insidehighered.com June 10, 2011
A regular theme in conservative critiques of higher education is that liberal professors discriminate against right-leaning students. Many faculty members (with studies to back them up) reject the charge. Even if faculty members may lean left, they argue, there is simply no evidence of systematic bias in how students are graded and treated.A new study in the journal College Teaching suggests that it's possible that some students do perceive bias, but that the reasons may have to do more with their own identities than with anything taking place in the classroom. Notably, the author does not cite his findings simply to rebut the conservative critics, but to suggest that there may be classroom techniques that would lessen the perception of bias.
...
Darren L. Linvill, the study's author and director of basic courses in the department of communication studies at Clemson University, said that while his research (including interviews with the students claiming bias) found no evidence of real bias, the findings about perception should be of concern to faculty members.
Many faculty members -- himself included, Linvill noted -- play devil's advocate to many students, expressing a range of views. This time-tested classroom technique, he said, may not work with students who arrive in class determined not to hear new ideas. Linvill said that there may be elite colleges and universities where students arrive as freshmen used to having their views challenged by teachers, and that might still be "an ideal." But he said that the reality he sees from his research is that this is a foreign concept to many entering college students today.
FULL ARTICLE.
.
Here's the kicker: "This time-tested classroom technique, he said, may not work with students who arrive in class determined not to hear new ideas."
ReplyDeleteAnd we should attempt to change the way we teach--using "time-tested" techniques--because students are determined not to hear new ideas?
I'm sorry if that's repetitive. I'm simply trying to wrap my rather small brain around it.
If students have never been exposed to this idea of devil's advocate before--have never been exposed to the ideas of argument and debate--isn't once they arrive in college about time that they were?
This is the problem with our culture, at least in the U.S. No one is willing to listen to another side of anything. We live in a I'm-right-you're-wrong society, happily wrapped up in our FOX News or MSNBC, never deviating from what we know for absolutely sure is correct. Students, raised by their parents to view life this way, naturally are going to resist hearing ideas that differ from their own; however, exposing them to ideas that differ from their own is part of the college experience.
The critical thinking skills of all of my students needs to be improved, but what I find is that those skills do improve--and in just a few short weeks--when students approach education with an open mind.
We also live in a time of false equivalence.
ReplyDeleteYes, both have partisan viewpoints. But comparing FOX to MSNBC is like comparing a psychotic evangelical with passionate college professor.
C'mon Greta, how many MSNBC "commentators" are current or former candidates for office?
A&S, it could, repeat could, be of benefit to viewers to get insight from former politicians themselves, rather than journalists who cover politicians.
ReplyDeleteA more reasonable question about the two networks is how many MSNBC commentators refer to their female political opponents as whores?
Greta, if this story pans out, then it is useful to know that students are not expecting it. Professors will have to explain the concept of a Devil's Advocate before playing that role. It sounds preposterous that students come to college with that knowledge, but we said the same thing about algebra.
Sadly those who want us fighting with each other have exploited Primate fear for maximal "gain," while those who seek to bring us together are essentially shut out because reconciliation and Agape love are boring.
ReplyDeleteHuh?
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, I suspect I actually end up giving my neocon students slightly higher grades than they deserve out of fear that my own distaste for their opinions will cause me to grade them harder.
Frog, that's exactly how Rumsfeld planned it. He's one devious bastard.
ReplyDelete...And I think Bush et. al. were actually Iranian sabotage agents or deep-cover Leftist infiltrators, the last blow of the WUO....I believe this because no government could be that stupid.
ReplyDeleteThe third comment down, Developmental Context Applicable, provides links to some interesting discussion about the different developmental stages students are at in terms of their critical thinking. (Hint: not very far.) According to the authors, Woolcott and Grey, 50% of US first-year students are at Stage Zero (Confused Fact-Finder) and most senior US university students are at Stage One (Biased Jumper). Ouch. But the descriptions of these types of students certainly rang true: "One question required students to describe the pros and cons of U.S. involvement in the Gulf war. Instead of describing pros and cons, several students simply described the war." This is Stage Zero. Stage One doesn't get much better: "One question required students to describe the pros and cons of U.S. involvement in the Gulf war. Instead of describing pros and cons, several students provided only the pros OR the cons of U.S. involvement in the Gulf war, but not both." I do recommend the links in that comment; they're interesting reading. Here they are again in case that comment gets lost:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wolcottlynch.com/Downloadable_Files/IUPUI%20Handout_031029.pdf
http://www.wolcottlynch.com/Downloadable_Files/IUPUI_Handout_051019.pdf
Oh please BB, "former" politicians?
ReplyDeleteFOX has CURRENT candidates.
Remember that quaint concept of the public airwaves requiring equal time?
