Chapter 6 – Building Character
Intro
Has the development of character by students as moral beings been neglected by colleges and universities? Stern regimes with elaborate rules of conduct have been abandoned. But many new courses on moral issues are being offered; these give students the chance to consider moral dilemmas and theories of ethics. They arose partly out of concern in the 1960s that the nation was losing its moral foundation. They are more common in professional schools than in undergraduate colleges, where their appropriateness and value is questioned. This seems odd when we see that academic dishonesty and confusion about ethical issues is on the rise among students, in (high) schools as well as in colleges. And at the same time, workplace pressures reward unethical behavior more than in the past. Finally, in a society that values moral freedom, students need the tools to make their own moral judgments.
Teaching Moral Reasoning
A “good liberal arts education” can no longer be considered sufficient for students’ moral development. Although that curriculum exposes students to moral issues and diverse views, it only rarely allows students to directly address moral dilemmas. The new courses on moral issues can help students recognize ethical problems before they become severe. They expose students to moral philosophies and careful analysis of moral issues, so they may more easily resolve problems when they arise. And they can apply these methods to avoid simple-minded relativism, and to gain understanding even in intractable situations. These courses are shown to positively affect students’ moral reasoning abilities, especially when theory and case discussion are combined.
It is equally important that students’ improved moral reasoning should lead to better behavior as human beings. There are reasons to believe this will generally follow: rationalizations become less acceptable, practice in an academic setting prepares the individual to withstand workplace and other pressures that cloud reasoning ability, ethical problems are more easily recognized, consequences of unethical behavior become more clearly unacceptable, self-serving arguments lose potency, common excuses fail to satisfy. As long as a person wants to act ethically, such instruction is bound to help.
Strengthening the Will to Act Morally
Courses in moral reasoning are not enough. Students must develop the will to act on their moral reasoning, to do the right thing. Various reasons exist for doing the right thing: empathy and concern for others, desire to gain approval, peer pressure sometimes, personal standards of conduct. How can a college help this come about? University leaders must take actions that match their lofty words. Academic standards must not be compromised for money or prestige. Administrative actions must be explained and must be ethically defensible. Unethical practices must be changed, not justified or explained away. In every way the actions of school personnel must conform to high moral standards. How coaches and the institution treat athletes, how disciplinary rules are enforced, whether rationales are provided for regulations, whether all rules and laws are enforced fairly and conscientiously, whether faculty or star athletes are exempted from obeying the rules: These influence strongly students’ views on the importance of moral behavior.
In every way possible the school should influence students’ propensity for morally correct actions. Peer pressure is not unknown to have this effect. Honor codes are more effective than proctoring of exams. Faculty actions in instances of cheating help students get a sense of fairness, so they do not feel compelled to cheat because “everybody does it.” Class discussions, workshops and other opportunities to see the world through the eyes of others help students to develop empathy and concern for the needs of others. Students must be shown the results of their irresponsible actions. Community service is a growing aspect of this effort. It can have a positive influence on students if feedback and reflection are part of the experience.
Concluding Remarks
Moral reasoning and the will to act ethically are closely connected. They grow from childhood and family experiences but can also be enhanced by education. Universities have begun varied efforts in this direction, and they seem to work. Still, much more can be done. More students should take a course on moral reasoning and take part in community service. Administrators should themselves act more ethically. The faculty must decide how important this is. Should learning moral reasoning and developing the will to act accordingly be optional for students, or should these be integral to their undergraduate education?
QUESTIONS
a) In a religious school like Mercer, do we still want to prepare our students to exercise moral freedom?
b) Should CLA offer and/or require a course on “moral reasoning”?
c) Bok finally calls on persons other than the faculty to action, to improve students’ education. What are the proper roles of faculty, staff and administrators in the area of moral education?
d) How well do our service-component courses achieve the goal of “building character”? Do any of our other courses also manage this?
e) How does Mercer University as an institution stack up, as a whole or in its parts, as an example of morally correct behavior?
f) What is one thing we can do, that we are not already doing, to influence our students towards moral/ethical behavior?
Monday, November 10, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
Chapter 5 Summary and Discussion Questions - Jose Balduz
Chapter 5 – Learning to Think
Intro
Most professors place high value on critical thinking, but few do much to act on that belief.
Teaching Critical Thinking
Students have many opportunities to engage in critical thinking in college, and their ability increases somewhat from freshman to senior. They are hampered in their progress by a general lack of effort, as they are not forced to do enough homework or engage the course content sufficiently. They are also held back by lack of epistemic development, from ignorant certainty to intelligent confusion and beyond, but may reach only the stage of naïve relativism. Students rely on rote learning and fail to learn basic concepts because of the faculty teaching style, that of lecturing. We must use active learning styles in the classroom. Structuring the course to reflect the goal of fostering critical thinking in the field, we must worry less about covering material and more about engaging the students; and our methods of evaluating students must also reflect these priorities. Several reasons are presented and rejected for using the standard lecture format: inspiring outstanding scholars, class sizes, need for coverage, familiarity, fear, lack of student response. Professional schools have shown us how to use active learning by way of case studies and discussion-based teaching.
