I mean my title to be a double entendre.
Tuesday will be the last class session of the semester in my course The Economics of Organizations, Econ 490. Most of the students are upper level undergraduate students, all Econ majors this time around. I have one student in a professional masters program in economics. They do weekly blogging on course themes, where one purpose of this writing is to connect their own experiences to the topics the class is studying. Apparently, students don't do this as a matter of practice in their other Econ classes, though it is unclear whether that is because they simply don't try to make such connections or if the don't have any relevant experience for the subject matter. One student wrote in her final post that this was novel for her, and she was appreciative for having had the experience. An epiphany!
During the semester, I provide prompts for that week's posts. The rules posted in the syllabus are that students are to write to the prompt or to choose a different topic, one of their own selection, but then connect that to course themes. This second option was available but not exercised. One wonders why. Is it a lack of confidence? Or perhaps a sense that writing to the prompt is easier; more background work would need to be done if the student chose to write on a different topic? Or might it be simply that it doesn't occur to the students to follow their own curiosity rather than follow the professor? If the blogging activity itself is to have a derivative benefit after the course is over, it needs to occur to them then. Will it? If not, while the course may have provided an interesting interlude for the students, it surely couldn't be called transformative in that case. (Back in 2013, I wrote a post called Some Thoughts on the New Campus Strategic Plan, where transformative learning experiences were featured. Apparently they are still to be featured in the upcoming strategic plan, though no details are yet provided. In the previous plan, it seemed that such experiences were expected to happen outside of courses, not in them. I never understood why that should be, especially if the course is not a large lecture.)
Now let me speculate about what will happen to these students based on mentoring one student this semester who took the course a year ago. He cares a great deal about getting good grades in the courses he takes. He has a unique career interest for an econ major, in law enforcement, that perhaps shapes his outside of class activities very strongly. I won't comment on them further, other than to note that while he is incredibly earnest he seems far less rounded in his general education than I would hope for.
To illustrate what I have in mind, consider the two paragraph below, taken from a blog post a couple of years ago after an interview with Ann Abbott. The full post is here.
The other part, this specific to Ann, is the immediate sense I had of finding a kindred spirit. Her personal philosophy about the purpose of undergraduate education, something we covered in the preliminary part of the discussion, is essentially identical to mine. She started right in talking about how over programmed the students are, something I agree with 100%. She also said that when she was an undergrad she went to the movies on campus a lot, mainly for foreign films. She also went to a lot of lectures. I did the same when I was an undergrad. In other words, much of the education was informal and happened outside of regular courses. By being so over programmed, the students block this informal sort of learning. They also miss out on the inquiry into themselves, which is what college should be about, at least in part, even while the students are readying themselves for a life of work that they will enter after graduation.
A good part of that personal inquiry happens by the student having intense discussions with people who are different from her. Ann talked about spending a lot of time in college with international students who had quite different backgrounds from her. She is from a small town in Illinois I did not go through quite the same thing. Being from NYC I probably had a greater diversity of cultural experiences growing up. But in college I did spend a lot of time interacting with graduate students where I lived and we would argue (in a friendly way) over anything and everything. The diversity in point of view really helped my development.
It seems to me that if students are to produce Ahas on their own, after their college days are over, they need to have had the sort of education described in the previous two paragraphs. My guess is that most of the undergraduates I teach are not having such experiences and they don't see it as satisfying a personal need. Why that is, I can't say. But if the assessment is correct, we should be asking what might change matters for the better.
This is about mindset regarding college education. I would say that most of the students I see subscribe to the degree-as-passport-to-a-good-job theory of undergraduate education. Personal inquiry is absent in that. Somehow a different balance needs to be established where the passport-to-a-good-job and the personal inquiry approaches can co-exist.
No comments:
Post a Comment