Miscellaneous Columns

The Self-Aware Leader 

“In youth we learn; in age we understand.” (Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach, 1893)

An effective leader needs to be authentically self-aware. I will explain what I mean by this term by exploring two concepts in this essay. First is the idea of transparency, that is of sharing your true self rather than wearing a mask of “authority.” Second is the notion of recognizing your strengths and limitations so that you are not limited to or by them, and of being ready to stretch yourself in new directions when the needs of the group require it in particular circumstances.

For eight days in early June 2017, a group of 11 faculty and coaches from the United States Naval Academy (USNA), together with 3 instructors from the National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS), came together to hike the canyonlands of southeastern Utah. After driving eight hours from Salt Lake City down to Bears Ears National Monument, we spent six nights in the open, hiking a total of about 32 miles and gaining approximately 3000 feet of elevation through several canyons, water holes, and a dry mesa top.

Each day a few of us shared a leadership story, our own personal testimony of defining influences from our background and how we had come to develop a philosophy that shapes our life goals and our preferred style of interacting with others. These stories were a powerful opportunity for transparency and no two of them were alike, ranging over topics that included family crises, sports team building, military career paths, and religious conversions. They were a special opportunity for me to practice intentional speaking and listening, undistracted by other activities or claims on my attention. Moreover, they taught me that leaders need to take initiative in risking exposure of their true selves to the group. No one can willingly follow for long a person who appears devoid of all humanity, of the common touch, of dreams and weaknesses and personality.

But transparency is not solely verbal. Some of us on the expedition are by nature loquacious and need to talk to sort out ideas and feelings while leading; however, others like me are more introverted. Fortunately, a leader can be transparent in important ways beyond merely the spoken word. Our behavior is a powerful expression of our character. Special plaudits to those brave enough to shed a tear or two (and there were a few such individuals in Utah) on an expedition that cries out for perseverance and mental fortitude!

Another example of transparent leadership behavior our group exhibited was to wait for others to complete an activity (such as climbing up a canyon obstacle or packing up the campsite) while transforming our potential impatience into actively seeking to help or encourage them onward. Yet another was to openly engage in everyday practices that appear different or even contrary to others in the group, without lapsing either into arrogance or shame about what we are doing. For one person, that meant quietly reading or writing alone while others were busy cooking and serving. For some people, that meant praying where other people could see them. A personal example is the night I chose to sleep separate from everyone else, setting up my camp on the other side of a large boulder where I could draw strength from solitude without being too far away from others should trouble arise (say from animals or unexpected weather).

Transparency does not mean sharing everything about ourselves. The graph on the bottom left-hand corner of page 14 of the 2009 NOLS Leadership Educator Notebook illustrates this idea. There can come a point where one person’s dominant presence can squelch another person’s quieter voice. The extroverts in our group sometimes chose to listen more than they otherwise would have; the introverts sometimes chose to speak more than their comfort dictated. The desire to be transparent does not imply we should burden others with every struggle we endure, but nor does it mean suppressing all of them and putting on a resolute mask.

Speaking for myself, I was grateful to let others take some of the weight off my pack on the second day, but I did not emphasize the sinus congestion I carried throughout the trip. It was enough that one brother shared a packet of emergency vitamin mix with me; beyond that I learned to carry around a bandana and blow my nose and wash it out frequently. Similarly, when I got diarrhea I quietly slipped away about once each hour or two to take care of business (using 3 rocks and 1 stick to wipe myself), as there would be little profit to others if I complained about it. Sharing weakness can be beneficial if it humanizes us and encourages others not to give up in the face of their own failings, but it should not become an excuse to garner the pity of others or to wring special concessions from them.

A key example where each of us had to wrestle to find the right balance between open speech and private contemplation was the night we ran out of water on top of a dry mesa and went to sleep not knowing what we would face the next day. A decision needed to be made about whether we should press forward with the originally planned route, anticipating new sights and activities but unsure of how far we would have to hike to reach a water hole, or instead turn back to the last known hole but then have to continue to retrace our route all the way back to the vehicles. There were strong advocates for both options.

