At 07:04 AM 3/31/99 -0700, you wrote:
>Marc Turner wrote:
>>Rather than providing enlightenment to our students, we teach them that
>>they have to agree with what the book says or what we say. Some professors,
>>when presented with an opposing view point, become defensive of their own
>>beliefs rather than engaging in a dialogue with students about the
>>issue. I find it somewhat ironic that we encourage our students to ask
>>questions, challenge beliefs, not to believe blindly in authority, etc.
>>then penalize them when they challenge or disagree with us....
Yes I did write this... however, I do believe I might have overstated my
stance on the issue, especially in the final comment.
>
>Marc seems to be suggesting that our educational practice is geared toward
>getting students to conform to our beliefs, at least partly because of our
own
>insecurities, but perhaps also because of the practical need to evaluate
>student learning.
More the latter than the first, however I have seen examples of professors
who do take it personally when their own ideas are challenged. I like to
think that this is the exception rather than the rule though...
>Others made a more general criticism related to this one that
>suggested that there is a structured "educational production line" that
>attempts to mass-produce educated students who are told, but not taught, to
>think on their own in a critical manner. Our teaching methods, these critics
>seem to be saying, ensure that we will "stamp out" each new baccalaureate
from
>the same mold at the end of four years.
I feel that these "others" went beyond what I was intending to convey. I do
feel that we try to instill a set of values in students through our
educational process. In other words, we expect students to be open-minded
when they leave and recognize some value in diversity. However, I do not
think of this as a conspiracy or an attempt to have everyone look the same.
Simply, that we do a little of both... we expect them to conform to certain
ideals but still encourage them to be diverse in other aspects. Something
Jeff later points to...
> Paul Smith objected to this general criticism in the following:
>>I work in a far more structured curriculum than almost any of you...,
{snip of Paul's comments}
>>questioning....
>
>It is patently true, I believe, that our courses represent an attempt to get
>our students to conform to standards by teaching them both the norms of our
>"scientific culture" (by "culture," I am referring loosely to the set of
ideas,
>customs, skills, etc., of a distinct group of people) AND the knowledge base
>that is commonly accepted within our discipline. In other words, education IS
>an exercise in encouraging conformity to a particular set of beliefs and
norms.
>With regard to norms, every culture, including our own scientific one, has
>standards of thought and conduct which are so central that one is not allowed
>to deviate from them, at least not if one hopes to be accepted by other group
>members. With regard to knowledge, every culture has beliefs which are
>considered to be certain with regard to particular evaluatory standards
>specified by the norms. For example, within all scientific disciplines, there
>are certain theories and general principles that have been so
well-supported by
>empirical evidence that we deem it necessary for students to learn them
almost
>without question. In fact, this is the knowledge base that we MUST teach our
>students if they are to think critically about those beliefs that are less
>certain.
This is the point I was trying to make, though you expressed it much better
than I did.
>Marc goes too far, however, in suggesting that the all-too-human
>defensiveness which any of us can exhibit is a central aspect of a scientific
>education. Although we all have certain beliefs about our field which are so
>personally important that we bristle when they are challenged, most
instructors
>recognize the need to avoid such defensiveness and arrogance: they recognize
>that such beliefs do not represent the accepted general knowledge base of
their
>discipline.
Again, I feel that I must have over-stated my stance and implied something
I did not intend to. In general, I agree with the above, but I have seen
cases where this is not so and professor who have ridiculed students for
challenging the "obvious truth of the evidence". I must also admit that I
tend to see this more in other disciplines than in psychology. Of course,
this observation could be based on a personal bias that I don't want to
think of psychology as being that way. Also, in an off-list discussion with
Paul, I noted that this could also be a function of student perceptions
rather than the intentions of the instructor. For example, students might
be choosing to see things in this "conform or else" stance as an easy
solution to how to pass a course. "If I agree with what the professor says,
I can pass the course without having to come up with my own ideas." It
could also be the result of an us-versus-them mentality that I see from
some of my students. I'm sure there are other possible explanations for why
students might perceive education in this manner.
>I am most interested in discussing the norms of scientific culture, because
>these seem to be at the core of the general criticism about "mass education"
{snip}
>to evaluate and communicate potential knowledge. These norms include the
>following:
>
>(1) the acceptance of particular attitudes fundamental to scientific
practice--
>especially those of empiricism, naturalism, and skepticism;
>(2) the avoidance of personal biases in one's reasoning about nature (which
>does not include the "cultural biases" listed in #1);
>(3) the requirement that one communicate ideas in a particular manner set by
>convention, including the following--giving specific reasons for holding
>particular beliefs; avoiding arguments for these beliefs based primarily on
>emotion, sentiment, or intuition; and using certain formal rules for
expressing
>these beliefs.
