to embrace an individualizing instructional approach without some degree of hesitancy, confusion, or skepticism. After all, most of us were initially trained to believe or shown that instruction was largely a one-way street and usually from that authority position. Many new (and experienced) instructors worry about the proper role of a teacher. It is recommended that you keep an open mind to the potential of organizing instruction differently and give it an honest try. Here are several observations and suggestions for making the process viable.

1. The negative response of certain learners may cause you to question whether the individualizing approach really works.

Some learners may at first find the approach appearing too permissive and loose. This reaction can be expected as most learners have been accustomed to a more teacher directed approach and will be confused when an instructor urges them to take increasing charge of their own learning. Simply be aware that some people will initially believe an instructional role should be conventional or teacher-directed.

2. Some colleagues may question an instructor’s use of an individualizing instructional process and challenge its efficacy.

The plain truth is that some instructors are threatened by the idea of giving learners a role in the instructional process. They often have conventional ideas about what an instructor should and should not do. Rather than be personally threatened by this reaction, the best defense is offense. Start a dialogue about your evolving views of instruction. Though you may not convince everyone, as you gain experience and have increasing success, the proof will be in the pudding.

3. Certain bureaucratic hurdles may interfere with the use of an individualizing instructional process.

While these hurdles or barriers are sometimes only sources of irritation, they should certainly not be overlooked or ignored. The key is understanding the nature of the policies and following them according to the spirit rather than the letter of the law. For example, certain institutions have a standardized syllabus format that must be followed. If this is the case, follow the prescribed format but add additional information through attachments or appendices. This compromise usually satisfies the needs of the institution and learners.

4. Above all else, be patient, flexible, and trusting in the abilities of yourself and learners.

It is not unusual to desire fairly immediate results if you are trying a new approach to teaching. If results are slow in coming, a typical response might be to abandon it. However, one of the consequences is that many good ideas are then never able to mature. Thus, don’t expect too much too soon when the individualizing approach. Because the process involves a good deal of preplanning, challenges previous instructional experiences, and often is new to you and your learners, it will take time to realize the kind of benefits that will surely come.

5. Giving frequent feedback to and receiving it from learners are useful ways of promoting instructional success.

One of the most important things you can do to ensure instructional success is to give frequent feedback to your adult learners. In addition, solicit frequent feedback from learners regarding how the learning experience is progressing and how your instruction is being perceived. This helps determine progress and what kinds of changes need to be made so as to make the experience as meaningful as possible.

6. It is desirable to use a variety of teaching techniques in the individualizing process.

Many instructors rely almost exclusively on the lecture method without considering other techniques that could work even better in helping learners attain their desired competencies. To combat this problem conduct an “instructional audit” of your teaching units. This involves analyzing each lesson plan or activity and then choosing at least three different instructional techniques to deliver the necessary content.

7. Recognize and use learner expertise in your instructional efforts.

One of the characteristics that distinguishes adult learners is the amount of expertise they possess. For example, it is not unusual to find a significant number of experienced professionals in any adult learning situation. Providing illustrations that relate to or grow out of such experience and asking for potential solutions to any problems are additional ways of connecting new information with the expertise at hand.

8. Recognize that the individualizing process will not work perfectly for all learners, and that some take longer than others to adapt to the process.

As effective as the individualizing process can be, there will be a few people who resist efforts to assume personal responsibility for learning. These learners often demand that you be teacher-directed in every conceivable way. For these kind of learners, we suggest you provide the kind of direction they demand while at the same time moving them to assume greater self-direction.

9. The individualizing process can be a structured approach to helping adults assume greater responsibility for their learning.

The individualizing instructional process is not a laissez faire approach to learning where anything goes. In fact, the process has considerable structure built into it. At the same time, there should be sufficient flexibility so that mature learners can indeed direct their own learning. The individualizing process works equally well for those learners who need greater structure as well as those who need less. By focusing attention on the individual needs of learners and devising personalized plans for meeting those needs, the whole meaning of learning is transformed from one of passive acceptance to one of personal empowerment.