Does transparency mean we should have relentlessly shared our feelings with each other all through that long night: those wanting to turn back imposing their fear of the unknown on everyone else and those wanting to press forward accusing the returners of cowardice? Surely not! At the same time, we did have opportunities to share our thoughts with the instructors that evening. Further, when the decision to turn back was announced by the instructors the next morning, we briefly stood in a circle and each person expressed their reaction to the decision in a single word. For example, my word was “willing” even though I was one of those who would have preferred to move ahead to the boulder field and new canyon, rather than returning back. By this simple expedient of asking each of us to express our feelings in a single word, a powerful opportunity for transparent sharing was provided. But that opportunity was purposefully kept short so that we could get moving before the exposed top became hot in the sun, and perhaps also so that it would not become an occasion for second guessing a carefully considered decision.

A key aspect of mindfulness that relates to leadership is knowing oneself and being willing when necessary to stretch beyond one’s own preferences. The expedition taught me that leaders must be authentically self-aware. Ignorance of one’s own fears and weaknesses can cause one to be unconsciously led by them. The truth shall set us free, even (or perhaps especially) when that truth is painful and complex. A helpful exercise we performed in this regard was to determine our leadership styles by numerically positioning ourselves on a large graph laid out on the ground with two perpendicular axes.

The horizontal axis measures the extent to which a person verbalizes their opinions. Moving to the left along it would mean you are hesitant to do so, especially if you think it might offend someone or waste time, instead preferring to remain flexible. In contrast, moving to the right along the horizontal axis suggests that others will know where you stand on issues and that you are ready to insist on your way when you think that it is the best course of action for a group to take. The vertical axis measures your emotional volatility. Moving downward along it indicates you are internally calm and rational, and often come across as dispassionate even in a situation where other people are getting excited. At the other end of the spectrum, positioning yourself vertically upward means you are in tune with your emotions, which you express to others and trust to guide you when making decisions.

Assuming you do not rate yourself a zero along either axis, these two coordinates will place you in one of four quadrants. Many people in our team ended up either with negative scores along both axes, being hesitant to share both thoughts and feelings, so that they landed in the “Analyst/Architect” quadrant (which emphasizes meaning, facts, and observational data) or with positive values for both quantities, thereby labeled as “Spontaneous Motivators” who are often the life of a party with boundless energy and ability to rally others emotionally. Interestingly, no one in our group fell into the “Relationship Master” category of being reticent to share opinions while being emotionally hot, but some people ended up in the diagonally opposite “Driver” quadrant. Apparently because this latter leadership style emphasizes action and directing, many people in our group wish to stretch themselves to perform driver functions. For more details on the strengths and weaknesses of each of these four leadership styles, see page 49 of the 2009 NOLS Leadership Educator Notebook. Significantly, the primary style that we each assigned ourselves was not always the same as the one that others on the expedition attributed to us.

However, the key lesson I drew from this exercise is that the most effective leaders will adopt aspects of any four of the quadrants when the group requires it. For example, it may at times have been beneficial for more of us to assume the “Relationship Master” role with its emphasis on caring and group rapport, in order to build a tighter knit community among all fourteen of us and not just in our individual hiking and cooking groups. During a previous outdoors expedition that I was part of with a similar size group, we sang together, we learned and became better attuned to each other’s strengths and weaknesses, and we did not break into separate cooking, tenting, or hiking teams.

One of the largest benefits for me personally of this trip is that it afforded me significant opportunities to stretch myself in new ways. Socially I was called on to interact with groups that are not part of my daily life at the Naval Academy. Specifically, I had opportunity to interact with coaches. There were four such individuals in our group and I feel I got to know all of them reasonably well. I would no longer hesitate to pick up the phone and call them if I had some question about an athlete’s performance in my class. In fact, I am sufficiently encouraged by my interactions with these four individuals that I feel sure I could similarly call on other athletic staff at USNA with any questions or issues I might have.

Thus this program helped to break down artificial barriers in my mind between the athletic and academic sides of our institution. I similarly benefitted from the military/civilian, male/female, adventurous/cautious, single/married, religious/unaffiliated, wilderness-experienced/novice, and young/old mix of our NOLS team. I recommend that future programs of this sort include Bancroft staff (who have primary charge of the student dormitory and of military discipline at USNA) and greater ethnic diversity, to promote further cross-pollination between potentially separated groups of people at the Academy.

Being in the wilderness (which is unusual for me and outside my ordinary sphere of activities) presented me with the opportunity to stretch myself by making some modest changes in behavior. I decided before the trip that I would forego some of my connections to “civilization” by leaving all electromechanical gadgets behind (such as a camera and watch) and deciding I would not consume any caffeine (which I always drink during my ordinary workday). My goal was to be fully “in the moment” with the expedition and with nature, particularly because I found it challenging to be away from my family for eight days.

