Bravo!  I wish I had written this.  Van Funderburk, Christian Brothers University - Memphis, Tn.

Paul C. Smith wrote:
James Guinee wrote:

  
How many of us have had a non-trad student in the classroom who admitted
on one occasion "I went to college twenty years ago but didn't care."?

We can do a lot to get people more motivated but can't make people care.
    

    I'll bet I'm not the only TIPSter who was him or herself one of those
former uncaring students. I didn't have the internet on a notebook computer
to distract me, but I spent a lot of time in class writing letters and
reading things unrelated to the class. I don't think for a moment that it
would be fair for me to blame the professors, though I did have a _few_ who
richly deserved my inattention. <grin>
    I never really decided to become a psychology major as an undergraduate.
What actually happened is that I was gripped by a couple of idea in
psychology, and took the opportunity to take more courses in that area
simply because I wanted to learn more about those ideas. The ideas were
largely those of research methodology. I was fascinated by the failings of
normal cognition and perception, and by the often amazingly creative methods
developed to remedy those failings.

    At the same time, I take issue with the notion that it is even
_possible_ to entertain all or even most of the students. We live in a
deeply divided culture, and I'm sure that you've noticed that much of what
passes as gripping entertainment on the television or in the movies is
exactly that which holds no interest whatsoever for you. I give you as one
example the new "Lord of the Rings" movies. I know many people (educated
adult professionals) who rave about these films and see them more than once.
For myself, I cannot imagine anything more uninteresting. For another
example, I give you "Survivor". And for perhaps the best example, I give you
my own interest in psychological research methodology, something that few
students find intrinsically motivating.
    This played out in a concrete way in an English course on science
fiction and fantasy that I took as an undergraduate about 20 years ago. We
read roughly 8 books, most of which were genuine science fiction books I'd
never read before. The professor had genuinely interesting things to say
about each, connecting them to psychology and broader culture. Because it
was so interesting, I was very participative - far more so than anyone else
in the class. But one of the books that we read was an Edgar Rice Burroughs
thing about some queen of Mars. I tried to read it, but couldn't muster the
interest to keep going, and though I was very good about doing my reading in
general, I finally gave up on that one. I was shocked when I got to class
the next week to discover that almost every one of my classmates came alive,
with most of them exclaiming that this book was the reason they'd signed up
for the class (once I got over my shock, I spent the classtime writing a
letter...).
    Anyway, my point is that what is wildly entertaining to some of our
students is deadly dull to others. Worse, the "entertainment" notion runs a
serious risk of coming across as self-indulgence (which is, in fact, what it
probably really is, as often as not).

Paul Smith
Alverno College
Milwaukee


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

  

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to