For more information read Assimilating a Personalized Approach into Your Instruction.

Most adults, when given the opportunity, prefer to control their own learning activities. Considerable research on adult learning efforts in the past few decades has shown that individuals can take considerable control of various tasks. Individualizing instructional efforts enables each learner to take action, find resources, figure out a comfortable learning pace, and plan the kind of learning that is most appropriate for meeting any particular need. Following are five ways to help ensure people begin to take personal ownership of their learning activities:

1. Access routes to learning resources need to be varied to meet the different individual educational support requirements.

2. Self-discipline and self-confidence are requirements for successful individualized study so have patience and faith that the individualizing approach will work.

3. Instructors should serve as facilitators as well as emphasize the mastery of specific content areas in helping learners assume responsibility.

4. The instructor’s attitude toward the ability of learners is very important when using an individualizing approach so let them discover their own potential.

5. The instructor may need to play a counseling or mentoring role with some learners in helping them gain confidence and understand what they can do by themselves.

For more information read Fostering a Shared Responsibility Between Instructor and Learner.

Rev. Calthrop, our third minister, was born in Swineshead Abbey, Lincolnshire, England, in 1829. He was educated at St. Paul’s School in London and at Trinity College in Cambridge. He moved to the U.S. in 1853. He became minister of the Universalist Church in Southold (Long Island), New York, for three months. He next ran a school for boys in Bridgeport, Connecticut, for six years. He was ordained as a Unitarian minister in 1860.

First he was a minister at Unitarian churches in Marblehead and Newbury­port, Massachusetts. He moved to Syracuse and became minister of the Church of the Messiah in 1868 and then May Memorial after its construction in 1885. He became Pastor Emeritus in 1911. He received the L.H.D. from Syracuse University in June, 1900.

He was an individual with many interests who contributed much to May Memorial and the Syracuse community. Click here to learn more about this renaissance man and here to see one of his earliest photos when he was the 1880 New York State chess champion. He died in Syracuse in 1917. Read some very interesting material about Sam’s boyhood years written by his daughter, Edith Calthrop Bump, in 1939. Finally, read this very delightful article written by a man who remembers Rev. Calthrop as a very important mentor, person, and colleague: Recollections of the Old Master: Rev. Samuel Robert Calthrop.

Developed by Rog Hiemstra, Chair, History Committee

May Memorial Unitarian Universalist Society

Some may have read the wonderful article about our window’s journey by Dick Case in the Post Standard on January 12. He described his conversation with Deb Ryan, the Everson’s senior curator, who explained how the window was taken apart and packed carefully in three separate wooden crates. Deb will fly to Paris as “New Jerusalem” is taken down and crated for the trip to Montreal. Now, is there anyone taking a trip to Montreal?

Several History Committee members have completed recorded interviews of 24 long time or past church parishioners. We’ve learned much about our history. Here are only three of the many interesting factoids from these conversations:

More than 70 years ago a large room in the James Street church used for religious education classes had movable dividers with opaque glass to create the appearance of rooms for a certain amount of  privacy.

In the James Street church there were many nooks and crannies where a clever and knowledgeable child could hide from parents and teachers if they so desired, sometimes for long periods of time.

When the current church was built, children had to be at least three years old to attend because of concerns with communicable diseases, such as polio.

With more than 40 hours of taped conversation we have gained much such knowledge. Forty more people have been identified whom we hope to interview over the next several months. If you would like to do some interviewing or any of scanning, inventorying, and other tasks the committee undertakes, we would love to have you join us.

Finally, an interesting history-related update. On January 22 Harsey Leonard and I met with Mr. Peter Wilkinson Bragdon, Exeter, NH, great grandson of Sam May. He presented to the church two bibles at one time owned by Sam May and passed down through the family. It was a wonderful occasion and the bibles will soon be on display. See http://history.mmuus.org/bibles.html for more information.