Other changes were pressed upon us not by our own choices but by the nature of how a NOLS program functions. For example, there were roles I had to accept at times that I would have preferred not to if I am honest: being the leader or trailblazer of a hiking team, cooking for people other than myself, having primary charge of reading a map, and giving occasional negative feedback during the daily debriefs of how things went. It is particularly crucial that as leaders we both give suggestions and comments to our teammates about their performance, and receive praise and criticism in turn about how our actions and words affected them. There were very helpful post-action discussions in our daily hiking teams. I suggest that future trips also include regular debriefs of the cooking and tenting groups, particularly with regard to clarifying our individual preferences and expectations.

Finally and perhaps most importantly, effective leaders stretch outside their own personal “bubble” by putting themselves into the shoes of other members of their team. That often means having compassion for others when one has a strength or desire that they do not share, which is a critical component of “Expedition Behavior” as discussed in Sec. III of the 2009 NOLS Leadership Educator Notebook. For instance, I can think of times on the trail when I was tired but someone else wanted to talk to me, or when I was loud and another wanted me to be silent so they could concentrate on a task at hand.

A good leader will strive to be sensitive to the cues (verbal or not) of those around them. An important aspect of sensitivity is to anticipate potential difficulties that a teammate may have and begin to take appropriate action even if no one else has yet noticed the situation. A key example was when one of the instructors got out a rope and established a belay to assist an individual before anyone else even thought of asking for that to be done. (However, one also needs to be cautious not to become overly “helpful” to the point that one begins to unconsciously imply the other person will always need assistance. If there is a next time, then one might let the person try on their own or choose to ask for help before jumping in with a proposed solution.)

Another interesting example of the balance between individual desires and group behavior was on the second day when some ruins appeared on a rock ledge above the trail. I wanted to climb up to them along a particular route (which probably was not the easiest way of accessing them); another team member wanted to stay back and rest in the shade of an adjacent water hole. Our hiking group was flexible and sensitive enough on that occasion to accommodate both requests, even though each desire has potential objections that could justify refusing them.

In conclusion, our inaugural team of USNA faculty and staff exhibited and visibly grew in their expedition behavior during this trip. We developed as self-aware leaders by practicing transparency in the ways we communicated with each other and in stretching ourselves to put the needs of others ahead of our own at times, with servant-hearted attitudes even when under considerable stress. Each of us identified areas of personal strength, as well as areas for continued growth. We bridged artificial divisions, such as between academics and athletics at USNA. We strove to balance team and individual decision making. We became more aware of different leadership styles. We rotated roles regularly in the groups. We learned to ask for and to give help and feedback to one another daily. There were no injuries on the entire trip, in large part because we practiced good judgment such as not scouting or climbing alone. In addition, we were properly equipped with all the gear and much more food than we needed!

Questions for further discussion:

1. Another key attribute of an effective leader is integrity. According to the blog Lead On Purpose, integrity is consistency of one’s actions, values, measures, principles, and expectations with a commitment to doing the right thing for the right reason, regardless of the circumstances. Based on this definition, what is the connection between authenticity and integrity? For example, consider the importance of admitting one’s own mistakes and failings.
2. Yet another important quality of a leader is resiliency, as discussed at the beginning of Sec. VII of the 2009 NOLS Leadership Educator Notebook. How can one find the right balance between putting on a “brave front” during adversity in order to motivate those under you to press on and transparently admitting your fears and doubts? It might help to think of examples from books or movies of how individuals have or have not managed to successfully guide their troops, families, students, or other groups of people during times of stress or danger.

In the article “Is Double-Blind Review Better?” (APS News, July 2015) Shannon Palus states that the only physics journal she knows of that allows authors to remove all self-identifying materials from their manuscripts is Nature Physics. However, one of the two flagship journals of the American Association of Physics Teachers, namely The Physics Teacher, requires it of all authors. I believe their reason for doing so is to ensure that all articles stand on the strength of their potential value in contributing to physics education, even if the authors are first-time contributors with no academic affiliation and live in some obscure international location.

I think we physicists have all heard of (or even been involved in) cases where games have been played with names and affiliations of authors on a manuscript for the sole purpose of impressing potential referees. (If Joe Superstar from Big-Name University is on a paper, referees may be more likely to be favorably disposed toward it before even reading it.)