Nice list...
>These are three norms that virtually all of us were trained to accept as
>central to our scientific culture. These norms are central because, over the
{snip}
>when they want to accomplish a practical goal in the world around them. IT
>SEEMS EVIDENT THAT THESE NORMS HELP US TO ACCOMPLISH PRACTICAL GOALS BECAUSE,
>BY GUIDING OUR ACTIONS AND THINKING, THEY HELP US TO DISCOVER THE REALITY
>AROUND US. Thus, we expect our students (and our colleagues) to conform to
>these norms if they want to be called "scientists." We suspect that anyone
who
>rejects these standards, or places them on an equal footing with other
>standards, is being disingenuous, at least when the problem he/she is
trying to
>solve involves the understanding and modification of natural events in the
>world.
And at this point some (not all, hopefully not even most, but some) become
defensive. "Given all of this evidence it is OBVIOUS that ____ is true!"
But, for some it isn't true and they need convincing.
>Within any culture, however, there is room for deviation OUTSIDE OF ITS
CENTRAL
>NORMS. This seems to be especially true within the academic culture of
{snip}
>scientific culture outlined above. We may, at times, tell our students that
>certain approaches are wrong because, we believe, the evidence doesn't
support
>them. This is the situation that Marc Turner correctly criticizes: we have an
>opportunity here to get the students to think critically and, instead, we
have
>become dogmatic.
Hey, at least one of my points made sense :)
>The problem, however, is that we MUST accept almost without question some set
>of norms so that we can evaluate the various theoretical approaches in a
>critical manner. In the culture of science, we have accepted a set of norms
>that have been shown to work consistently IN PRACTICE. Some apparently
believe,
>however, that we are being equally dogmatic if we require that our students
>learn these time-tested norms. What these critics don't seem to realize is
that
For me, the problem comes when we expect them to blindly accept these
norms. Yes, the norms are needed, and students should be expected to learn
them. However, if we simply say "these are the norms, memorize them, do not
question them" then we are becoming dogmatic. I fully understand the
necessity of them and feel that they would stand-up to any challenges
students might have against them. So, why not allow students to challenge
the norms and prove to themselves the necessity for them. Perhaps this is
where I have been unclear. I am not arguing that we do not need the norms
(although some on the list do seem to hold this position). I just feel that
we can allow students to question the norms, since the necessity of the
norms will become apparent as soon as they start to question them.
>we are left with no firm foundation for discourse if we blithely uproot these
{snip}
>some on this list are asserting that the central norms of our science have no
>privileged position. For example, when it is insisted that, on this list,
If by privileged position you mean they should not be questioned, then I
agree that they don't have that position. I think everything should be
questioned, and if we do not allow our norms to be questioned then how do
we know they are really necessary? Again, this is not an argument to get
rid of the norms or to put other "norms" on an equal footing. It is simply
a suggestion that we allow our norms to prove themselves rather than
expecting them to be accepted without challenged.
>posters use a means of communication conventional to scientists (Norm #3
above,
>including specifying one's reasons for a claim and using certain
formalities of
>expression), some replied that there are "alternate forms of expression" that
>are equally appropriate. Well, in the culture of scientists, this is not the
>case.
I do agree that within our community these norms must remain. And I feel
that the way to have them remain, is to let them prove themselves to be a
necessity rather than presenting them as something that has to be.
>Such responses by (apparently) trained scientists suggest to me that the
>cultural norms of our discipline are now on a very shaky foundation. Perhaps
>some places to look for reasons for this situation are the emergence of
>postmodernist thought in psychology (e.g., the thinking of psychologists such
>as Gergen and Cushman) and the "democratization" of higher education
(which has
>led to a large number of people from many different cultural backgrounds
>entering academia).
>
>I am becoming more concerned about this situation after seeing the apparently
>easy acceptance of such ideas by people on this list.
I admit I am concerned as well, though perhaps for a different reason. It
almost seems like some are not sure that the norms would stand up if
challenged, so we shouldn't challenge them. And I must admit, that I am
equally concerned by those that feel the norms aren't necessary. I think
the difference between myself and the position Jeff takes is on whether or
not we should be allowed to challenge the norms of our culture. In essence
I see there being 3 camps:
1) Accept the norms without challenge
2) Accept the norms and allow them to be challenged
3) Change or discard the norms
I see myself in group #2. Perhaps my stance is a little clearer now....
- Marc
G. Marc Turner, MEd
Department of Psychology
Southwest Texas State University
San Marcos, TX 78666
phone: (512)245-2526
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