Rog Hiemstra, Chair, History Committee

Written January 15, 2010

When the James Street church was being razed, it is the only one of the 10 stained glass windows saved and it has hung in the Everson Art Museum for many years. Many May Memorial parishioners and thousands of others have enjoyed its beauty over the years when visiting the Museum. Nancy Pease recently visited the museum and was surprised when looking for it to note its absence and asked officials there where it was. She mentioned this to me and here is the wonderful and honorific story of its current journey.

The Montreal Museum of Fine Arts has organized in collaboration with the Musée du Luxembourg in Paris and the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts in Richmond a touring exhibit of Tiffany Glass. This exhibition is one of the most significant ever mounted of Tiffany’s works and celebrates this renowned designer who achieved original and spectacular effects in hand-blown glass vessels, leaded glass windows and lamps, and other decorative objects. The exhibition’s curators are from the Montreal museum, the NYC Metropolitan Museum of Art, and Rutgers University. In addition to choosing pieces from the collaborating museums, the curators visited several venues where Tiffany pieces are housed, including the Everson. From all the Everson Tiffany pieces they chose our window. Everson Registrar, Karen Convertino, even travelled to Paris for its installation there.

The exhibition’s approximately 170 objects includes blown-glass vessels, lamps, leaded-glass windows, and other decorative objects. Currently, in its first 12-week exhibition at the Paris museum until the end of December, it is known as “Tiffany Glass: A Passion for Colour” (Couleurs et Lumière). Starting mid February for another 12 weeks it will be at the Montreal museum where it will be known as the “Fusion of Colour: The Glass of Louis C. Tiffany.” Its final 12 week exhibit will begin at the end of May in the Richmond museum where it will be known as “Tiffany: Color and Light.” Anyone for a trip to Pairs, Montreal, or Richmond for a wonderful experience and seeing in person how our window has complemented this exhibition? If you do visit, take photos.

Rog Hiemstra, Chair, History Committee

Written December 15, 2009

His actual involvement with peace probably began when he heard of Rev. William Channing’s sermons or it may have been when as a Harvard student he became aware of the recently established Massachusetts Peace Society. He father, Joseph May, became a member of that Society in 1816, right when Sam was studying at Harvard and beginning to think about many things and becoming acquainted with many people. One was a college friend, Gorham Parsons, who was a neighbor of Rev. Noah Worcester. Noah printed around the same time a famous peace tract entitled, The Solemn Review of the Custom of War. Upon being introduced to Rev. Worcester during a visit to Gorham’s home, Sam later talked about how inspired he was during this meeting and thus began a long friendship with Rev. Worcester.

Soon after Sam became an officer in the Windham County Peace Society and within a short time published his very first of what would be many tracts, entitled the Exposition of the Sentiments and Purposes of the Windham County Peace Society. From that point he began accelerating his work through publications, attendance at peace movement meetings, and various sermons in his first pastorate. These latter created some problems for him as many in that congregation objected to a minister who was so vocal on a complicated issue.

Thus began the ridicule that Sam was to face throughout most of his remaining life for his strong stands on societal issues. Not only did he face criticism within his own church, but within his community of Brooklyn, Connecticut, and increasingly throughout much of the east. His views on peace were greatly enhanced when in 1827 he met William Ladd, who was known at the time as the “Apostle of Peace.” William then enlisted Sam to help form a national peace organization, what would become the American Peace Society.