If a journal is going to try double-blind, it should not be an option. Otherwise as a referee I can’t help wondering if the authors have something to hide by choosing that option. It should be required of all submissions, at least on a trial basis for a select number of issues, to see if it changes the acceptance statistics. It is true that some authors will still be recognized (as I can report happens when I review for The Physics Teacher). That is no more an argument against blinding their authorship than the fact some referees will be recognized is an argument against blinding their identities. A system may be imperfect but still better than the alternatives.

TPT in my Early Career as an Undergraduate Professor

I don’t remember having heard of AAPT when I was an undergraduate. I was schooled in Canada, so that may be part of the reason for my ignorance. After doing my graduate work at Cornell and a postdoc at Los Alamos, what I most enjoyed was the basics of all areas of physics. So it became clear that a primarily undergraduate university or liberal arts college would be the best fit for me and I interviewed at such places. The University of West Florida, a school in the Florida state system, made me a tenure-track offer, so we packed up for Pensacola in Fall 1996. The physics department had four tenured professors. I was replacing Dick Smith, who had started the listserver PHYS-L (still a great forum for asking about and discussing physics at the college level). There was also Jim Marsh, a quantum theorist.

Jim had the interesting habit of periodically writing up a short handout on whatever topic he happened to be thinking about at the time, such as the quantum measurement problem or converting magnetostatic integrals into their electrostatic analogs. In a matter of months, I was doing the same thing—and have continued writing what I call white papers ever since. (The long list can be accessed at http://usna.edu/Users/physics/mungan/Teaching-Activities/Scholarship.php.) Sources of inspiration include issues that arise in class or when I’m preparing to teach a topic (or grading homework), something I read in a journal such as TPT, or an item from PHYS-L (motivated by my desire to preserve the ideas in a more settled form than the archived postings offer). Eventually one of these white papers was sufficiently rich that I dared to consider publishing it in 2001, by which time I had moved to the U.S. Naval Academy, which afforded me better research collaborations.

Let me back up to 1996 again. That autumn, I got into the first New Physics Faculty Workshop, held at College Park and sponsored by AAPT. This event was my first exposure to AAPT (not to mention Peer Instruction, as well as an organized physics demo show like those run by the University of Maryland, and many other innovations). I was delighted when they sent me to the subsequent Summer National Meeting in Denver. (My wife and six-month-old son were there, each with their own nametags. We stayed in the dorm and gave our son baths in the kitchen sink.) I joined AAPT and subscribed to TPT. Every issue had ideas for a starting physics faculty member like myself, struggling to teach 7 courses a year with new preps every semester.

We aren’t exposed to TPT in typical physics degree programs. At least I was not. We stumble across them one day in our time of need. What a difference compared to reading a research journal: you could open any issue of TPT to any page and understand right away what you read there. You didn’t need to be a specialist in some sub-sub-sub-field of study!

Around that time, I was analyzing the demonstration of a spool pulled by a ribbon at different angles relative to a table. The spool can either roll forward or backward, much to the delight of introductory physics students, especially if they are first asked to predict which way it will roll. (“All of you are right….”) I developed an expression for the maximum acceleration of a symmetric spool that rolls without slipping. I already knew there is a special angle when the ribbon’s line of action intersects the contact points of the outer rim of the spool with the table. At that angle, the spool’s translational acceleration is zero; if pulled hard enough, the spool slips in place when static friction is overcome. What was new was another special angle, with the ribbon unwinding off the top half of the spool rather than the bottom half, at which rolling without slipping happens even in the absence of friction. The maximum acceleration has a cusp in it at that angle, with the limit being reached when the spool is pulled so hard that it lifts off the table.

Since 2001, I have published 15 articles and 5 letters in TPT. Some of the ones that have attracted special attention are the trio dealing with the perennial controversies of work, heat, and energy: “Irreversible adiabatic compression of an ideal gas” in 2003, “A primer on work-energy relationships for introductory physics” in 2005, and “Thermodynamics of a block sliding across a frictional surface” in 2007. Readers who found “Inverse lawn sprinkler” in an online Summer 2005 issue appreciated its demonstration of how the motion of a reverse sprinkler depends on the bends in the arms. “Rolling the Black Pearl over: Analyzing the physics of a movie clip” in 2011 was adapted from a popular presentation at the 2010 Summer National Meeting. In addition, I have avidly solved Boris Korsunsky’s Physics Challenges ever since he started that column in October 2001. (See page 476 of the October 2005 issue of TPT for an award I received in connection with these Challenges.) Currently I’m on my second three-year stint as a member of the TPT Editorial Advisory Board—it’s a privilege to give back to the journal in some way.