Quantitative Reasoning
People in all professions and all walks of life also need some basic quantitative analytical tools. The NCED defines quantitative literacy in terms of Arithmetic, Data, Computers, Modeling, Statistics, Chance and Reasoning. All undergraduates should learn these skills, but they are not well-served by standard math and science course in this regard. Once again, active learning methods are known to work better but are seldom used. Quantitative skills must be taught and encouraged in a wider variety of courses. At the same time, this kind of teaching must not be relegated to graduate students or junior faculty.
The Concentration (Major)
The major developed as a way to make students explore a subject in greater depth. Students acquire a body of knowledge, learn methods of inquiry, and test their abilities as they achieve mastery of the subject. Higher levels of sophistication can be achieved, whether the major is in a standard discipline or is an interdisciplinary construct. But at present the major is not contributing substantially to students’ development of critical thinking skills; in fact, some skills even deteriorate depending on the major field. Majors must not take up too much of a student’s academic program, and they must serve well the purpose that created them, to use in-depth exploration of a field as a way to develop critical thinking skills.
A Matter of Perspective
Teachers talk about critical thinking but they don’t teach accordingly. We should rely on education research to guide pedagogy and program evaluation, not professors’ teaching experience and opinions.
QUESTIONS
a) How do we define “critical thinking”? Are there various definitions?
b) How does one teach a student to engage in critical thinking, especially when the student is reluctant to do so?
c) Should all Gen Ed courses actively teach critical thinking, or is it all right if some do not?
d) How much quantitative reasoning can be expected to take place in social science courses? In humanities courses? Is there enough already going on in our science courses, or are they also lacking?
e) What role does SCI play in all this?
f) Is the NCED list necessary and/or sufficient?
g) Do we really need to rethink our majors as Bok suggests? Can every major serve the purpose equally well, to develop critical thinking?
h) Are we the faculty really as bad as Bok paints us?
Intro
Most professors place high value on critical thinking, but few do much to act on that belief.
Teaching Critical Thinking
Students have many opportunities to engage in critical thinking in college, and their ability increases somewhat from freshman to senior. They are hampered in their progress by a general lack of effort, as they are not forced to do enough homework or engage the course content sufficiently. They are also held back by lack of epistemic development, from ignorant certainty to intelligent confusion and beyond, but may reach only the stage of naïve relativism. Students rely on rote learning and fail to learn basic concepts because of the faculty teaching style, that of lecturing. We must use active learning styles in the classroom. Structuring the course to reflect the goal of fostering critical thinking in the field, we must worry less about covering material and more about engaging the students; and our methods of evaluating students must also reflect these priorities. Several reasons are presented and rejected for using the standard lecture format: inspiring outstanding scholars, class sizes, need for coverage, familiarity, fear, lack of student response. Professional schools have shown us how to use active learning by way of case studies and discussion-based teaching.
Quantitative Reasoning
People in all professions and all walks of life also need some basic quantitative analytical tools. The NCED defines quantitative literacy in terms of Arithmetic, Data, Computers, Modeling, Statistics, Chance and Reasoning. All undergraduates should learn these skills, but they are not well-served by standard math and science course in this regard. Once again, active learning methods are known to work better but are seldom used. Quantitative skills must be taught and encouraged in a wider variety of courses. At the same time, this kind of teaching must not be relegated to graduate students or junior faculty.
The Concentration (Major)
The major developed as a way to make students explore a subject in greater depth. Students acquire a body of knowledge, learn methods of inquiry, and test their abilities as they achieve mastery of the subject. Higher levels of sophistication can be achieved, whether the major is in a standard discipline or is an interdisciplinary construct. But at present the major is not contributing substantially to students’ development of critical thinking skills; in fact, some skills even deteriorate depending on the major field. Majors must not take up too much of a student’s academic program, and they must serve well the purpose that created them, to use in-depth exploration of a field as a way to develop critical thinking skills.
A Matter of Perspective
Teachers talk about critical thinking but they don’t teach accordingly. We should rely on education research to guide pedagogy and program evaluation, not professors’ teaching experience and opinions.