Its dismantling is what allowed FOX to be created. It's founder and the Republican party have both admitted, at various times and in various ways, their symbiotic relationship. (Some would go so far as to assert FOX leads the agenda.)
As for MSNBC and the "whore" comment:
1) While crass, was the description actually factually incorrect? (Have you actually heard what Laura Ingraham says?)
2) Ed Schultz apologized and was suspended. When have you EVER heard of a conservative commentator apologizing or being suspended for offensive behavior?
Are you now going to tell us that (FOX commentator) Sarah Palin's Paul Revere comments were actually true?
(Or attempt to edit Revere's Wikipedia entry to match her version?)
A&S, I don't follow FOX or MSNBC close enough to know their lineups, other than the evening shows are populated by uninteresting hacks. Last time I checked, Sarah Palin wasn't running for anything except Person Makes Liberals' Heads Explode.
ReplyDeleteI still think former politicians can provide insights that others cannot. Current politicians comprimise the integrety of the network. I initially read your comment too fast so I missed that you were talking about both types.
I don't think it matters what Laura Ingram said. You don't call a woman a whore just because you disagree with her. If Ed Schultz wanted to make the claim that she is a whore in a metaphorical sense, that she only says what she says for money and doesn't actually agree with her on-air persona, then he needs to be damn clear about it and provide some evidence.
Geez BB, from false equivalence to a straw person ...?
ReplyDeleteFirst, to lump FOX and MSNBC in one basket when you admit you watch neither, but feel qualified to dismiss them ALL as "uninteresting hacks", seems to be the very sort of intuitive leap of logic which predicated this thread.
Sarah Palin is not a "person makes liberals' head explode".
With the exception of her acolytes, pretty much everyone with a functioning cerebrum feels pain when she speaks.
As for word choice, Americans seem to have a rather fair weather relationship with that 1st Amendment. George Carlin went to the Supreme Court with a list of seven words. Recently, Gilbert Gottfried lost a job over bad jokes he made about the Japanese tsunami. Now, its Tracy Morgan taking heat for ill-chosen words.
So do we have freedom of expression? Or only freedom to express views which jibe with proscribed notions?
A&S, I'm not sure where the disagreement is. I've watched some Maddow, Schultz, O'Reily, Oberman, Hardball and Hannity, but not much. I find them uninteresting because they mostly spout the party line. Hacks.
ReplyDeleteSure, Sarah Palin makes lots of people roll their eyes but only liberals, at least of the people I know, really care about what she says. She really drives some liberals nuts. Witness the frenzy over her Alaska governor emails.
No, you do not have the freedom to say anything you want and suffer no consequences. People will dislike you and may shame you when you say things they disagree with. An employer can fire you if you are their spokesperson and you insult the views of current or potential customers. Isn't that your experience?
The disagreement, BB, is in having watched the same people I find their presentations -- and more importantly, I would hope to an academic -- their INTEGRITY significantly different.
ReplyDeleteRefer back to your memory of how many of the aforementioned on the conservative side have ever corrected themselves/apologized for overstepping. (And to the predicate of this thread -- students coming to class immobile in their BELIEFS regardless of the contradictory evidence.)
Which brings us to Sarah P.
Jon Stewart did a wonderful perspective on the lunacy of the EMail coverage. But it wasn't wrapped up, as you've attempted, in crazed liberals -- but the media frenzy, what the FCC recently called the "hamster wheel" of self-perpetuated media movement. (And let's not forget that the FOIL requests for her EMails was filed DURING her VP campaign and it took this long for Alaska to release them.)
The people I hear complaining about Palin are BOTH card-carrying liberals AND conservatives. Seriously, you find nothing disturbing about her acolytes? Taking to revise Wikipedia to match her misinterpretation of history?
And please do not wrap the 1st Amendment and corporate control in the same package. Can MSNBC discipline Ed Schultz (or Aflac fire Gottfried)? Yeah, no kidding.
But YOU said no one should use a certain word unless it met particular requirements. Last I checked, YOU weren't Mr. Schultz' employer.
Or are you willing to fall on your sword when you say something discomforting to your employer?
A&S, yes, Palin is an idiot. That doesn't make her special to me. Is it sad that idiotic political celebrities are so common that I'm not bothered by them anymore? Yes but that's a different issue.
ReplyDeleteAs for the integrity of liberal vs. conservative pundits, I don't watch them enough to know what they do when the get caught. I have watched enough to know that they will go down fighting for their side even when it's pretty clear they are wrong.
I think your outrage about my Ed Schultz comments is misplaced. I was simply stating the conitions that I would hope people adopt. That's all. When I said, "You don't call a woman a whore ..." I meant, "I hope nobody would call a woman a whore..." Obviously, people do it but I think it's bad when they do.
I would not expect my employer to keep paying me if I said things that were so bad that I was not worth paying.