Spurred by the joy of writing pedagogical articles, I have written such articles at other levels of presentation in many journals. Crafting them clarifies my thinking. All of my publications are online at http://usna.edu/Users/physics/mungan/Publications/Publications.php. Whether one considers a topic from a first-year undergraduate course for nonmajors or an advanced issue in a senior-level theoretical or laboratory class for physics majors, I think it’s safe to say that if you can present it at the level of TPT, then you really understand the topic. Try it yourself and see!

Tell me about your educational and career trajectory.

I grew up in Moscow, Russia. My last two years of high school were spent at one of the most selective Moscow math and science schools. I was a good student (although always a bit of a clown) and I especially enjoyed physics. My physics teacher was a part-timer; her main job was being a physics editor at Kvant, a magazine very similar to and the predecessor of the now defunct Quantum. By the time I graduated from high school, I knew I wanted to be a high-school physics teacher. At the insistence of my parents, I got an engineering degree but went straight into teaching afterward. I taught for a few years at the same school where I had been a student while getting another degree in Physics Education. I emigrated to the United States in 1992. I remember that I told all my friends and colleagues that I was going to remain a teacher in the US and everybody thought that I would switch to computer programming. That's what most immigrants with math/physics background did, but I wanted to keep doing what I really loved. After some part-time gigs, I finally got a full-time job at a boarding school in Western Massachusetts and then moved near Boston where I still live. In 2003, I completed my doctoral dissertation at Harvard School of Education and, unlike most of my fellow students, chose to remain a high-school teacher (although having a Harvard degree does help in finding consulting jobs). I have been at Weston High School for ten years now and I couldn't be happier with the community, the colleagues and the administration--truly, an enlightened and exciting place to work.

In addition to classroom teaching, I have always tried to be professionally active in as many ways as possible: I have written many articles for Quantum and The Physics Teacher, led workshops for teachers both in the US and abroad, served as a coach for the US Physics team, have been involved with the AP Physics program in different capacities and have done a lot of freelance writing for various publishing companies.

What are some differences between Russian and American high schools?

First of all, let me stress that the educational system in any country is part and parcel of the national culture, its political and economic system. In other words, one has to be careful about making "value comparisons." Second, the high-school system in Russia nowadays is in many ways different from the Soviet system of my time. (I graduated from high school in 1982.) However, I can still comment on some differences.

In Russia, like in many European countries, most academic subjects (including math and science) are studied over several years. For instance, I had five years of physics and four years of chemistry (starting in middle school). Also, in my days, there was a single national curriculum for all schools. These days, Russian schools are freer to choose their curriculum but every high-school graduate must pass a series of national exams in various subjects, including math, physics, chemistry, language, and history. The results of these exams, along with the student's GPA, are used for college admissions. No letters of recommendations, and no accomplishments in arts, athletics, or community service play a role in college admissions (at least not officially, although it still helps to have the right parents, know the right people, or be an international-level athlete).

Mathematics and science teachers in Russia get much more thorough "content training" than their American counterparts (perhaps, at the expense of pedagogy and psychology classes). A typical physics teacher graduates with training similar to that of a physics major. (Considering that a Russian college degree usually takes five years to obtain and the course load is very high, that would be the equivalent of getting both a B.S. and M.S.) In the classroom, teachers expect a no-nonsense atmosphere, with little patience for what here in the US would be considered "learning disabilities," "athletic commitments," and so on. If the students enjoy their classes, great, but that is not a teacher's primary concern. Overall, schoolwork in Russia is considered "the civic duty of the young generation" from a very early age. In the US, the pressure to perform academically often does not begin in earnest until high school. (The relatively recent proliferation of state-level competency testing is changing things, however.) In Russia, from the very first day of school, students are given homework and grades, and are scolded by both their parents and their teachers for poor performance. Every kid knows that, if their grades are bad, they'll be in trouble. The fear of punishment is definitely a factor in the overall academic achievement. In most families there is huge parental pressure to do well at school. From what I know, such pressure on students is also prevalent in many other countries. I believe that it is the culture of high expectations and of making education the highest priority--as opposed to some mysterious "innate ability"--that makes Asian and Eastern European immigrant children so academically successful here in the US.

Another factor that puts tremendous pressure on Russian male students is the possibility of being drafted. The Russian military, for many young men and their parents, is a nightmare: poor living conditions, rampant hazing, and many training accidents, often resulting in serious injuries and even death. Many colleges offer deferment from the service, and many male students work extra hard to earn a spot at one of those colleges.

