Steve: Thanks for taking the time to comment on my e-mail. I have some
responses to your response! See below. Harriett.
In a message dated 3/29/99 6:49:54 PM Pacific Standard Time,
dreskow@durand.com writes:
>Harriett Robles and others here seem to begin with a mental model of
>a college or university as a "bureaucracy" locked into medieval
>routines that have changed little in hundreds of years, with power
>structures unwilling and unable to learn, to change, to move.
>
>It might be useful to examine that mental model a bit to see if it is
> accurate and useful, and whether that model is itself part of the
>problem of helping colleges to learn what needs to be learned.
The literature (Abbott, Deal & Kennedy) and my experience within my
environment (public higher ed) is that faculty (and I'm focusing on them
because they are arguably the most crtical employee group within a
college) do not think of themselves as employees and do not generally
think of their colleges as "systems." They consider themselves
professionals and yet some of the tension (not necessarily the creative
kind) that I see within public colleges can be ascribed to a LACK of
recognition of this circumstance. In short, while it may be problematic
if faculty perceive their institutions as bureaucracies, it may also be
problematic if they don't because in the case of the latter, how do you
change what is if you don't acknowledge what is? By the way, I'm not sure
that a bureaucracy, in and of itself, is a good or a bad thing.
Bureaucracies serve a purpose and we rely on them for their
predictability. As for me, personally, it is painful to see just how
hypocritical I can be about thi issue because I depend absolutely on the
bureaucracy that has my children in school Monday-Friday from 8 until 3.
>One point of beginning might be to note how many new programs of
>study have been introduced into college curricula in recent years.
>The community colleges, for example, have been quick to respond to
>all of the new technologies and careers and incorporating them into
>curricula. If this is true, is this not evidence of willingness to
>change?
You are right. There have been many new programs of study that have been
introduced into the curricula, BUT I could argue that they have been
artificially manipulated to fit within a very traditional and I think
largely outmoded delivery system. Knowledge in higher ed gets squeezed
into 54 hours over 18 weeks, for example. The Carnegie unit (3 hours of
work -- one in class; two out of it -- for each unit of credit) reigns
supreme. So, while I would agree about new content, I think higher ed has
been -- and continues to be -- slow to remove the constraints that mean we
both compensate faculty, fund schools, and reward students on the basis of
seat time -- or as we crudely refer to it: "butts in seats." Hardly a
real measure of learning, is it?
>We might also look at the results of some of the changes that have
>been advocated and accepted , and to think about whether those
>changes, those "learnings," have improved the institution and its
>educational programs.
I don't mean to sound completely negative. A great deal has changed and has
improved, but largely because external forces, technology for one, has forced
that change (Stark & Lattuca)
>Take the matter of institutions becoming "customer oriented," which
>has often led to "student evaluation" of faculty.Has this been a
>valuable change?
In our case, we have conducted student evaluations for 35 years -- long
before the term "customer" appeared in higher ed in reference to the
learning process, so it is the other way around from what you describe.
Faculty resoundingly rejected this concept when it first was applied to
education. Now, I think they recognize that there are some functions they
perform which do fall into the "customer" category, e.g., returning
students' calls, providing prompt letters of recommendation, etc., but
they argue and I agree that the learning process is far more complex and
personal than a business transaction, especially since the student bears
no small amount of responsibility for it, as well.
>In my view the evidence is that this "learning," and its
>incorporation into the college culture, has led to serious
>degradation of the faculty's ability to insist on student learning.
>The so-called "grade inflation" was inevitable,built into these
>proposals: if any student I fail or give a low mark to will be able
>to retaliate with a bad evaluation, I think twice about giving out "
>D's" and "F's."
I would not argue with you that such a thing happens, but I do believe it
happens rarely. Written evaluations are not shared with instructors until
after final grades are reported. The other factor, which may be unique to
our system, is that students have until the 14th week (out of 18) to drop
a class. We hardly ever give out F grades and few Ds because students
bail if they are not passing. An F usually means that the student failed
to officially drop the class, regardless of whether it was a skills issue
or a personal matter. As a matter of fact, we have a hard time drawing
conclusions on the basis of grade distribution because Ws (withdrawals)
and Fs often have nothing to do with skills.
>Perhaps the core problem is this:
>
>Most of those advocating change have a predetermined agenda for
>change. They "know" that colleges should be student centered, not
>subject centered;
I just read a very good article by Parker Palmer in About Campus (I can
get the issue # if you want) that argues that being subject centered may
be the answer to the teaching vs. learning debate. It was thought
provoking.
>that students have different "learning styles" and "cognitive styles,
>" and these differences in style should be respected and built into
>teaching practices; they "know" that young students raised on tv are
>visually oriented and therefore need teaching styles that use more
>images and less text; they "know" that the lecture is obsolete and
>has little educational value. . .and on and on, a kind of standard
>litany of change.
In terms of the lecture, I think it has a place and should not be rejected
out of hand. Good lecturing is not necessarily a passive process for
students. A good article on this is by McKeachie, "Improving Lectures by
Understanding Students' Information Processing," New Directions for
Teaching and Learning 2, 1980.
>When these changes are resisted, the mental model held by the
>advocates of change explains that resistance as bureacratic
>resistance to change by the entrenched powers.
As I mentioned above, bureaucracies do serve a purpose. I would certainly
prefer that public education were less bureaucratic, but without some
aspects of a bureaucracy, I'm not sure how we would handle the operations
side of what we do.
>The change agents might consider the effects of the "innovations" to
>date, and might consider that some of the resistance to their new
>improvements might be justified.
I agree. Change for the sake of change is not a good use of resources.
There are situations in which change should not be undertaken. I think
Deal and Kennedy talk about this.
> It is possible to believe that the evidence reveals that many of the
> proposed cures are worse than the disease.
Steve: I really appreciate the time you took to express your views on
this subject. I love hearing other viewpoints, especially if they come
from "outside" if in fact, you are not connected with higher ed in some
formal way. Even if you are, you have given me much to think about and I
hope we have occasion to talk again. Harriett.
> Steve Eskow
>>I don't think there's a stiffer test of learning organization principles
>>than higher education institutions, as ironic as that seems.
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>