QUESTIONS
a) How do we define “critical thinking”? Are there various definitions?
b) How does one teach a student to engage in critical thinking, especially when the student is reluctant to do so?
c) Should all Gen Ed courses actively teach critical thinking, or is it all right if some do not?
d) How much quantitative reasoning can be expected to take place in social science courses? In humanities courses? Is there enough already going on in our science courses, or are they also lacking?
e) What role does SCI play in all this?
f) Is the NCED list necessary and/or sufficient?
g) Do we really need to rethink our majors as Bok suggests? Can every major serve the purpose equally well, to develop critical thinking?
h) Are we the faculty really as bad as Bok paints us?
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Chapter 4 Summary and Discussion Questions - Fletcher Winston
Chapter 4 - Learning to Communicate
In chapter four, Bok discusses the first purpose of higher education, which is learning to communicate. Teaching students to write effectively is the aspect of communication he deals with the most and he argues this is deserved; writing is among the most important goals of college. Not only is this skill demanded by employers, but few students or faculty would disagree with its importance. However, Bok observes that it is “hard, time-consuming work” to improve the organization, clarity, and persuasiveness of student writing. For this reason, it is often neglected.
Bok provides six suggestions for improving writing programs:
1. clearly define goals of the writing program
2. assemble a competent staff of instructors for the basic course
3. repeated practice by the students should be encouraged by faculty in courses beyond introductory composition
4. professors should provide ample, timely feedback on the substance and quality of papers
5. colleges should reward faculty who expend the effort on improving student writing with extra salary or added teaching credit
6. evaluate the writing program on a regular basis
Discussion Questions
1. Bok suggests that clearly defining the goals of the writing program is important enough to warrant a faculty-wide forum. Should the Gen Ed committee organize this type of discussion for CLA faculty?
2. Given the importance of repetition to the development of writing skills, how much emphasis should Gen Ed place on incorporating writing in courses beyond FYS?
3. How does the university’s emphasis on attracting pre-professional students impact our realization of this goal? For instance, a pre-pharmacy student in my UNV class this semester was appalled that her FYS instructor asked students to complete a writing assignment the first class. She duly switched sections. Perhaps, she was not convinced that writing would be relevant to her ambitions. Along these same lines, do Mercer students, in general, appreciate writing? (This relates to the “differing perspectives” discussion question for chapter three.) If they do not believe writing is an important goal, how much effort should we spend with students to examine its significance as an educational purpose?
4. To what extent does Mercer reward its faculty and provide incentives for spending the extensive time required to sufficiently help students with their writing? For instance, Bok argues that individual faculty meetings with students are a necessary component of writing pedagogy; how are faculty rewarded for these types of efforts? If this is among the most important goals of a university, how might Mercer increase its investment in the faculty? Should we raise this issue with the faculty welfare committee?
5. Bok emphasizes the importance of program evaluation. What assessment tools are the most useful for the writing program? How might we improve the evaluation of our writing program?
6. Towards the end of chapter four, Bok discusses the importance of oral communication to our educational aims, even though it is often afforded a more lowly status than writing. How do we treat oral communication in Gen Ed? In what ways might we improve the development of this skill among our students?
In chapter four, Bok discusses the first purpose of higher education, which is learning to communicate. Teaching students to write effectively is the aspect of communication he deals with the most and he argues this is deserved; writing is among the most important goals of college. Not only is this skill demanded by employers, but few students or faculty would disagree with its importance. However, Bok observes that it is “hard, time-consuming work” to improve the organization, clarity, and persuasiveness of student writing. For this reason, it is often neglected.
Bok provides six suggestions for improving writing programs:
1. clearly define goals of the writing program
2. assemble a competent staff of instructors for the basic course
3. repeated practice by the students should be encouraged by faculty in courses beyond introductory composition
4. professors should provide ample, timely feedback on the substance and quality of papers
5. colleges should reward faculty who expend the effort on improving student writing with extra salary or added teaching credit
6. evaluate the writing program on a regular basis
Discussion Questions
1. Bok suggests that clearly defining the goals of the writing program is important enough to warrant a faculty-wide forum. Should the Gen Ed committee organize this type of discussion for CLA faculty?
2. Given the importance of repetition to the development of writing skills, how much emphasis should Gen Ed place on incorporating writing in courses beyond FYS?
3. How does the university’s emphasis on attracting pre-professional students impact our realization of this goal? For instance, a pre-pharmacy student in my UNV class this semester was appalled that her FYS instructor asked students to complete a writing assignment the first class. She duly switched sections. Perhaps, she was not convinced that writing would be relevant to her ambitions. Along these same lines, do Mercer students, in general, appreciate writing? (This relates to the “differing perspectives” discussion question for chapter three.) If they do not believe writing is an important goal, how much effort should we spend with students to examine its significance as an educational purpose?
4. To what extent does Mercer reward its faculty and provide incentives for spending the extensive time required to sufficiently help students with their writing? For instance, Bok argues that individual faculty meetings with students are a necessary component of writing pedagogy; how are faculty rewarded for these types of efforts? If this is among the most important goals of a university, how might Mercer increase its investment in the faculty? Should we raise this issue with the faculty welfare committee?
