This syllabus is for an upper-level undergraduate seminar on the philosophy of time that I offer every other year at Mount Holyoke College. MHC is a small, liberal arts, women’s college in Western Massachusetts. I often also have students who are from other members of the Five College Consortium—which includes UMass Amherst, Amherst College, Hampshire College, and Smith College. The course is capped at under 20 students, and meets once a week for 3 hours. The MHC semester is 13 weeks long, but I always plan only 12 weeks of material to leave myself a little bit of wiggle room.
In some ways, this is a pretty standard philosophy of time course. I start with the Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence, then do a unit on contemporary metaphysics, including the presentism/eternalism debate and the question of whether time passes, and move on to time travel. There are a handful of things that make my approach distinctive, however, of which I’ll discuss three here: the weekly self-assessments, the in-class writing, and the independent research projects.
Weekly Self-Assessments
With the exception of the three big assignments for the course (the mid-term paper, the independent research project, and the final paper), all aspects of the course are graded through a self-assessment that each student completes each week. This includes the weekly pre-class assignments (usually some reading and reading questions), attendance, participation, and post-class assignments (usually some revision of their in-class writing, on which more below). The weekly self-assessment is also an opportunity for students to describe what they found interesting or confusing in class, to earn some points back if they didn’t participate that week, and to ask me any additional questions. I’ve included my self-assessment template at the end of the syllabus to give the reader a sense of what I ask for. It is designed to take students 10 minutes or less to complete as long as they have been keeping up with the coursework.
The weekly self-assessments might seem like mostly a logistical tool, and they do keep some things, like tracking attendance and participation, nice and streamlined. But they also serve an important pedagogical role, by giving students an opportunity to track, reflect on, and take responsibility for their own effort and understanding on a regular basis throughout the semester. I find this increases engagement and improves learning outcomes.
In-class Writing
I ask students to do quite a bit of writing in class. These in-class writing assignments are often short; for instance, I might ask them to further develop their response to a question about the reading in light of the discussion, or to pose an objection to an argument we reconstructed in class. Sometimes, though, they can be lengthy—I have them draft both their mid-term and final papers in class. They submit their in-class writing on the course website, and then are asked to revise it after class and reflect on any changes that they’ve made. Sometimes, especially toward the beginning of the semester, I will give them something specific to focus on in their revision (e.g. making sure they define any technical terms). I always ask them to write up what they changed in their revision and why.
With the exception of the papers, the in-class writing assignments (both the initial version and the revision) are only graded for completion. This means that students have lots of low stakes opportunities to practice writing and revising their writing. In my experience, this is the best way to improve student writing—to make sure that they are writing a lot and that they have frequent opportunities to revisit and revise their writing.
The reason why I take time for the initial writing to happen in class is three-fold. First, it makes procrastination on a first draft impossible. Students have to get started on writing at a set time, and well before the revision is eventually due. Second, it makes perfectionism with respect to their first draft impossible. I tell them that anything they write off the cuff in class is going to be pretty bad. And that’s fine! That’s the point of first drafts. Third, it gives students an opportunity to focus in a way that they just don’t seem to be able to accomplish very often outside the classroom. I usually ask them to write first by hand, with no devices out. My sense is that many of my students have so little experience with this level of focus that they don’t even know what they are missing by putting their screens away and forcing themselves to focus on one question or topic for an extended period of time. Even 10 minutes feels like forever for them.
Independent Research Projects
I devote a significant portion of the semester—at least four class periods—to student presentations of their independent research projects. The goal of these projects is to give students some exposure to the sheer breadth of topics in philosophy of time, while also giving them the opportunity to go deep on one topic of their own choosing. I am also looking to build their ability to work independently, which I find to be a challenge for MHC students, who are used to highly-engaged professors who are very good at providing pedagogical scaffolding and support for big projects.
Students can choose any topic related to philosophy of time that we haven’t already covered in class. I give them a range of options, including historical figures that aren’t a part of the traditional canon (e.g. Émilie du Châtelet, Dōgen, Nagarjuna), non-western approaches to philosophy of time (e.g. zen Buddhist accounts of time and Indigenous accounts of time) and interdisciplinary topics at the intersection of philosophy of time and philosophy of mind (time bias, temporal experience in cognitive development, temporal experience in meditation). I also allow them to design their own topic if they prefer. They may choose to work with a partner if they like, but they aren’t required to do so.
For the project, students read at least three papers on their topic, assign a pre- and post-class assignment for the other students on the day they are presenting, and prepare to lead the class for 45 minutes of lecture and discussion on that day. I ask them to model their presentation on the classes I led at the beginning of the semester—there should be a lecture component, but they should also consider having discussion time, in-class writing prompts, small group work, etc. Students meet with me in advance of their presentation date to make sure they are on the right track.
I think that’s all for context. The syllabus itself follows.
The Syllabus Showcase of the APA Blog is designed to share insights into the syllabi of philosophy educators. We include syllabi in their original, unedited format that showcase a wide variety of philosophy classes. We would love for you to be a part of this project. Please contact Series Editor, Cara S. Greene via cara.greene@coloradocollege.edu, or Editor of the Teaching Beat, Dr. Smrutipriya Pattnaik via smrutipriya23@gmail.com with potential submissions.
The post Philosophy of Time, Nina Emery first appeared on Blog of the APA.
Read the full article which is published on APA Online (external link)
