I am reacting to a piece from the Chronicle this morning, I want to make a general point that free speech doesn't happen in the classroom. Instead, the instructor regulates student speech. In a course where otherwise the students are satisfied with how the course is being conducted, this observation is mundane, and the examples I will use to illustrate that will show as much. So, when an outside group comes in and cries foul about how a particular course is being conducted because a student's free speech rights have been denied, it may make for interesting press but one needs to ask, do they really have a leg to stand on?
Before getting to my examples, let me make clear that the main pedagogic issue is quite the opposite. Many students don't open up in the classroom. There is a "shy student" problem that vexes many instructors. This is true even when the students are quite able. Some years ago I wrote about the issue in a post called Teaching Quiet Students after having taught a class for the Campus Honors Program. I was surprised then by how many of these honors kids were reticent to participate in class discussion. Ultimately, I learned that the best way to address the issue is to give multiple modes for communication. One reason I now have students do weekly blogging is that they can express themselves in writing and some ultimately are more comfortable doing that then speaking up in the live classroom.
Now to the speech in the classroom issues. When an instructor lectures, the instructor may take clarifying questions during the lecture, but other questions are deferred till a Q&A session at the end. This delay in allowing students to pose a question is a (temporary) suppression of student speech in the name of letting the instructor provide the foundational content in the lecture. Nobody considers this a violation of the First Amendment. It's normal classroom procedure.
Let's move to consider classroom discussion. The instructor regulates the flow of discussion. The student who speaks next must raise his or her hand first and then be acknowledged by the instructor. This is the standard procedure. Students shouldn't blurt out and shouldn't interrupt another student who is speaking. These prohibitions aren't specified in the syllabus. They are so much part of the norm in the classroom that it is reasonable to expect them to be obeyed without delineating them.
Are there times where the instructor won't pick a student with a raised hand? Yes. When that student has already commented repeatedly in class, the instructor might very well ask, does somebody other than _____ want to chime in? This is done in the name of promoting broader class participation. The student with the raised hand might feel a bit frustrated by this, and if no other student does chime in then it's proper etiquette to ask the original student about what the student had wanted to say. However, if other students do eventually enter the discussion, the instructor may not feel obligated to return to that first student. This is okay. The real issue is whether there is a good flow in the discussion. If that has been obtained, the instructor has achieved the main goal.
Are there other times where the instructor will interrupt a student who was speaking? I can think of two possible reasons for interrupting a student. The instructor has a responsibility for keeping the discussion on topic, giving students some leeway for sure but not complete freedom on this score. If the instructor is unable to tie what the student said to the previous class discussion, the instructor should cut the student off, perhaps asking the student to reconsider the point in a way that it does tie to the discussion, but to think about it for a while first. The other possible reason might surprise the reader, and I may be distinctive in my teaching approach for doing it this way. When the student makes a very good point, I sometimes immediately cut the student off by saying, "stop." I want to emphasize the point just made and have the class reflect on it, for fear that if I had let the student keeping going, the point might get lost in what else is said. Admittedly, it is a bit rude to do this, though the class gets used to it after a while. And the student who made the good point does get some acknowledgment of such then and there. So it is not punitive, certainly. The take away here should be that an individual student does not have the right to hold the floor in the classroom, for even a moderately long time.
I want to say two other bits about the Chronicle piece and then close. The piece mentioned that the student had missed the prior class session, where some of the issues that introduced. Students who miss class without having an excused absence have less status in my view than those who attend right along. I would expect such a student to be somewhat circumspect for having missed class. That didn't seem to be the case here. The other point is about how escalation should occur when there is a conflict between student and teacher. The right next step, in my view, is for there to be a one-on-one conversation between the two of them. This is usually not pleasant, at least at first, so there is some temptation to skip this step. But it is the better alternative. If either party is not satisfied with how that step has played out, then taking the matter to the department head should happen next. Indeed, what is so strange in the case reported in the Chronicle piece is that there appeared to be no other university governance on the matter, at least until it had fully escalated already. The prospect of that repeating is truly frightening to me, and why I'm writing here.
No comments:
Post a Comment