Instructor Insights

Course Overview

This page focuses on the course 11.469 Urban Sociology in Theory and Practice as it was taught by Assistant Professor Justin Steil and Teaching Assistant Aditi Mehta in Spring 2016.

This course introduces students to core writings in the field of urban sociology, and explores the nature and changing character of the city and the urban experience in the U.S. and abroad. Topics include the changing conceptions of “community,” the effects of neighborhood characteristics on individual outcomes, the significance of social capital and networks, the drivers of categorical inequality, and the interaction of social structure and political power. This class is comprised of students from MIT and from the Boston University Metropolitan College Prison Education Program, and took place at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution in Norfolk.

Course Outcomes

Course Goals for Students

The course has two primary goals:

To give students a more critical appreciation of the contemporary, comparative, and historical contexts in which planning skills and sensibilities have been developed and are applied.
To offer a “sociology of knowledge” approach to the field of urban sociology.

Instructor Insights

"The material in this course was challenging and the workload demanding. We did not see a difference in the capabilities or dedication of MIT and BU students. In classroom discussions, both groups of students shined. Because the MIT grad students had more practice writing, we spent more time editing BU papers, but the analysis, arguments, and thoughts were equally impressive among both groups. The experience reinforced the idea that everyone is capable of learning and contributing successfully if given the right opportunities."

— Justin Steil and Aditi Mehta

Below, Assistant Professor Justin Steil and Teaching Assistant Aditi Mehta describe various aspects of how they taught 11.469 Urban Sociology in Theory and Practice.

Curriculum Information

Prerequisites

There are no prerequisites for this course. Permission of the instructor is required.

Requirements Satisfied

None

Offered

Offered on a variable schedule.

Assessment

Grade Breakdown

The students’ grades were based on the following activities:

20% In-class participation
30% Weekly response paper & presentation
10% In-class team presentation of an ethnography
15% Reflection paper on the learning experience
25% Term paper or research proposal

Student Information

Enrollment

23 students

Breakdown by Year

Undergraduate and graduate students

Breakdown by Major

MIT students were pursuing graduate degrees in city planning and urban studies and planning.

Boston University Metropolitan College students had received or were pursuing bachelor’s degrees in urban studies and sociology.

How Student Time Was Spent

During an average week, students were expected to spend 12 hours on the course, roughly divided as follows:

Seminar

Met 1 time per week for 3 hours, 13 sessions total.
Seminars included Socratic discussions, student presentations, and brief lectures about the assigned readings and study questions.

Out of Class

Weekly response papers
Preparation for team presentation of an ethnography
Reflection paper on the learning experience
Term paper or research proposal

11.469 Urban Sociology in Theory and Practice comprised students from MIT and from the Boston University Metropolitan College Prison Education Program, and took place at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution in Norfolk. In this section, Justin Steil and Aditi Mehta share their insights about creating and sustaining a collaborative classroom environment.

"The course attracted socially aware and empathetic individuals from both institutions, making a discussion-based, collaborative learning environment particularly rewarding."

— Justin Steil and Aditi Mehta

A focus in designing this course was integrating the two groups of students, and creating a space in which everyone felt that they had something to contribute and to learn. The course attracted socially aware and empathetic individuals from both institutions, making a discussion-based, collaborative learning environment particularly rewarding. On the first day of class, several of the incarcerated participants emphasized their concern that the MIT students would see them only as prisoners and not as fellow students. There was a need to establish trust among the class based on an appreciation of each student as an individual. As instructors, we worked to create an environment in which everyone felt safe to express themselves.

We began the first class by distributing two sets of twelve photographs to the MIT students and BU students. Each MIT student partnered with a BU student that received the matching image. We then asked the pairs to scrutinize their pictures together, identify social processes at work, and report back to their classmates. The various photos represented different themes that we were to cover throughout the semester, including the societal implications of industrialization and deindustrialization; the dynamics of urban political power; drivers of urban inequality; and racial, ethnic, and gender identities; among others. The images broke the ice; they served as a starting point for conversation between strangers. The activity helped cross-institution relationships form quickly, and those initial partnerships lasted throughout the entire semester.

Several of the assignments throughout the semester involved MIT and BU student collaboration. For example, each week an MIT student and BU student would present the assigned readings to the class, connect them to a current event, and lead a brief discussion. Since MIT and BU students could not communicate between meetings, these presentations were prepared weeks in advance during the classroom breaks, building rapport among the two groups.

During class discussions, we tried to remain cognizant of participation. Particular topics sometimes inspired more commentary from one set of students or another. When we observed an unevenness in conversations, we would intentionally try to tease out opinions from those who were quieter.

The real turning point in class discussions occurred mid-semester when we asked students to submit a reflection paper about the course. The prompt was:

How, if at all, has your understanding of inequality changed thus far through the course? How, if at all, has this learning environment enhanced your understanding of key sociological readings? Please draw on the readings and your class lecture notes as you write this essay.