That beginning led naturally to Sam’s work with injustice of any sort and the abolitionist movement. When he was considering the move to Syracuse, he let our ancestors know exactly what his views were on peace, slavery, and the injustices he saw even in his initial visits to our community. Knowing all of this, our forbearers eagerly invited him to continue his ministry here and the rest is history. It is no wonder that May Memorial has had such a long and rich involvement with social justice issues. Thanks, Sam! To read more about Sam’s path to peace advocacy read the biography, God’s Chore Boy at http://history.mmuus.org/galpin-may.html

Rog Hiemstra, Chair, History Committee

Written November 15, 2009

After meeting in homes, an unoccupied schoolhouse, and even an old Baptist Church on West Genesee St. from 1836 through 1838, our first church building was a small wooden structure not much bigger than our current Memorial Room. It was built for $607 and the first service was conducted in January of 1839. Our first minister, Rev. John Storer, arrived in 1839, too, and after taking his first look at the church building, he called it his “Little Tabernacle,” as it barely held the 40 members usually in attendance each Sunday. Today much of that location is occupied by the Hiscock and Barclay building. Its founder, Judge Frank Hiscock, was an active leader in our church during the early part of the last century. An important note: Where our building stood would have been on part of what is today a parking lot.

That little building served us well for only five years as our membership grew steadily. Standing room only constraints on parishioners resulted in the construction of our second church building at the corner of Burnett and Lock (now State) Street, very near the Erie Canal. The building several times larger than the first one, was completed in the fall of 1843 for the price of $5000. Named the Church of the Messiah, it was an imposing structure. To see photos of this and our other buildings, go to this Internet site: http://history.mmuus.org/churchbuildings.pdf. Today that building is gone, and it its place, you guessed it, a parking lot.

Unfortunately, a railroad track was laid down quite near the Church of the Messiah, and the resulting noise overpowered services, meetings, and even weddings. Thus our next building, named in honor of our second minister, was called May Memorial church, a name we still hold today. It was built at 472 James St. for the cost of  $50,000. This beautiful church served us very well from 1985 through 1964. Unfortunately, we eventually outgrew it and had our current church constructed. Would it surprise you to know that today 472 James St. is a parking lot?

Our 3800 E. Genesee St. church was built for $447,000 and was dedicated on October 10, 1964. It, too, has served us very well for these past 45 years and we do have a fairly large parking lot!

Rog Hiemstra, Chair, History Committee

Written October 13, 2009

When Winnie and Fred fell in love in 1888 after she had visited friends in Syracuse, they both knew there would be problems with their respective parents, especially Jefferson Davis and his wife Varina, who were still smarting over the loss of the Civil War and his imprisonment for a period. Because Sam May, who had died in 1868 three years after the war ended, was still known throughout much of the south as one of those “abolitionists” who had been thought responsible, in part, for causing the war, they were none too happy about this romance. Jefferson was very much against it and let her know it. She had been born in 1864, in Richmond, Virginian, in the “White House” of the confederacy and was actually known throughout the south as the “daughter of the confederacy,” so there was much at stake here. Winnie was so distraught over all the disagreement that she became very thin and run-down. Jefferson then convinced her to go with friends on a cruise to Europe. Unfortunately, when she was in Paris in December of 1889, her father died. Her resulting grief added to the depression she felt over the unfortunate love affair.

Varina then decided that she did not want to sacrifice her daughter’s happiness because of past Confederacy issues and actually announced their engagement in April of 1890. The furor in the southern newspapers was actually much greater than anyone had even anticipated. About this time inquiries were made by some of her family members into Fred’s circumstances and the word came back that he would have trouble supporting a wife and eventual family. As a consequence, Fred learned of these inquiries, became angry, and wrote Winnie a fairly heated letter. One thing led to another and Varina used the newspapers once again to say the wedding was postponed. By the fall of that year the engagement was finally broken off.

It is difficult to know how much that broken engagement affected her. She did go on to become somewhat fairly well know as an author, but her health never regained its full vigor. She died in September of 1898 at the age of 34. She was buried with full military honors. Standing in the back of the church during the services was none other than a very saddened Fred Wilkinson. What could have been was never to be.

Rog Hiemstra, Chair, History Committee

Written September 14, 2009