Discuss some of the books you have written.

You are kind to call them "books"--they are all "supplements" of sorts. When I began my teaching career here in the US, I was surprised and frustrated by the lack of resources for interesting physics problems. There have always been plenty of such books in Russia, so I decided to write one to use with my AP Physics students. I had always enjoyed elegant physics problems, participated in physics and math competitions myself, and trained my students, some of whom made it to the Russian and the US national physics teams. The book, written two years after my arriving in the US, was published as a supplement of challenging, Olympiad-style problems for one of Raymond Serway's physics textbooks. Almost fifteen years later, that book has not been a huge commercial success. I am pretty sure it's out of print by now. Maybe, there is no market for such books in the US? Most of my own students find these problems too hard so I rarely use them in class, but some of them have been used in the column of Challenges that I have been editing for eight years for The Physics Teacher.

My second book was also a collection of problems. That was a "fun" project: each problem was based on a fact from the Guinness Book of Records or a similar source. My students do enjoy these problems and I use them in my classes on a regular basis.

I have also written (or, rather, reworked) an AP-preparatory book, which has since been updated again. Also, at the end of last year, I published a completely different, "un-serious" book: a collection of funny student quotes, named Trophy Wives Don't Need Advanced Physics. (The title is an actual quote from a student's test.) I had been collecting quotes for a number of years, from my own classroom and from other sources, and I was nudged to finally put together a book by several really funny (or sad?) lab reports collected from my freshman physics class last year. First, I wrote a short article for The Physics Teacher and then I decided to go a little further. The article and the book came out at about the same time. You can find out more about this effort at http://funstudentquotes.com.

I am still planning to write a book on the subject I have always been passionate about: The art of teaching problem-solving skills in the physics classroom. It was the topic of my dissertation, it has been one of the primary goals of my teaching, and the book on that subject remains a very important goal in my professional plans. Some day I'll get to it.

What else can you tell us about your Physics Challenges column in The Physics Teacher?

Well, as I mentioned, I have always been interested in competition-style physics problems--the ones that put to shame the artificial distinction between "conceptual" and "computational" problems. These problems can be called challenges, brainteasers, or puzzles. The point is that they require deep understanding and creative thinking, but no knowledge beyond a rigorous high-school physics course. I proposed the column twice. When Karl Mamola became the editor of The Physics Teacher, he kindly agreed to give the column a pilot run and it's now been eight years, I think. I get quite a few solutions each month, and many more teachers and students solve these problems without submitting, judging from the informal feedback I get and from the number of downloads the column gets each month. Teachers use them as "bonus" problems in class; some discuss these problems as part of the teaching process, to demonstrate the interplay of different concepts and ideas in the same situation. Many colleagues have thanked me for the column over the years and I am honored to provide this service to the community. I am pleased to see that solutions have been coming from all over the world but I am a little sad that the vast majority of student contributions tend to be from abroad. I would encourage my colleagues in the US to recommend these problems to their best students and to help them stretch themselves.

Boris Korsunsky is a physics teacher at Weston High School (korsunskyb@mail.weston.org) in MA.

peer instruction: What is happening when 5 workers are at a construction site and only 1 has a shovel.

structured reflection: Student complaints about your course policies.

inquiry-based activity: What instructors have the students do when they didn't have time to fully prepare their notes.

constructivism: Attempting to construct sense out of student nonsense.

assessment: Retroactively making up explanations for why you did what you did in the course.

curving the grades: Rewarding students who didn't learn the material.

problem-solving sessions: Doing the homework for the students.

conceptual understanding: Attribute of students who cannot solve problems.

student-centered teaching: Any classroom technique that is effective in the instructor's opinion.

extra credit: Benefitting students who didn't make time for homework.

modeling method: Working through all the steps of an example problem.

interactive engagement: What happens when the instructor is present in class, as opposed to "inactive engagement" when the instructor is absent.

mastery learning: Allowing students to repeat a test until they have memorized all possible permutations of it.

course objectives/standards: A list of everything students probably know about the subject before they take the course.

collaborative environment: The result of randomly rearranging desks in your classroom.

(In the spirit of a similar list entitled "Useful Research Phrases" which you can find by googling it. I retracted the term "physics education research" from the above list, because ScienceGeekGirl correctly pointed out that it's a research not a teaching phrase and that my definition was a bit edgy.)