On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Paul Brandon wrote:
>
> If you reread my message you'll see no statement that change is
> either new or bad; simply that it is happening.
Well, that's a fundamental law of nature that too often seems alien in
academia when it comes to methods and techniques and even philosophies of
teaching.
> If students are admitted with fewer skills, then we have two alternatives:
> 1. We can change the material to fit their skills.
> 2. We can change their skills to fit the material.
Let's assume you're right about admitting students with fewer
skills--although I'm not sure what that means. There is a third
alternative: we can change our skills, methods, and techniques without
changing our rigor. We can be more engaged, supporting, and encouraging
of each student--not from a distance but in community. We so often
violate the golden rule. We have an attitude towards students and treat
students in a manner what we resent when administrators do likewise unto
us.
> There is a cost in either case.
> In particular, if we accept students with skills not adequate for
> material that was suitable for top 10%ers, and we still wish them to
> perform at that level, then we are accepting an obligation to provide
> the necessary remedial work.
Heck, there's always a cost. I'm not sure with "skills not adequate for
material" means. You know why the grass is greener in the other
fellow's yard? It's because we don't fertilize our yard.
In any event, that may be true if, and it's a big if, we academics want to
keep on doing things the way we're doing things. It may not be
necessarily or totally true, if there are other ways of doing things that
we academics may just have to learn.
> As a psychologist with a doctorate in learning theory I am quite
> aware that we have powerful tools available to us.
And I appreciate, truly appreciate, that perspective. Let's use those
tools, the most powerful of which is each of us. There are an inordinate
majority of academics, however, who aren't so trained, who are so aware,
don't care to be so aware, and only think and act in the medieval or
industrial professorial model aping their professors. I refer you to
Peter Senge, et al, "Schools That Learn" for starters.
> However, powerful tools still have their costs.
> I am sure that given adequate resources and commitment on the part of
> students and institution 99% of our students could be given an
> education that would meet our standards
Well, I think the biggest cost is one that far too many academics are not
willing to pay: commitment to each student. So, maybe it's not just have
adequate resources and commitment, it is proprly using existing resources
and being truly committed. For forty years, I've heard the rationalizing
"if only we had" argument. Maybe we shouldn't go out and spend our
resources wildly and frivously on academic and sports super stars in order
to up our image. Maybe that's as bad as the military buying $2,500
hammers. :-))
You're assuming that remedial courses are the only way to go? There are
imaginative and creative alternatives in which many schools are engaging
that are both cost and student effective. You know studies have shown and
continue to show that students will perform at a higher level, as you
know, if there is a commitment, if they sense a commitment to them. That
is, if a professor not only professes caring but acts caringly interacts
with him or her. No, I argue there are ways if we are committed to
wanting to work to find the ways.
> However, telling students that we can also make it painless no matter
> what their current skills will not be productive.
Now, here I totally agree. Never have I ever said that learning is
painless. One of my three principles of teaching, one of my visible
positions in the classroom, which I wrote years ago in the intro to the
first volume of collects RTs is: "Students have to realize that learning
is not fun and games, that from nothing comes nothing, that, as I say in
my signature, 'You won't learn how to climb mountains by practicing on
mole hills.' They have to accept that mastering a skill, or a body of
knowledge, or themselves, is time- consuming, hard work. They each have
to be aware that discarding old habits and unlearning what they think they
know is sometimes tougher than learning new skills, styles, and subject
matter. They have to actively give it their best, challenge themselves,
understand that if they want to learn, they can learn, and that they
should be prepared to do whatever it takes to learn. This is the essence
of their growth; it assists the growth of their fellow students and it
contributes to my own personal and professional growth."
With that being said, the opposite of painless should not be torture. But,
what I just said about students and learning also stands for professors
and teaching. And, I will venture to say that telling our colleague they
can "teach" painlessly, without sufficient training, without sufficient
reflection, no matter what their current skills and/or commitment,
certainly will not be productive.
> And the trend right now is to _reduce_ the resources available
> (cutting college budgets and student financial aid funding).
Yeah. Want to tear your clothing? Want to rant and rave? Sure, I think
"they" should make schools into cathedrals. I think we should go out and
compete by offering the best teachers six figure salaries. I think we
shouldn't make education a political football with mindless "leave no
child behind" sloganeering. Until the educational second coming, we make
do. We stay the committed to each student course. We do differently with
less. We find new ways. Moaning and groaning won't do. Blaming won't
do. Making excuses won't do. You can't be positive with negatives; you
can't build with negatives. We just do--and learn how to do, and do
whatever it takes. That's why I go to such premier collegiate teaching
conferences at the Lilly conference next week or STLHE or ISETL: to
teach, to share, and especially to learn.
> The reality is that giving ALL students who wish to attend college a
> college education is currently impossible -- no panglossian attitude
> change will change that reality.
Maybe. So, how many can receive a college education? Should
it be elitist and exclusive as it once was? What do you mean by a college
education? Should it be white-collar vocational training? You're closer
to being right than wrong with the present collegiate model and attitude
of the majority of today's academics. If they say it's impossible,
they're right. If they say it's possible, they're also right. There's a
difference between hard and impossible; and impossible things are done
everyday. We all can be inventive, innovative, creative if we want.
Anyway, I for one will pick up the gaunlet. I prefer what you call that
panglossian and challenging engagement of "let's see." Never know how
many more might be educated than with a "can't." I've seen too many
supposed "cannots" helped to untie their "nots" and kick themselves in
their "cans."
Make it a good day.
--Louis--
Louis Schmier www.therandomthoughts.com
Department of History www.halcyon.com/arborhts/louis.html
Valdosta State University
Valdosta, Georgia 31698 /~\ /\ /\
(229-333-5947) /^\ / \ / /~ \ /~\__/\
/ \__/ \/ / /\ /~ \
/\/\-/ /^\___\______\_______/__/_______/^\
-_~ / "If you want to climb mountains, \ /^\
_ _ / don't practice on mole hills" -\____
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