5. Bok emphasizes the importance of program evaluation. What assessment tools are the most useful for the writing program? How might we improve the evaluation of our writing program?
6. Towards the end of chapter four, Bok discusses the importance of oral communication to our educational aims, even though it is often afforded a more lowly status than writing. How do we treat oral communication in Gen Ed? In what ways might we improve the development of this skill among our students?
Chapter 3 Summary and Discussion Questions - Fletcher Winston
Chapter 3 - Purposes
In chapter three, Bok suggests that there are seven purposes of higher education:
1. the ability to communicate
• in writing and orally
2. critical thinking
• this includes quantitative methods
3. moral reasoning
• to develop a clearer, stronger set of ethical principals
4. preparing citizens
• this is an effort to help students become informed and active participants in a democracy
5. living with diversity
• students should learn to live and work effectively with other people and enter into fulfilling personal relationships
• for example, students should be sensitive to issues of gender, race, and sexuality
6. living in a more global society
• students should gain knowledge about international affairs, other countries, and cultures
7. breadth of interests
• colleges should encourage students to engage a variety of interests
• this will expand their capabilities and knowledge
• it will help them enjoy full and varied lives
• for example, students should explore various intellectual, artistic, and athletic pursuits
Discussion Questions
1. Do you agree with Bok that these are the most important goals of higher education? Are other important purposes missing from his assessment? In consideration of limited resources, should some goals receive more emphasis than others? If so, which ones are the most important?
2. To what extent does our Gen Ed program already subscribe to these goals?
3. To what extent does the university’s strategic plan facilitate or inhibit the development of these goals? (http://www2.mercer.edu/UPC/Future/default.htm)
4. In what ways might our heritage as a Baptist university facilitate or inhibit the development these goals?
5. In the previous chapter Bok discusses the differing perspectives of students and faculty. With this in mind, is there systematic evidence regarding the aims of Mercer students regarding their college experience? How might we incorporate student concerns into the development of our general education goals?
In chapter three, Bok suggests that there are seven purposes of higher education:
1. the ability to communicate
• in writing and orally
2. critical thinking
• this includes quantitative methods
3. moral reasoning
• to develop a clearer, stronger set of ethical principals
4. preparing citizens
• this is an effort to help students become informed and active participants in a democracy
5. living with diversity
• students should learn to live and work effectively with other people and enter into fulfilling personal relationships
• for example, students should be sensitive to issues of gender, race, and sexuality
6. living in a more global society
• students should gain knowledge about international affairs, other countries, and cultures
7. breadth of interests
• colleges should encourage students to engage a variety of interests
• this will expand their capabilities and knowledge
• it will help them enjoy full and varied lives
• for example, students should explore various intellectual, artistic, and athletic pursuits
Discussion Questions
1. Do you agree with Bok that these are the most important goals of higher education? Are other important purposes missing from his assessment? In consideration of limited resources, should some goals receive more emphasis than others? If so, which ones are the most important?
2. To what extent does our Gen Ed program already subscribe to these goals?
3. To what extent does the university’s strategic plan facilitate or inhibit the development of these goals? (http://www2.mercer.edu/UPC/Future/default.htm)
4. In what ways might our heritage as a Baptist university facilitate or inhibit the development these goals?
5. In the previous chapter Bok discusses the differing perspectives of students and faculty. With this in mind, is there systematic evidence regarding the aims of Mercer students regarding their college experience? How might we incorporate student concerns into the development of our general education goals?
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Chapter 2 Summary and Discussion Questions-Keith Howard
Chapter 2 – Faculty Attitudes Toward Undergraduate Education
A common complaint towards college faculty is that we are so preoccupied by research and outside consulting that they ignore their students. Where this is the case, Bok places the blame on the greater recognition and reward given for these pursuits when compared to teaching. But he also challenges that on average, teaching takes up the vast majority on a typical faculty members work day. He further evidences that the number of faculty who consider themselves teachers greatly outweigh the number that consider themselves researchers. Bok does recognize the lack of effort to define and encourage better teaching pedagogy on campuses. This is partly due to the difficulty in judging teaching methods both within and among institutions. Research can be judged over time across institutions and lead to reputations, whereas teaching does not provide for such cross institutional competition. In that colleges make decisions based upon factors that affect their reputation it is natural that much effort is not seen in improving faculty teaching. Indeed current incentives seem to divert faculty from continuing to refine and improve teaching methods.
Bok identifies six tendencies in which faculty and student interest diverge in relation to undergraduate education.
