<p>He argues that the most effective readings are often those that have scholarly holes in them because those readings provide an opportunity for debate and questioning.</p>
<p>Interesting glimpse into the nuts and bolts of effective undergrad teaching. The comments from other professors are worth reading as well.</p>
<p>Thanks for posting this entry, Interesteddad. I share the prof's belief that the best readings are those that leave room for discussion. Often, this means that they are controversial and/or have rough edges, are not entirely convincing, etc... If they are hermetically perfect, readers have nothing left to do but agree with their authors and absorb both the information and the arguments provided. If they are controversial, readers will try harder to ferret out inconsistencies and faulty logic, and thus hone their critical reading skills (this is more than just doing close reading, a la SAT Critical Reading section). This is why I dislike attempts to characterize profs and courses by their syllabi. We simply do not know whether a prof who assigned Edward Said's Orientalism endorses Said's scholarly perspective (much less his politics) or whether s/he thinks it is a useful springboard for a lively discussion which may lead to students poking huge holes in Said's arguments. But that is what the likes of Stanley Kurtz have been doing. </p>
<p>Some time ago, I talked to a friend who was teaching at a top LAC. She was full of praise for her students but expressed her disappointment at their unwillingness to depart from the readings. It did not make for great discussions.</p>
<p>Some time ago, I talked to a friend who was teaching at a top LAC. She was full of praise for her students but expressed her disappointment at their unwillingness to depart from the readings. It did not make for great discussions.</p>
<p>Ive heard the same thing from a friend who teaches a course that students in the Boston consortium ( Amherst- U Mass- Holyoke- Hampshire-Smith) often take- there is a big difference in how the students approach the class and the material and she found the same thing-</p>
<p>Few high school teachers really challenge their students to question what they are reading. Even the smart students feel as if parroting the text is the best way to go. Bad combination.</p>
<p>Very few high school class discussions revolve around "what if?" History would be great for this - challenging the students to uncover the biases of the textbook and the primary sources. Not done.</p>
<p>I do believe that students are essentially taught to not question what they read. (Law school, however, being a notable exception. One professor would poll the class at the end of the discussion about whether or not we agree with the judge and why.) The professors might not be really getting through to the students that they are expected to challenge what they read... that thinking critically about what they read is as much a part of the assignment as doing the reading.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Few high school teachers really challenge their students to question what they are reading. Even the smart students feel as if parroting the text is the best way to go. Bad combination.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As someone who attended parochial schools, where all textbooks had a bishop's imprimatur, I can definitely attest shortcoming in my early formal education.</p>
<p>Fortunately, my parents let me read whatever I like from the public library, and I remember my father repeatedly cautioning me, "Don't believe everything you read."</p>
<p>In college, I had a math professor who was using a first edition of a new textbook--one of his most memorable and valuable exercises was "Find all the typos in chapter 2." It taught me to read mathematical material with a constantly questioning mind.</p>
<p>I have a friend who retired as an admissions director (not the topwheel, but close) at one of the ritzy intellectual liberal arts colleges in the northeast. She lamented that every year the school get more selective - higher SAT scores, more top 10%ers, more kids rejected - and every year they got more and more complaints from the faculty that the students were not critical thinkers or intellectually engaged, but simply produced what they "thought" the professors wanted to hear. Didn't seem to affect their "outputs" - the college produced plenty of future Ph.Ds, lawyers, etc., etc., and the endowment and alumni fund kept getting larger. The faculty pointed fingers at the admissions office, and the admissions office pointed fingers at the ratings games in which the administration seemed keenly interested.</p>
<p>I think it's a generational issue. College administrators, professors, and we "old-fogeys" grew up in a generation that rejected the "establishment". That is not the case with today's young people.</p>
<p>I think there is some truth to that- but I think teachers today are even better at engaging students than when I was in school- but it doesn't seem to make it any easier for them to risk making a "mistake".</p>
<p>Some students are very bright about digesting complex material- however they are not necessarily willing to take chances in interpreting it, as challenging the material isn't what got them where they are today- which is at a very competitive school.
What my friend found was that in the same class that she taught through the Amherst consortium, was that students from UMass and students from Hampshire were more willing to take chances in the classroom and make a risk of being wrong, than students from the more competitive schools.
I hope I am wrong- but I worry that some students who have been tops in class etc, arent just there because they are good at giving adults what they want- which is to agree with them and their choices of text.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think it's a generational issue. College administrators, professors, and we "old-fogeys" grew up in a generation that rejected the "establishment". That is not the case with today's young people.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This brings to mind an Op-Ed I read eons ago in the NYT. A prof wrote about the trials of teaching English. He offered an anecdote about how he'd managed to engage a student. The student in question--definitely an anti-authoritarian type--had written his report on the assigned novel: "This novel is s....y." That was all. The prof said: "Fine, now tell me why you think it's s....y." The student went on to write an excellent critique of the novel in question, with nary a profanity.</p>
<p>This also reminds me of a friends son, who is very intelligent but doesn't suffer fools gladly. ( this is in high school)
I actually forget the details but the gist is that the students were told to give an analysis of the project they had just completed but that analysis wouldnt' affect their grade.
