Thursday, March 04, 2004
What's on my mind this week?
How does a person learn critical thinking? How do they learn to analyze? Is it a function of age and maturity? Or education, and if it's education, who's responsible for it?
Last night, I was grading papers from my 102 class. The students had been given a three part assignment in which they wrote a narrative of good advice, then looked at their peers' narratives, and tried to draw some general principles of advice -- when it works and how -- based on what they saw in their peers' essays. The jump, from data to conclusion -- the data their peers' narratives -- was too big for most of them. Additionally, I had spent a great deal of time modeling and giving examples of potential elements of advice based on the narratives.
I'm frustrated because I feel like these students, college students, should already know how to do this. I remember quite clearly my freshman English class. I remember writing the narrative, the descriptive piece, and then moving on to analysis. I also recall, vividly, as I was writing, making a point in each paragraph to say something like, "What this means is . . .". This is analysis, not summary. You need the summary to get to analysis, but too many students simply stop at summary, and this makes me think that they haven't been required to do any analysis in the work or writing they did previously.
This is depressing.
I wonder if my own professors struggled with the same issues, but I just didn't know it. I remember, as a student, not really knowing how I stacked up against the others, but assuming that everyone else was stacked much higher than I. So, maybe, my own professors struggled with the same things, but just not with me. Maybe the majority of CarolAnn's class was writing completely obvious and superficial kinds of things. I cared about writing; I still do, while most don't.
So, maybe, things really aren't that much different.
I do think there is a different attitude towards education now than when I was a student. I'm a gen-x'er. I'm not sure if I was in the majority, but I respected educators, looked up to them as role models, and while I may not have been the best student, I did my best to hide my short-comings. Sure, I was in college to get a degree to get a job, but I was also willing to take the ride.
I teach writing, and it seems to me that students can't see any role for writing education in their lives. I took history and geology, and I never asked how those classes might serve me in my future career. It was part of the process, and I had to complete this process before I was allowed entry into the exclusive company at the big economic table. I knew that without a degree, I'd be relegated to the small table, the kids' table, and I knew I didn't want that.
The whole point here is it seems to me that education, and ideas about education, are becoming utilitarian, and this means the death of liberal arts. The liberal arts are all about teaching students to think, intepret, analyze. The greatest benefit to students in a liberal arts education is not that she knows who defeated whom at Gettysburg, but that the student is able to identify and understand the role this battle played within a much larger context -- then, they are thinking critically and analytically. A liberal arts education doesn't teach a nifty set of skills or objectives, but, rather, how to understand skills and put them to use. In my opinion, this is very utilitarian, very useful.
I suppose the whole drive for accountability has something to do with the death of the liberal arts. State and national goverments want proof that the dollars they are spending on each student are being put to good use, and in order to make these assurances, we have to dumb down the liberal education into essential elements that can be readily tested. So, for example, in writing, we test them to see that they can write a 5-paragraph theme, using standard American usage. 5 paragraphs and comma usage are fairly easy to assess. The problem with this is (see, analysis) it dumbs down writing. It reduces writing to the lowest common denominator (5 paragraphs), and it privileges certain aspects of writing, giving them more import than they are due (commas, and comma usage, is only one small part of the overall writing equation).
Here, at SWIC, we give lip service to Critical Thinking -- we've convened a committee to try and come up with a way of measuring our students' critical thinking skills, so, we know, and can prove to state auditors, that we are improving our students' critical thinking skills. But how do conveniently test an individual's critical thinking skills? Are there a set of terms or vocab words that, if known, demonstrate a student knows critical thinking? Nah. It's tough. You can have them write, but then, how do you identify critical thinking - it seems too subjective.
I'm a critical thinker. I know that. I know that because when my dad calls me and tells me my nephew didn't make the baseball team, and I can do more than just get emotional, I can evaluate the entire situation. Or, when Bush proposes sending a manned mission to Mars, and canning the Hubble telescope, I can formulate an response that is more than just opinion -- "Oh, that sucks." When I see a movie, I can say I like that movie BECAUSE, and then list the reasons why. This is critical thinking and this is what the founders of this country intended when they advocated a free public education because they knew that for a democracy to work, its citizens has to be able to think critically and make decisions based on more than just emotion, but reason and intellect as well.