Differing Perspectives on the Role of Universities
A particular difficulty in faculty student relations is the differing view of the role of the university among the two groups. Faculty tend to view education as the challege of discovering and transmitting knowledge and ideas, while students view education as a means to a end. Faculty value knowledge for its own sake, students value transferable skills. Even the skills that faculty value, such as good writing, clear thinking and language competency are secondary to the creation and transmission of knowledge that they assist. Faculty believe in a love of learning while students place greater importance in the ability to make money. These difference effect the curriculum in that faculty are not committed to teach the skill sets that students desire to learn. Courses that teach competencies desired by students are often taught by adjunct due to a lack of interest by permanent faculty. While judgment related to which competencies should be required are often argued based upon faculty interest rather that undergraduates needs. This is particularly the case with students desire for values-based courses, which can be subject to opinion, whereas faculty showing a preference for courses with provable knowledge based content.
Barriers to Collaboration
The traditional independence of professors affects the manner in which curriculums are structured. Since professors do not feel that colleagues should be forced to teach subjects not of their interest. Course offerings, including interdisciplinary courses must be designed so as to be staffed voluntarily or with adjuncts.
Neglecting Purpose
Curriculum are reviewed and revised without first identifying the objectives that and undergraduate education should pursue. Ad hoc adjustments of the curriculum often take precedent over a comprehensive review of the full curriculum. While marketing materials sale students on the values the university wishes to promote, the curriculum is centered on the development of knowledge and intellectual ability. There tends to be a willingness to accept goals in the curriculum that seem theoretically important irregardless of the ability to actually achieve them. This leads to the situation of forcing students to complete requirements that presents a false competency.
The Fixation on General Education
Faculties tend to spend the bulk of there curricular review and revision efforts of general education which constitutes about a third of students’ course work and very little effort discussing majors, which amounts to a half to a third of course work, or electives. Revisions in majors are left to departments and most majors amount to little more than a grouping courses lacking interrelated structure or depth. With such a system majors requirements have a tendency to grow in requirements and become narrow in intellectual focus. With electives it is rare that faculties discuss the how the freedom of these courses are actually used and benefit students.
Neglect of Pedagogy
Nearly all faculty discussion on curricular issues relates to subject matter, discussion of pedagogy is almost nonexistent. This lack of faculty debate is likely rooted in self-protection resulting in a stretching of the original intent of academic freedom. With growing faculties and smaller teaching loads this can lead to more course offerings but less individual attention for students.
The Neglect of the Extracurricular
Studies repeated show that undergraduates consider what they learn through interactions outside of the classroom to be just as valuable to their college experience and what they learn in the classroom. It is a failure for faculty to limit their discussion of curricular to classroom content that leave extracurricular concerns to administrators. Indeed there is a great opportunity to relate intertwinable knowledge such as political discourse or cultural issues.
Discussion Questions:
1. Is there a move for us or our professional school colleagues to place a higher value on research and/or consulting over undergraduate education?
2. Is the ability to illustrate and develop a reputation for teaching effectiveness a lost cause or something we should be actively working towards?
3. How does Bok’s perception of the devaluing of skill sets reflect on GenEd’s move towards a companies based curriculum?
4. How does volunteer teaching recruitments affect our ability to offer IDS courses? What are the benefits to faculty for teaching outside of their department?
5. What values, if any, should we be passing on to our students?
6. What are the pros and cons of a comprehensive review of our curriculum vs. making smaller changes?
7. Other than discussions on whether we should allow online courses, should we as a faculty be discussing and making discussions on how, pedagogically, courses should be taught?
A common complaint towards college faculty is that we are so preoccupied by research and outside consulting that they ignore their students. Where this is the case, Bok places the blame on the greater recognition and reward given for these pursuits when compared to teaching. But he also challenges that on average, teaching takes up the vast majority on a typical faculty members work day. He further evidences that the number of faculty who consider themselves teachers greatly outweigh the number that consider themselves researchers. Bok does recognize the lack of effort to define and encourage better teaching pedagogy on campuses. This is partly due to the difficulty in judging teaching methods both within and among institutions. Research can be judged over time across institutions and lead to reputations, whereas teaching does not provide for such cross institutional competition. In that colleges make decisions based upon factors that affect their reputation it is natural that much effort is not seen in improving faculty teaching. Indeed current incentives seem to divert faculty from continuing to refine and improve teaching methods.
Bok identifies six tendencies in which faculty and student interest diverge in relation to undergraduate education.
