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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I will first address the questions, and then give some additional thoughts on the chapter.
1) Faculty forum: This might be a good idea, but to justify it we need to put a proposal on the table. For example, how about requiring all students to write a senior thesis in their major discipline? This would improve their writing skills in a discipline-specific way, and help them think about their chosen filed in more depth before they leave school. It would also involve all CLA faculty, not just a few. Or, how about changing the goals and structure of FYS 101 and 102, so that more emphasis is placed on teaching students to write? FYS would not become a composition program, but it would play a greater role in solving this “problem.”
2) Teach writing beyond FYS: This is difficult because most of the faculty does not know how to teach writing. It is not easy. How many among us are qualified? In physics, there is not much writing in the major program. When I teach PHY 305&306 Modern Physics I&II, I have students write several essays (500 words) based on supplemental (not textbook) reading material, and they count for 15% of the grade. But I do not really attempt to teach them how to write: no one should expect me to do so without further training. I grade their work based on adequate length, spelling & grammar mistakes, and content development. We don’t do drafts and rewrites. It’s all geared to make them think at length about the conceptual content of the course. I expect most disciplines use writing in a similar way.
3) Student perspectives: We don’t choose our students. We can’t worry about the fact that many of them don’t appreciate the liberal arts. And I don’t think we can afford to spend (much) time specifically trying to convince students of why they should learn how to be better writers. They’ll see the light. Our job is to set the curriculum and do our best to help students get the most out of it.
4) Investment and rewards: We all work hard with our students, including one-on-one meetings, in every discipline. I don’t like the idea, that if a course has some special component, the instructor should be paid more or receive more teaching credit. If a course is achieving so much for the students, let it be worth more credits to the students; then the instructor is rewarded fairly for their work. The English department has no grad students to help shoulder the load; neither does anyone else. So we all work hard with our intro courses.
5) Assessment: This I leave to the professionals. The faculties of schools of education across the country have not done much to improve physics education. Instead, physicists themselves have done work on “physics education research” that may be starting to pay off. Who are the professionals? In this context I think that means primarily instructors in the English department.
6) Oral communication: Again I leave it to the experts…
This last item opens additional possibilities. We have different forms of literacy, and some are emphasized more than others. Verbal literacy includes both written and oral components. Mathematical or numerical literacy certainly deserves attention. How about artistic or visual literacy or competency? That is what our colleagues in the art department brought up in the context of our WQSCG survey. Perhaps the survey made them feel their presence in general education is under attack. But do they have a point? As humans we have always communicated through sounds and images; nowadays computers and the web play a powerful role. And how about computer literacy and competency?
Our present situation in CLA is that we need to spread our resources wide and thin just to cover the basics. In the near future (or far?), how much more $ is the administration willing to invest in CLA? Assuming we have adequate resources, a program to improve writing might look like this:
The Expanded Core is the primary vehicle for formal instruction in writing. Every student takes at least one Core course in each academic year. (Or how about one each semester?) Each Core course is worth four credits to reflect the intensive writing required of all students. And the Core faculty, although they are not all in English or the humanities, have all received at least some training that makes them into passable writing coaches. The Mercer Initiative for Adequate Writing (MIAW), supported by the provost’s budget and run by professional staff, provides instructor training, as well as tutorial help for individual students, staff, faculty and administrators. Additional practice for students in writing is provided in various courses across the curriculum. And the crowning “literary” achievement for most students is a (required) finely crafted Senior Thesis in their major program, whose form varies depending on discipline.
Overall, I think that most of Bok’s complaints about the faculty are either overstated, or they are not generally applicable to Mercer CLA. We have no grad students and we do take teaching seriously, even (especially?) at the intro level...
1. The need for a faculty wide forum in CLA should be determined by the faculty as a whole based upon the reactions of a particular proposal. Proposals for change, even radical change is better written by a small, devoted group and then changed or denied by the faculty as a whole.
2. Students should be exposed to a critical writing course each academic year with particular emphasis to disciplinary writing within the major.
3. Our standards with respect to educating students should not be driven by the marketing to attract students. One reason students need a liberal education is that they do not know which capacities they will need to develop for the future. We must not and should not have a cafeteria plan with respect to capacities, for students to pick and choose.
4. Mercer offers no such reward, though, if it did, there would be great arguments from faculty in other areas of the difficulty in teaching other capacities.
6. Oral communication is relegated to a lower position and to my knowledge is subject to individual faculty pedagogical decisions.
Post a Comment