Learning about collaboration and reading the Wall Street Journal article sent through the English list serve, “Putting a Price on Professors,” in the same week has got me thinking about the value of collaborative learning. The monetary value. If as teachers we are asked to justify our pedagogy by converting learning objectives into monetary value, where does that leave collaboration? Much of the composition theory we have read encourages us to think about the value of teaching methods that can’t easily be quantified in the traditional grading system- how much harder will it be to quantify these concepts in dollars?
Winsor’s article showed that writing that doesn’t usually count should, including the collaborative use of note taking for the engineering students. The way their voices and ideas blended together in note taking was perfectly suited to their goal, a goal that was meant to simulate a professional engineering task- one they would likely encounter in their careers. This method worked because they weren’t worried about who ideas belonged to- the group owned the ideas. Would teaching common goals that promote collaboration over individual ownership of knowledge be a more realistic practice?
But in a higher educational system that is concerned with spreadsheets and monetary evaluations, the personal student benefit through group discourse may lose value. When teachers have to look at themselves in terms of break-even analyses, what advantage does collaboration have? I guess my larger question is can creative composition teaching survive in disparity to capitalist institutional values? Clearly intellectual property is important, especially for members of the academic field. I am not suggesting a collaborative free-for-all of evolving knowledge is the answer. But how do we as teachers, in an academic and national culture that measures success in the quantification of individual property and achievement, convince students authentically that anyone should share their ideas for free? Cynical, I know- but we get at least one cynical post a semester, right?
There is already a disparity among college departments. Departments that can bring big grants, such as the sciences, or ones that can bring support from the community, such as business, already have more resources than English and other humanities. The business professor gets paid more than the English professor. The reason is that the university believes the business professor means more to its own bottom line. It really is sick. About writing instruction, I would agree that more forms of writing need to be discussed in class. I'm not sure why the rhetorical analysis is so valuable. Why is it the composition teacher's responsibility to teach critical thinking? The student should also be learn about composing e-mails, memos, and as you said, taking notes.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Andrew's notes about the disparity. They're there, they're real, and they do significant damage. The value of the humanities varies widely, however, from school to school, and is therefore supported widely financially or in other ways--and there are MANY ways--either directly or indirectly. So, we have goals and objectives in the syllabus, that are largely informed by core curriculum values. The university, too, has goals and objectives. What are the students' goals and objectives? Do they go beyond grades and high paying jobs? Should they? How can we teach them that THROUGH our curriculum? Should we?
ReplyDeleteIt's okay to be cynical sometimes.
I'll say this though, too: the value of what we teach is, frankly, invaluable. That is, people communicate in reading, writing, and thinking. Everything is communication. Everything is impacted by what we're teaching, either directly or indirectly, either now or in 50 years. These are intangibles, certainly. But they're felt. There is a sense that what we're teaching is always there.
I feel that if the system of academia could collectively chill out, a lot of good things can come through collaborative methods. It would be like the Google approach to academia creating a mass expanse of knowledge that would be less about ownership and more about the argument. But, let's be real. The system is set, and people don't share for free. When they are getting paid (whatever job) they will have to collaborate with others so its not an idea built around theft of knowledge but practicing something they will have to do in the future...
ReplyDeleteI don't know. You bring up some good points here.