[Teaching_Composition] it's not about grades

[Laura D Card]

This is a great topic and one I’ve had in the back of my mind for a long time. I apologize up front for rambling rather lengthily.

I agree with Doug that coercion can occur either by liberals or by conservatives or, I might add, even those in the middle and I would like to expand a little on Althusser’s statement that teaching is ideologically coercive. I say so because some level of coercion takes place in courses regardless of the intention of the teachers simply by imposing/introducing ideas during class discussion, requiring readings, or handing out a syllabus that organizes the course. The teacher functions in a somewhat Foucauldian sense as a type of panopticon whose mere presence acts as a regulator. 

That said, the question could be asked about the levels of benevolence/benefits or malevolence/harm of the intentions of the teacher, students, and consequences of each in the context of the course. There is such a thing as benevolent or malevolent coercion, meaning that the intention of requiring students to act in a certain way is considered for their benefit, has the result of being beneficial, or results in harm either intentionally or unintentionally.

Courses—the existence of courses, the teaching of courses, and the taking of courses—are based on assumptions. For the most part, the intentions of those offering the courses and teaching the courses are benevolent. Of necessity most of us as teachers, and with the best of intentions, impose lessons, readings, lectures, etc., on our students because of assumptions that we know what our students should learn and that our methods of teaching are beneficial, if not RIGHT. Students often take our course assuming there is something we can teach them, or at least that they can acquire a few more credit hours toward graduation and check off a requirement.

These assumptions place a responsibility/burden on teachers to aid students to learn whatever it is that we are charged to aid our students to learn in the most beneficial way possible. We must be careful about our assumptions, however,  because sometimes our assumptions become the sources of coercion. For instance (this is an example as has been suggested we include), one of my own teachers began one class session with, “Since we are all liberals here . . .” I was shocked by my teacher’s assumption. I’m not much of a liberal and so was confused as to how I should take the statements that followed such an introduction. I felt coerced into silence and did not participate much after that.

Another time I realized one of my teachers knew of my religion, in spite of the fact that I had never mentioned it, because she looked directly at me during a class discussion and said (totally off the subject of the discussion going on), “Anyone who believes _________ is an idiot.” I don’t even remember what the rest of the class was about.

Sometimes coercion comes from other students in the class because of the abdication of the responsibility of the teacher to conduct the class. For instance, my daughter recently came to me in great frustration because her teacher at a local state-run institution of higher education had done nothing when a student had voiced his views on a topic only to have another student ridicule him by snorting and saying, “Oh, so now we’re supposed to take stupid pills.” The teacher remained silent and the first student was silenced. The other students in the class were uncomfortable, but didn’t know how to continue the discussion with such antagonism in the air and were also silenced.

The act of coercion, the state of being liberal, conservative, or whatever, is made up of what Hayakawa calls “operational practices.” In other words, the terms have no meaning until put into practice. In the cases of the three teachers mentioned, their assumptions about the liberalness of their students, the religious beliefs of a student, or how to handle problematic situations informed their teaching practices—practices that resulted in coercion and, on one level, defined coercion at a specific time and place.

Since we are composition teachers, I think we have a solution to the problem of coercion inherent in our discipline. The principles of argumentation can level the playing field somewhat by allowing rational exploration of a topic, such as the ABR or anything else, because those in the conversational community are trained or being trained to make claims that are supported by logical evidence that exclude the affective logical fallacies that engender heated and unreasonable statements or practices that coerce others. As composition teachers we can model solid principles and moderate discussions—assuming, of course, that we do it RIGHT (capitalized because of the problematic nature of the word). By following sound principles of argumentation and requiring that our students do so in class discussions, we can impose benevolent operational practices and foster a more open community in our classrooms. (Unless, of course, some of our students feel silenced because they can’t think of good reasons to back up what they want to say.)

Anyway, the idea of self-policing seems to me to be a good one. I think students not only want to be challenged, but challenged fairly. I don’t agree with confrontational attacks or belittling because they might make students think—such operational practices come from malevolent assumptions. I also feel that teachers who use such tactics (perhaps because they feel their own inadequacies and are threatened themselves) need to mature a little or maybe educate themselves a little until they can come to a point where they can conduct class discussions in a manner that creates a classroom where students are not afraid of coercion.

To stray from the topic of coercion for a moment, I also feel that what many people call the conservative underpinnings of our college curriculum are merely there because they are practical and useful—such as writing letters of application and resumes or using a prescribed documentation style that allows students to be part of the academic or business in-crowd. On the other hand, we could also make the claim that our college curriculum is inherently Marxist because by teaching composition (as well as music appreciation, art history, and just about every other course offering) we enable the masses to tear down cultural and economic barriers by arming them with the cultural capital and abilities necessary to become as cultured and skilled as those in the upper echelons of business and social societies. 

Sorry for the long post, but thanks for letting me think “out loud.”  

Laura Card, PhD
English Department
Brigham Young University


-----Original Message-----
From: "Thelin,William" <wthelin@uakron.edu>
To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 10:15:50 -0400
Subject: RE: [Teaching_Composition] it's not about grades

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.

_______________________________________________
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.