Differing Perspectives on the Role of Universities
A particular difficulty in faculty student relations is the differing view of the role of the university among the two groups. Faculty tend to view education as the challege of discovering and transmitting knowledge and ideas, while students view education as a means to a end. Faculty value knowledge for its own sake, students value transferable skills. Even the skills that faculty value, such as good writing, clear thinking and language competency are secondary to the creation and transmission of knowledge that they assist. Faculty believe in a love of learning while students place greater importance in the ability to make money. These difference effect the curriculum in that faculty are not committed to teach the skill sets that students desire to learn. Courses that teach competencies desired by students are often taught by adjunct due to a lack of interest by permanent faculty. While judgment related to which competencies should be required are often argued based upon faculty interest rather that undergraduates needs. This is particularly the case with students desire for values-based courses, which can be subject to opinion, whereas faculty showing a preference for courses with provable knowledge based content.
Barriers to Collaboration
The traditional independence of professors affects the manner in which curriculums are structured. Since professors do not feel that colleagues should be forced to teach subjects not of their interest. Course offerings, including interdisciplinary courses must be designed so as to be staffed voluntarily or with adjuncts.
Neglecting Purpose
Curriculum are reviewed and revised without first identifying the objectives that and undergraduate education should pursue. Ad hoc adjustments of the curriculum often take precedent over a comprehensive review of the full curriculum. While marketing materials sale students on the values the university wishes to promote, the curriculum is centered on the development of knowledge and intellectual ability. There tends to be a willingness to accept goals in the curriculum that seem theoretically important irregardless of the ability to actually achieve them. This leads to the situation of forcing students to complete requirements that presents a false competency.
The Fixation on General Education
Faculties tend to spend the bulk of there curricular review and revision efforts of general education which constitutes about a third of students’ course work and very little effort discussing majors, which amounts to a half to a third of course work, or electives. Revisions in majors are left to departments and most majors amount to little more than a grouping courses lacking interrelated structure or depth. With such a system majors requirements have a tendency to grow in requirements and become narrow in intellectual focus. With electives it is rare that faculties discuss the how the freedom of these courses are actually used and benefit students.
Neglect of Pedagogy
Nearly all faculty discussion on curricular issues relates to subject matter, discussion of pedagogy is almost nonexistent. This lack of faculty debate is likely rooted in self-protection resulting in a stretching of the original intent of academic freedom. With growing faculties and smaller teaching loads this can lead to more course offerings but less individual attention for students.
The Neglect of the Extracurricular
Studies repeated show that undergraduates consider what they learn through interactions outside of the classroom to be just as valuable to their college experience and what they learn in the classroom. It is a failure for faculty to limit their discussion of curricular to classroom content that leave extracurricular concerns to administrators. Indeed there is a great opportunity to relate intertwinable knowledge such as political discourse or cultural issues.
Discussion Questions:
1. Is there a move for us or our professional school colleagues to place a higher value on research and/or consulting over undergraduate education?
2. Is the ability to illustrate and develop a reputation for teaching effectiveness a lost cause or something we should be actively working towards?
3. How does Bok’s perception of the devaluing of skill sets reflect on GenEd’s move towards a companies based curriculum?
4. How does volunteer teaching recruitments affect our ability to offer IDS courses? What are the benefits to faculty for teaching outside of their department?
5. What values, if any, should we be passing on to our students?
6. What are the pros and cons of a comprehensive review of our curriculum vs. making smaller changes?
7. Other than discussions on whether we should allow online courses, should we as a faculty be discussing and making discussions on how, pedagogically, courses should be taught?
Chapter I Summary and Discussion Questions
Chapter 1 – The Evolution of American Colleges-Keith Howard
In the first chapter, Bok offers a historical perspective on the evolving philosophy of education goals. The chapter is divided into two sections starting with a brief history and then putting criticism of the academy in historical perspective. The necessity of such a historical perspective is justified by the notion that those wishing to critique and/or reform the academe need to know what reforms have preceded and understand the failures and successes of those reformation movements.
The Evolution of Undergraduate Education: A brief Summary
During the pre-Civil War period, colleges in the U.S were linked to religious bodies and organized for two particular objectives: training intellect and building character. Formal education consisted of the sterile study of mathematics, logic, English, the clasics, and Latin and Greek. Formal education was supplemented by informal clubs and literary societies that offered robust interactions. To train metal discipline, institutions focused on demanding work translating ancient languages, disputing arcane questions, and solving mathematical questions. Character was build through the study of classical texts, observance of strict rules of behavior, excessive mandatory chapel, and a capstone course in moral philosophy.
After the Civil War, American universities were influenced by their German counterparts. A more practical education system emerged with focus on the sciences, language and literature, vocations subjects such as commerce and engineering. Occupational training was a centerpiece of Public Institutions. Ph.D. programs were introduced along with the notion of the “scholar-teacher”. Further reforms removed the strict classical curriculum and allowed students the freedom to study based upon their interests. As part of this trend at Harvard, in 1890, 80% of the curriculum was required courses, by 1901 it was 70% and only 40% by 1940. Religious Orthodoxy lost its hold as governance became nonsectarian and religious observance became noncompulsory.