What's happening?
CA
How does a person learn critical thinking? How do they learn to analyze? Is it a function of age and maturity? Or education, and if it's education, who's responsible for it?
Last night, I was grading papers from my 102 class. The students had been given a three part assignment in which they wrote a narrative of good advice, then looked at their peers' narratives, and tried to draw some general principles of advice -- when it works and how -- based on what they saw in their peers' essays. The jump, from data to conclusion -- the data their peers' narratives -- was too big for most of them. Additionally, I had spent a great deal of time modeling and giving examples of potential elements of advice based on the narratives.
I'm frustrated because I feel like these students, college students, should already know how to do this. I remember quite clearly my freshman English class. I remember writing the narrative, the descriptive piece, and then moving on to analysis. I also recall, vividly, as I was writing, making a point in each paragraph to say something like, "What this means is . . .". This is analysis, not summary. You need the summary to get to analysis, but too many students simply stop at summary, and this makes me think that they haven't been required to do any analysis in the work or writing they did previously.
This is depressing.
I wonder if my own professors struggled with the same issues, but I just didn't know it. I remember, as a student, not really knowing how I stacked up against the others, but assuming that everyone else was stacked much higher than I. So, maybe, my own professors struggled with the same things, but just not with me. Maybe the majority of CarolAnn's class was writing completely obvious and superficial kinds of things. I cared about writing; I still do, while most don't.
So, maybe, things really aren't that much different.
I do think there is a different attitude towards education now than when I was a student. I'm a gen-x'er. I'm not sure if I was in the majority, but I respected educators, looked up to them as role models, and while I may not have been the best student, I did my best to hide my short-comings. Sure, I was in college to get a degree to get a job, but I was also willing to take the ride.
I teach writing, and it seems to me that students can't see any role for writing education in their lives. I took history and geology, and I never asked how those classes might serve me in my future career. It was part of the process, and I had to complete this process before I was allowed entry into the exclusive company at the big economic table. I knew that without a degree, I'd be relegated to the small table, the kids' table, and I knew I didn't want that.
The whole point here is it seems to me that education, and ideas about education, are becoming utilitarian, and this means the death of liberal arts. The liberal arts are all about teaching students to think, intepret, analyze. The greatest benefit to students in a liberal arts education is not that she knows who defeated whom at Gettysburg, but that the student is able to identify and understand the role this battle played within a much larger context -- then, they are thinking critically and analytically. A liberal arts education doesn't teach a nifty set of skills or objectives, but, rather, how to understand skills and put them to use. In my opinion, this is very utilitarian, very useful.
I suppose the whole drive for accountability has something to do with the death of the liberal arts. State and national goverments want proof that the dollars they are spending on each student are being put to good use, and in order to make these assurances, we have to dumb down the liberal education into essential elements that can be readily tested. So, for example, in writing, we test them to see that they can write a 5-paragraph theme, using standard American usage. 5 paragraphs and comma usage are fairly easy to assess. The problem with this is (see, analysis) it dumbs down writing. It reduces writing to the lowest common denominator (5 paragraphs), and it privileges certain aspects of writing, giving them more import than they are due (commas, and comma usage, is only one small part of the overall writing equation).
Here, at SWIC, we give lip service to Critical Thinking -- we've convened a committee to try and come up with a way of measuring our students' critical thinking skills, so, we know, and can prove to state auditors, that we are improving our students' critical thinking skills. But how do conveniently test an individual's critical thinking skills? Are there a set of terms or vocab words that, if known, demonstrate a student knows critical thinking? Nah. It's tough. You can have them write, but then, how do you identify critical thinking - it seems too subjective.
I'm a critical thinker. I know that. I know that because when my dad calls me and tells me my nephew didn't make the baseball team, and I can do more than just get emotional, I can evaluate the entire situation. Or, when Bush proposes sending a manned mission to Mars, and canning the Hubble telescope, I can formulate an response that is more than just opinion -- "Oh, that sucks." When I see a movie, I can say I like that movie BECAUSE, and then list the reasons why. This is critical thinking and this is what the founders of this country intended when they advocated a free public education because they knew that for a democracy to work, its citizens has to be able to think critically and make decisions based on more than just emotion, but reason and intellect as well.
What's happening?
CA
