Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8

Steffke 1 Emily E. Steffke Butler English 111.P12 11 February 2014 Diamonds or the Rough?

Professors have high expectations of their students they want to see them pass tests, ace quizzes, and write insightful papers. However, the joy of giving and grading assessments is not why most choose to pursue the profession; it is something deeper and more philosophical. Yes, most professors have an even higher expectation and that is of the effect their teaching can have on students. They want to chisel away the prosaic, rough-cut rock from an amateur students mind to reveal an immaculate diamond of intellectual sagacity, and they want this transformation to alter students lives. With all of the wonderful knowledge they are passing along, professors expect students to blossom and flourish throughout a successful academic experience, working career, and life. However, upon closer investigation of the inner workings of the college institution, it is discovered that the knowledge they are trying to pass along may not be making as much of an impression as they would hope. John Tagg, in his article Why Learn? What We May Really Be Teaching Students, and bell hooks, author of the essay Engaged Pedagogy, are two educators that have examined the issue. Tagg, associate professor of English at Palomar College, explores the consequences of memorization and the failure of college to promote conceptual understandings, while hooks, an acclaimed lecturer and professor at Yale University, examines the inadequate teaching methods of many professors and the uninspiring effects such methods can have on students. Though hooks and Tagg view different

Steffke 2 entities as the root of these concerns, they agree about many of the fundamental problems in the American system of college education. Rote memorization is a ubiquitous disease among college students. Instead of internalizing knowledge and analyzing algorithms in search of a deeper, conceptual meaning, many students treat the information they learn as detached bits of data useful only for reproducing in the occasion of a test. In his essay, Tagg illustrates this idea through his example of Jack and Jill. Jack was a college student that did well grade-wise but did not retain anything he learned, while Jill was a student that flunked but was inspired by a class to change her educational outlook. Tagg feels that Jill was the more successful student because her learning experience continued to shape her life, while Jack was unaffected by the class. Tagg cites a students chosen processing approach as the reason for his or her success or failure in truly learning class material. Those who take the surface-level approach focus on only the formulas, or words, or memorization when processing material they are presented with in class, while those who take the deep-level approach delve into the information in search of its underlying meaning. Using his Jack and Jill example again, Tagg says, Jill [] was taking a deep approach to learning; [] she engaged with the ideas, the underlying meaning. That was what motivated her. Jack, on the other hand, took a surface approach. We see in Jack what we do not like to see in our students: he studied for tests (Tagg 5). Jack, in other words, engaged in temporary memorization. He studied only for the purpose of being able to reproduce information so that he could get a good grade. Tagg feels that Jack embodies many, many more college students than does Jill. Most students study not to find meaning, but to memorize. Similarly, hooks feels that education should be about more than just memorizing information. In her essay, hooks reflects on her experiences with different pedagogical approaches some that inspired her, others that

Steffke 3 she despised. She rejected those methodologies that merely encouraged students to memorize and reproduce the information professors fed them. Instead she was most inspired by those teachers who had the courage to transgress those boundaries that would confine each pupil to a rote, assembly-line approach to learning (hooks 253). This approach was one that encouraged students to quickly and efficiently learn vast knowledge of subjects, without wasting time pondering the deeper meaning. hooks believes that learning should be about more than consumption and memorization; knowledge cannot occur without real understanding of its significance. hooks asserts how often a memorization-heavy approach is used in traditional college settings; she calls instead for a method that promotes evaluative insight and attentiveness. Both she and Tagg agree that memorization is, unfortunately, very prominent in education and that it greatly hinders students from seeing the underlying, conceptual meaning within learned material. Surface-level processing is mainstream; rarely is analytical engagement practiced. Memorization is the prominent form of learning at the college level. Education should be about something much more worthwhile it should be personally applicable. Students should make connections between the class material and their own experiences, and then use them to enhance their personal lives. Tagg addresses this concept through the exploration of learning perceptions. Furthering his discussion of surface-level and deep-level processing, Tagg cites a study done by Ference Marton of the University of Gteborg. Marton asked students about their perceptions regarding the purpose of learning. He found that responses fell into two broad categories: learning as reproducing and learning as personal growth and seeking meaning. Those concerned with the former tended to take the surface approach, while those that believed the latter usually took the deep approach, which Tagg feels results in much more effective learning. Students motivation to engage in deep-level processing depended

Steffke 4 on their perception of learning. One such driven student said of learning, Its something personal and its something continuous. Once it starts it carries on to other things.You should be doing it [] for the person before and for the person afterwards (qtd. in Tagg 6). In other words, this student endeavors to personally apply knowledge and integrate it into his life. He finds his studies pertinent and is therefore motivated to learn. Tagg believes this is a crucial component of the effective education of college students, not only for the sake of encouraging students to take a deep-level approach, but for the sake of the students development as well. Likewise, hooks also believes that personal application of knowledge is crucial to a proper education. In fact, hooks sees the utilization of education within ones own life as a fundamental reason to learn. She promotes a holistic education in which professors acknowledge students complex individual backgrounds a pedagogical method centered on relating learned ideas to life practice in order to enhance students overall well-being. hooks believes that most students are striving not just for knowledge in books, but for knowledge about how to live in the world (254). Students want to be able to apply what they learn to their lives, and hooks believes a holistic education style guides them in doing so. She feels that the best pedagogical approach is one with personal utility of learning as its core. Though Tagg sees personal application as more of a motivator that encourages thorough learning while hooks views it as a reason it learn in itself, they agree that the integration of college knowledge and life practice is fundamental to a comprehensive education. Students should relate class-learned material to their lives not only will it make the material easier to conceptually understand, it will enrich their lives. The ultimate goal of education should be to ignite the flames of self-actualization within students. Self-actualization occurs when one fulfills ones own potential through personal growth. However, college is a far from ideal setting for this development to take place. hooks

