Disqus - Latest Comments for therring

Re: Will universities stay relevant?

Todd Herring — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 23:02:08 -0000

Granted, Stephen, that you are making an argument that goes beyond poor performance. However, that argument isn't likely to play well in front of legislators and school boards. Changing pedogogy is one thing, ridding the school systems of grades is quite another. Too much of the bureaucracy and politics is rooted in standardized tests, grades, and grade point average. Grades and test scores provide a convenient metric, and I for one think metrics are necessary. Used correctly, and justly, they help us understand what works and what doesn't. Any argument in favor of eliminating grades would need to come up with an acceptable replacement for measuring performance.

I read the link to "beyond-school.org" you provided. I think it's a fascinating subject. I had never thought to consider how or why the concept of grades evolved. Thanks for sharing that.

Re: Will universities stay relevant?

Todd Herring — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 23:39:10 -0000

The biggest barrier to more widespread adoption of constructionist learning has already been pointed out -- it takes a lot of time to adopt interactive, collaborative techniques in the classroom. Faculty are like most people -- they procrastinate, they take the path of least resistance (at times). In higher ed, there's not much pay off for working hundreds of hours to change your course pedagogy. Faculty are under pressure to do research and publish, and many serve their University and local communities by serving on boards, committees, and advisory councils. Time is precious. At Indiana University, we do have some incentives for faculty to take workshops over the summer and rework a course. But there's only so much money to go around, and no mandate from the high circles of administration to force faculty to change anything.

There are other barriers, too. There is the view that constructionist techniques are pandering to a generation (as Mr. Tapscott pointed out); that constructionist learning theory has some flaws (better learning outcomes have not been "proven"); that the old style still works well, at least for some courses (always *my* courses, of course!); and that constructionist techniques dumb down the course by making it impossible to cover all the material. I have no idea what proportion of faculty hold these kinds of views. I think most faculty would be willing to change their courses if they didn't have all the other pressures of their tenure.

I found interesting Stephen Dill's comment that, "...poor teachers caught on to using student tests and resulting "grades" to pass pass the burden of success from the teacher to the child." I'm going to play a little devil's advocate here, and stir things up. Is all the hype over constructionist learning theory simply another installment of liberal guilt? It goes like this: "Our children aren't doing well in school. It's not their fault, so it must be the fault of our teachers and school systems. We shouldn't expect our children to sit still, pay attention, and study at home. So let's put the lion's share of the burden on parents, teachers, administrators, and tax payers." OK, the pot is sufficiently stirred...

Re: Writing in the age of composition

Todd Herring — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:42:24 -0000

While I agree that we are living in an age of composition, I tend to agree that the kind of writing being done by Net Genners is creating some very bad habits. As an instructor in higher ed, I have seen my share of students' e-mail that is not only full of grammatical errors but also overly familiar. Their prolific use of texting and blogging does not excuse them from certain formalities, signs of respect, and good grammar. It's like table manners -- until you know someone well enough, you don't burb at the table....

Bite-sized chunks of personal opinion and "what are you doing" are not a recipe for good writing -- not by themselves. I agree that we should explore this phenomenon, use it in the classroom, and help students understand how to make a persuasive argument and to think critically. Writing in a conversational tone for a wide audience is great. But sometimes you have to make an argument. Sometimes you have to target your message. Writing to "a single professor" isn't necessarily a bad thing. After all, professors are stand-ins for your future boss, and that boss may be a mayor, a CEO, or the President.

Re: RIP Encarta, long live Wikipedia

Todd Herring — Tue, 12 May 2009 15:46:44 -0000

Quoting from an encyclopaedia has never been a big hit in higher education, at least when writing a term paper and certainly whenever doing "real" research. If a professor assigns a research paper, they expect students to gather information from scholarly journals, and rightly so perhaps. However, many professors ban the citing of anything from Wikipedia, even for the "common knowledge" tidbits. They reason that since anyone can edit a Wikipedia entry, it isn't trustworthy as a source. What they fail to acknowledge is that *any* source can contain false or misleading information (remember the NY Times incident a few years ago).

At some point, when a younger generation of professors begins to emerge, the academy will see that Wikipedia (or whatever supplants it in popularity) is the ultimate peer-reviewed source of information. A tougher question remains. What do the next 10 years look like for faculty in terms of publishing original research, promotion, and tenure. If faculty research can be reviewed by peers on the Internet using something like Ning or GoogleDocs or some homegrown website, how long will the top scholarly journals have a stranglehold on prestige and influence? Will young, rock star researchers be passed over for promotion because they publish in non-traditional ways? At first, perhaps, but not for long. The times they are a'changin'....