The students gave us permission to pull excepts from their papers and we designed a lecture around the collected thoughts. This format allowed us to have raw and deeply personal discussions about the experience. For the first time, the class was explicit about the extreme differences in opportunity between the two groups and how that affects individual lives. Many of the BU students then felt compelled to talk more about their experiences in prison as they related to the urban sociology topics of the class. This marked a shift from the beginning of the course when BU students sought to leave behind their identity as prisoners in the classroom.

In this section, Justin Steil and Aditi Mehta share their insights about designing and teaching 11.469 Urban Sociology in Theory and Practice without the use of any information communication technologies.

A fun challenge in designing this course was doing it without the assistance of any information communication technologies (ICTs). At first, we thought this would be a hindrance to student learning. We could not communicate with the BU students between classes, and we had to keep in mind that they had no access to Internet, word processing, printers, e-mail, and had a limited library, etc. This reality made us more organized as instructors, and we prepared everything in paper-form well before class meetings, including readings, articles, assignment prompts, and feedback on graded assignments. Also, we made sure to address student questions and concerns in class during breaks since we would not see or hear from them until the following week.

"It has become normal to look at your computer while another student or the teacher is speaking. Similarly, professors rely heavily on PowerPoint presentations or other media material when they teach, not connecting with students and too entrenched in the electronic environment. Since we did not have any of these distractions at MCI-Norfolk, everyone in the classroom was forced to focus on one another."

— Justin Steil and Aditi Mehta

We believe that the quality of the classroom experience actually increased without the distraction of ICTs. Oftentimes at MIT, students are typing away on their laptops during lectures and discussions. The hope is that the student is documenting notes, but they may be replying to emails, finishing other assignments, digitally chatting with their classmates, or generally surfing the internet. It has become normal to look at your computer while another student or the teacher is speaking. Similarly, professors rely heavily on PowerPoint presentations or other media material when they teach, not connecting with students and becoming too entrenched in the electronic environment. Since we did not have any of these distractions at MCI-Norfolk, everyone in the classroom was forced to focus on one another.

Simply making eye contact with someone when they speak instead of typing on your computer actually builds trust. Students were really listening to each other and distractions were not a problem in this class. And as instructors, lecturing or teaching without A/V aids forced us to internalize and embrace the material and communicate it clearly. We could not hide behind a pretty slide or bullet points. In our future teaching, we hope to continue embracing this way of facilitating and learning - simply person to person.

In this section, Justin Steil and Aditi Mehta share how discussions in 11.469 Urban Sociology in Theory and Practice differed from others at private universities.

Student discussions in this urban sociology course differed from others at private universities in two main ways: 1) A nuance in the classic sociological “structure versus agency” debate and 2) The different approaches to engaging assigned readings.

"In our experience, students from elite universities tend to emphasize the importance of social structures, believing that larger economic, political, and social forces determine individual outcomes and actions. At MCI-Norfolk, this view was challenged by some of the BU students, who underscored the significance of personal responsibility and individual agency."

— Justin Steil and Aditi Mehta

In our experience, students from elite universities tend to emphasize the importance of social structures, believing that larger economic, political, and social forces determine individual outcomes and actions. At MCI-Norfolk, this view was challenged by some of the BU students, who underscored the significance of personal responsibility and individual agency. Some of the MIT students felt that in order to be advocates for social justice, the focus should be placed on acknowledging the oppressive power of larger socio-economic structures. This viewpoint was complicated when some BU students explained how they felt limited by the attribution of an individual’s actions simply to social structures. Several BU students felt that they were forced to wrestle more deeply than the MIT students with the actions they had taken and their consequences, and found more dignity in recognizing the significance of personal choice and agency, both for actions they had already taken and actions they hoped to be able to take in the future. Indeed, a focus on individual will was seen as providing more hope that one has control over one’s life in the future, especially when a solely structural perspective suggests the highly limited nature of choices available to some. This complicated tension was one that was revisited throughout the semester as the course sought to point out ways to analyze the interaction of both structure and agency in action.

The second main difference of teaching in this context arises from the unique diversity of students, beyond that generally found in private university classes. The wide-range of races, ages, socioeconomic statuses, and life experiences brought a richness to the interpretation of class readings. Whereas in courses at MIT, students often discuss the readings abstractly, at MCI-Norfolk more students related the readings to their personal lives and analyzed them through this micro lens. This may be because, placed in a room with so many people with such varying life experiences, it feels more relevant to share your point of view and explain its origins than in a class of people seen as more similar. The micro “personal stories” and macro “abstract analysis” were different and valuable ways of making sense of and engaging the same material.

Browse Course Material

Course Info

Instructors

Departments

As Taught In

Level

Topics

Learning Resource Types

Urban Sociology in Theory and Practice

Instructor Insights

Course Overview

Course Outcomes

Course Goals for Students

Instructor Insights

Curriculum Information

Prerequisites

Requirements Satisfied

Offered

Assessment

Grade Breakdown

Student Information

Enrollment

Breakdown by Year

Breakdown by Major

How Student Time Was Spent

Seminar

Out of Class

Course Info

Instructors

Departments

As Taught In

Level

Topics

Learning Resource Types