Steffke 5 discovered this downfall during her experiences as a college student. She believes that selfactualization is the ultimate goal in life, and that college should help students find their way to it. However, in her experience, college was more of a hindrance in her quest. She says of her educational presentiment, I was certain that the task [] was to be holistically questing for selfactualization. It was the actual experience of college that disrupted this image (hooks 255). Instead of finding herself enlightened by self-actualized professors, she found herself in a world of book-smart people no closer to self-actualization than she. She was rarely given personal guidance and was regularly discouraged from relating her sense of self to the material she studied in class. Surely, hooks did not find this the ideal environment in her pursuit to be selfactualized. Likewise, Tagg feels that though a central component of college education should be self-actualization, the college setting does not encourage it. He sees self-actualization (or as he calls it, self-authorship) as a developmental metamorphosis, done through the expansion of frameworks for comprehension. He says, to move toward self-authorship is to embrace substantive and transformative learning goals at a deep level (Tagg 8). However, Tagg asserts that most college students do not move very far toward self-authorship while in college (8). This, he feels, is because deep-level, transformative learning is not taking place. Instead, students gloss over the deeper meaning and skip the internalizations. Since colleges do not punish students for rituals such as these, students continue to practice them. Therefore, nondevelopmental learning occurs and no progress is made in the renovation necessary for selfauthorship. Though hooks looks at the issue from a more personal standpoint, seeing many individual professors failure to guide her, while Tagg points to the grand-scale failure of college institutions, both ultimately argue that colleges are not doing a good job promoting self-

Steffke 6 actualization. Students are neither encouraged to strive for their full potential nor motivated to begin the development of their mental frameworks so necessary for such a process to initiate. There are obviously many flaws within the college system of education. Learning is not properly taking place within most students. Who or what is responsible for these educational failures? hooks explores this question by reflecting on her own college experiences. Upon entering college, she hoped to find self-actualized professors that would help guide her in her struggle to holistically reach her full potential. Instead, she says that, Most of my professors were not the slightest but interested in enlightenment. More than anything they seemed enthralled by the exercise of power and authority within their mini-kingdom, the classroom (hooks 255-256). These dictators engaged in pedagogical practices that hooks did not find liberating. She was discouraged from engaging in discussion that related her own personal experiences to the knowledge being presented in class. Also, her professors were no more selfactualized than she. hooks found this very disappointing and limiting. Thus, she believes incompetent professors not interested in educating for the personal development of students are responsible for the faulty college system of education. Tagg, on the other hand, places the blame on a different entity. He believes that colleges fail to promote students to engage in the deep approach to learning because this deep learning is not rewarded. The only thing college institutions preserve about their students success is their grades; thus, students strive to get good grades. These usually can be earned through mere memorization and surface-level processing, making the deep-level approach seem superfluous. Tagg says, when students become gradeoriented, they are merely responding to the incentives in their environment [] they merely emulate their colleges; they value that on which their institutions place the highest value (9).He feels that college institutions are actually promoting the ill-desired practices of their students and

Steffke 7 are therefore responsible for said practices. Unlike hooks, who looks to individual professors as responsible for colleges inadequacy, Tagg views it more as a systematic failure of the college institution as a whole. While hooks thinks that poor teaching styles are restricting education, Tagg sees the grading style as a fundamental problem. Though both agree that college fails to stress a proper approach to learning, Tagg pins this on misguided values of the college institutions while hooks looks to inadequate teachers as the source. There are definitely major flaws within the educational system, and any repairs made in an attempt to fix them would most likely involve reforming the practices of both individual professors and college institutions alike. No matter who is the root of the problem, college is not teaching students the way many professors idealize that it should. Students memorize information instead of searching for deeper meaning. They dont take what they learn and apply it to their lives, and they surely dont leave colleges as self-actualized individuals. They dont walk away as the sagacious, immaculate diamonds professors hoped they could shape. Diamonds are the hardest of all rocks, and the weak, inadequate learning done in college is not enough to leave more than a few feeble impressions. Thus, students exit college virtually unchanged diamonds, still buried deep in a whole lot of rough.

Steffke 8 Works Cited hooks, bell. Engaged Pedagogy. Exploring Relationships: Globalization and Learning in the 21st Century. Eds. MMCC English Department. New York: Pearson, 2013. 253-258. Print. Tagg, John. Why Learn?: What We May Really be Teaching Students. About Campus 9.1 (2004): 2-10. Print.

Вам также может понравиться