[Teaching_Composition] it's not about grades

[Thelin,William]

Doug might have given us an interesting place to start our discussion.
What stories can we tell of uncomfortable classroom situations when we
were students?  How can these stories inform our understanding of the
ABR and the appeal it has to some students and legislators?

I think Doug is right that we must listen to our students and take their
concerns seriously.  Yet, Doug mentions being able to discern
ideologically-based chilling through its effects.  As he says, racism
can be seen through lack of representation.  What are some of the
effects of coercion in the classroom?  Hearing our stories might help us
comprehend the subtleties at the root of student complaints.

Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com
[mailto:teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com] On Behalf Of Doug
Downs
Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2006 4:48 PM
To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com
Subject: [Teaching_Composition] it's not about grades

Bill's analysis of the intent and implications of the ABR rocks -- I'm
in complete agreement.  The ABR presumes (without asserting) that the
dominant ideologies in the humanities are leftist/progressive.  I make
the following arguments believing that ideological coercion in
classrooms is every bit as likely to come from the corporate-right as
from the activist-left.  Please take my arguments in that light.

As a point of good pedagogy, I worry when we resist the ABR by
discounting student reports of ideological chilling and coercion by
arguing that the grades don't reflect such coercion so it must not be
there.  

We don't do this with racism, which is most often not overt and easily
measurable, but latent, "in the air," so well concealed that we can only
see it by looking at its *effect*, that is, underrepresentation or other
asymmetries.  Ditto sexism and the "glass ceiling," that is, the
"invisible" ideological, cultural barrier that can only be observed
through its effect.

Progressive educators should bring the same analysis to claims of
ideological corecion/chilling/silencing in classrooms: a lack of direct
evidence does not mean it's not "in the air."  

Students know the difference between ideological stretching or challenge
and ideological coercion or silencing.  They themselves report that the
best professors challenge students' thinking (Ken Bains's research shows
this).  Students know it's not just the right but the responsibility of
college teachers to challenge status-quo thinking.  Most students aren't
going to confuse this with ideological chilling/coercion that silences
them and makes the classroom uncomfortable for the wrong reasons instead
of the right ones.  

So when students do report such silencing or chilling, we shouldn't
automatically discount it by saying "they're just complaining about
having to change their thinking."  Maybe.  But maybe not.  

Demanding that students produce evidence of skewed grading, or some
other verifiable data, before we will take seriously their sense of
ideological coercion seems to put defense ahead of pedagogy.  When
students tell us something isn't working right, a good teacher's
response should be to listen, evaluate, use the feedback to improve the
pedagogy, and/or use the feedback to help students understand why the
pedagogy *is* working despite (or because of) the discomfort it creates.
 

It's possible, of course, that as Althusser essentially claims, teaching
is by definition ideologically coercive.  Perhaps we should discuss
that?
Cheers --
Doug

Dr. Doug Downs
Asst. Professor, Composition & Rhetoric
Dept. of English and Literature
Utah Valley State College
800 W University Pkwy, Orem UT 84058
LA 114w
801-863-8572

_______________________________________________
Teaching_Composition maillist  -  Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com
http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition

To unsubscribe, please visit
http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update
your information.