This young man thought that the project was a waste of time as it didn't require a higher level of work than he had in elementary school ( he did word it better) and he was frustrated as his attempts to make it into something more were thwarted by the teacher who wanted to keep the class on the same level.
Contrary to the teachers assertion that it wouldn't affect his grade, it did affect his grade and she gave him an F for that assignment.
Pretty blatant way of teaching kids not to question the status quo
BTW- this is at an "alternative" school</p>
<p>Related note: I heard that valedictorians tend to gravitate towards safe, stable, respectable professions - medicine & law - while the people who graduated with less perfect grades would often be more successful - they were more willing to go the unconventional route and would be entrepreneurs, small business owners, etc.</p>
<p>We really do reward a lack of thinking. Given how competitive college admissions is, I'm not surprised that many students aren't taking chances. My h.s. & college grades suffered from the "taking chances/challenging self" method... maybe those fingers should be pointed at the high school teachers who encourage parroting material back at them.</p>
<p>I interviewed a student for MIT who was class valedictorian of a large high school, had taken many AP classes (math, science and liberal arts), all with A's and 5's on exams, had excellent SAT-I and II scores (significantly above MIT's average). I asked him what his favorite book was, and he couldn't think of one. I asked him what he favorite class was, and he didn't really have one. But he did say that he really didn't like his statistics class. Then I asked him what he thought he would do after majoring in math at MIT, and he said he would probably be an ACTUARY! He also told me that he was putting off writing his essay, because he had no idea of what to write about. He was obviously very bright and a VERY hard worker, but life seemed too much like work for him (I found out later that he was not accepted at MIT). I am sure he got accepted at some other excellent school. I hope he learns to have fun and get excited about what he is studying (or to study what he is already excited about).</p>
<p>"Very few high school class discussions revolve around "what if?" History would be great for this - challenging the students to uncover the biases of the textbook and the primary sources. Not done."</p>
<p>IB history has a ~5 page written work where one of the components specifically is to analyze the sources that you used in the paper.</p>
<p>Teachers who assign readings and then go over them with the class asking "then what happened?" and a student just reads the topic sentence from the next paragraph out loud for an answer are not doing justice to the material, or the students.</p>
<p>My S had an interesting assignment of picking a major event in Euro History after 1700, and drawing a time line with written justification for what would have happened to the historical time line if the event had turned out differently. S chose that the Bastille did not fall. He argued that the development of democracy would have taken a different course affecting capitalist and communist development an averting World War I, etc. Made for interesting reading.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Some students are very bright about digesting complex material- however they are not necessarily willing to take chances in interpreting it
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I've found that individual interpretation is rarely conducive to high grades and/or class rank. The 'top students' at my school (a highly regarded DC private school) seem skilled at parroting material, but not much else. Kids who attempt original thought get slapped on the fingers, through lower grades and later almost-personal grudges.</p>
<p>There are some brilliant teachers, but many do seem to discourage creativity and risk-taking--but of course selective colleges can't know that.</p>
<p>As a teacher, I can tell you that it is VERY difficult to get a discussion going these days. Teachers loved having my D in class, because she was willing to debate, etc., (heard that comment a lot) but most kids seem to fear saying the "wrong" thing, or just want me to give them the answer. When we have had discussions, I have heard some leave saying, "so what was the answer?" They don't seem to believe that thinking in and of itself is learning and preparing, and that sometimes there may be no "right" or "wrong" answer. My D is anticipating the debate and analysis that she believes will be more in-depth in college. I certainly hope so. I remember many of my profs would give us essay questions on issues we had not covered, and we were graded not on whether we were or were not right, but whether our analysis was effective and based on facts. With schools now having to answer to the test, there is only right or wrong now, no gray areas.</p>
<p>I taught Regulars English III for a few years, and when I went back to teaching after many years in the outside world, I was shocked! We had tapes of the readings, and were to play them in class. I rejected that thoery, and assigned the reading. Only 2 kids did it - you can't have a discussion with 28 kids not having done the assignment. I thought that if I kept requiring this, the kids would do it. No way, they took zeroes, and many failed. I finally had to resort to the tapes. They had to read along to the tapes. Even then, no discussion. I will say that more of the kids in Honors and AP did the required reading, no tapes, but many didn't and even those teachers complained about it. They had some discussions, but with only a handfull. The rest sat back and just were waiting for the answers.</p>