In the first decades of the twentieth century the pendulum began to swing back to a more strict curriculum. The “doctrine of total elective choice” had not produced “the vigorous energetic study” promised but rather a glut of graduates possessing an education consisting primarily of introductory courses and a lack of depth in any field of knowledge. The clubs and literary societies had been replaced with social and athletic clubs and fraternities. Requirements of majors emerged as a reform as did a stricter curriculum focused on a combination of breadth and depth of knowledge. Depth being achieved through concentrations and depth via required courses work in the humanities, sciences and social sciences.
By World War II, two models of institutions emerged, Public institutions focusing on vocational concentrations accented by the liberal arts and private institutions with the liberal arts as focus. The breath and depth structure of curriculum was further strengthened by a growth in course offering which resulted from expansions in faculty. This offered students more options with respect to elective courses, distributional courses and majors.
After World War II universities experienced a great increase in students as a result of the GI Bill and the evolving national economy. Universities became less elite and more diverse. The new model student was less interested in a broad liberal arts education than vocational preparation. The availability of federal support resulted in more focus toward research by faculty and institutions. While the structure of the curriculum remained intact the content material became much more focused much sooner. Interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary fields emerged along with more individualized programs of study. Advances in technology began to impact the breadth and variety of course materials.
Discussion Questions:
1. What basic objectives relative to training intellect and building character are reflected in our GenEd program?
2. How would we rate Mercer’s commitments to Vocational training vs. Liberal education?
3. Where does our GenEd program fit on the strict curriculum vs free curriculum scale?
4. How are the challenges imposed on use by the competitive forces of the Hope Grant in Georgia forcing us to evolve as an institution?
Recent Criticisms in Historical Perspective
Bok acknowledges criticism of the academy such as “lacking a clear vision of undergraduate education, failing to counteract the growing fragmentation of knowledge, sacrificing the liberal arts in favor of vocationalism, and neglecting undergraduates to focus on research.” He further seeks to address these and other common critiques with a bit of historical perspective. Most such critiques argue a decline in the standards, but Bok argues against the notion that there ever existed a golden age of education when these same criticisms were not present. Complaints with respect to instruction are universally present in every age. He particular argues that there has never been a period of consensus on what constitutes a liberal education. Even after World War II when several major universities attempted to build a model program of General education, no consensus of such a model emerged. Historically the only period of consensus was old classical model of the pre-Civil War period to which no one want to return. Indeed uniformity of purpose and curriculum is more of a European Model of higher education than American where variety is highly sought and seen as strength.
The amount of specialization in the academic education has increased due to the fragmenting of knowledge brought on by academic research. Though no one has yet to illustrate the drawback of such fragmentation or present a unification of knowledge to challenge the fragmentation.
With respect to vocational nature of education, Bok argues that the U.S. education has always had its vocational aspects and the desire for vocational education comes external from the academy. It is encouraged by the demand of American employers and the career centered motivation among students. Universities are serving these constituencies rather than imposing a vocational mindset.
Relating to the assertion that the professoriate neglects its students in favor of research ambitions, Bok offers evidence students’ appreciation of the amount and quality of interaction with faculty.
Lastly, Bok agues the major failing in higher education is the inability to illustrate improvements, particularly in the area of teaching. This he argues is mainly due to the nature of the education product which is distinctly different from, say, a consumer product.
Discussion Questions:
1. Does Mercer’s Professional programs interfere with the liberal arts nature of our Gen Ed?
2. Would you characterize our efforts to build and maintain a coherent GenEd as being “hopelessly engaged in the respiration of a lifeless ideal”? Pg 24
3. Is it a lost cause to seek to define the aims of a liberal education?
4. Do you envision the “unity of knowledge” as an “elusive ideal”? Pg 25
5. How do the magnitude of preprofesional students impact the liberal arts nature of our GenEd?
In the first chapter, Bok offers a historical perspective on the evolving philosophy of education goals. The chapter is divided into two sections starting with a brief history and then putting criticism of the academy in historical perspective. The necessity of such a historical perspective is justified by the notion that those wishing to critique and/or reform the academe need to know what reforms have preceded and understand the failures and successes of those reformation movements.
The Evolution of Undergraduate Education: A brief Summary
During the pre-Civil War period, colleges in the U.S were linked to religious bodies and organized for two particular objectives: training intellect and building character. Formal education consisted of the sterile study of mathematics, logic, English, the clasics, and Latin and Greek. Formal education was supplemented by informal clubs and literary societies that offered robust interactions. To train metal discipline, institutions focused on demanding work translating ancient languages, disputing arcane questions, and solving mathematical questions. Character was build through the study of classical texts, observance of strict rules of behavior, excessive mandatory chapel, and a capstone course in moral philosophy.
After the Civil War, American universities were influenced by their German counterparts. A more practical education system emerged with focus on the sciences, language and literature, vocations subjects such as commerce and engineering. Occupational training was a centerpiece of Public Institutions. Ph.D. programs were introduced along with the notion of the “scholar-teacher”. Further reforms removed the strict classical curriculum and allowed students the freedom to study based upon their interests. As part of this trend at Harvard, in 1890, 80% of the curriculum was required courses, by 1901 it was 70% and only 40% by 1940. Religious Orthodoxy lost its hold as governance became nonsectarian and religious observance became noncompulsory.
In the first decades of the twentieth century the pendulum began to swing back to a more strict curriculum. The “doctrine of total elective choice” had not produced “the vigorous energetic study” promised but rather a glut of graduates possessing an education consisting primarily of introductory courses and a lack of depth in any field of knowledge. The clubs and literary societies had been replaced with social and athletic clubs and fraternities. Requirements of majors emerged as a reform as did a stricter curriculum focused on a combination of breadth and depth of knowledge. Depth being achieved through concentrations and depth via required courses work in the humanities, sciences and social sciences.
By World War II, two models of institutions emerged, Public institutions focusing on vocational concentrations accented by the liberal arts and private institutions with the liberal arts as focus. The breath and depth structure of curriculum was further strengthened by a growth in course offering which resulted from expansions in faculty. This offered students more options with respect to elective courses, distributional courses and majors.
After World War II universities experienced a great increase in students as a result of the GI Bill and the evolving national economy. Universities became less elite and more diverse. The new model student was less interested in a broad liberal arts education than vocational preparation. The availability of federal support resulted in more focus toward research by faculty and institutions. While the structure of the curriculum remained intact the content material became much more focused much sooner. Interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary fields emerged along with more individualized programs of study. Advances in technology began to impact the breadth and variety of course materials.
Discussion Questions:
1. What basic objectives relative to training intellect and building character are reflected in our GenEd program?
2. How would we rate Mercer’s commitments to Vocational training vs. Liberal education?
3. Where does our GenEd program fit on the strict curriculum vs free curriculum scale?
4. How are the challenges imposed on use by the competitive forces of the Hope Grant in Georgia forcing us to evolve as an institution?
Recent Criticisms in Historical Perspective
Bok acknowledges criticism of the academy such as “lacking a clear vision of undergraduate education, failing to counteract the growing fragmentation of knowledge, sacrificing the liberal arts in favor of vocationalism, and neglecting undergraduates to focus on research.” He further seeks to address these and other common critiques with a bit of historical perspective. Most such critiques argue a decline in the standards, but Bok argues against the notion that there ever existed a golden age of education when these same criticisms were not present. Complaints with respect to instruction are universally present in every age. He particular argues that there has never been a period of consensus on what constitutes a liberal education. Even after World War II when several major universities attempted to build a model program of General education, no consensus of such a model emerged. Historically the only period of consensus was old classical model of the pre-Civil War period to which no one want to return. Indeed uniformity of purpose and curriculum is more of a European Model of higher education than American where variety is highly sought and seen as strength.
The amount of specialization in the academic education has increased due to the fragmenting of knowledge brought on by academic research. Though no one has yet to illustrate the drawback of such fragmentation or present a unification of knowledge to challenge the fragmentation.
With respect to vocational nature of education, Bok argues that the U.S. education has always had its vocational aspects and the desire for vocational education comes external from the academy. It is encouraged by the demand of American employers and the career centered motivation among students. Universities are serving these constituencies rather than imposing a vocational mindset.
Relating to the assertion that the professoriate neglects its students in favor of research ambitions, Bok offers evidence students’ appreciation of the amount and quality of interaction with faculty.
Lastly, Bok agues the major failing in higher education is the inability to illustrate improvements, particularly in the area of teaching. This he argues is mainly due to the nature of the education product which is distinctly different from, say, a consumer product.
Discussion Questions:
1. Does Mercer’s Professional programs interfere with the liberal arts nature of our Gen Ed?
2. Would you characterize our efforts to build and maintain a coherent GenEd as being “hopelessly engaged in the respiration of a lifeless ideal”? Pg 24
3. Is it a lost cause to seek to define the aims of a liberal education?
4. Do you envision the “unity of knowledge” as an “elusive ideal”? Pg 25
5. How do the magnitude of preprofesional students impact the liberal arts nature of our GenEd?
Monday, September 15, 2008
Welcome to our blog
This blog has been created to allow the Mercer University General Education committee to discuss Derek Bok's book, Our Underachieving Colleges. Members of the committee will summarize a two-chapter section of the book and provide discussion questions for the rest of the group to consider and debate.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
