[Teaching_Composition] Re: Teaching_Composition digest, Vol 1 #1110 - 2 msgs

Sat, 30 Sep 2006 13:41:21 -0400

------=_Part_29591_21393851.1159638081676
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Doug, thanks for explaining your perspective in detail. I can see where
you're coming from. Some of it makes sense, and some doesn't. The part on
indoctrination seemed to be tackling something other than the ABR. It was
talking about indoctrination of political, ideological, or religious
natures, while you were referring to the nature of knowledge and writing.
For me, these are apples and oranges. The former is pedagogical misconduct
while the latter, I hope, refers to an appropriate introduction into
disciplinary knowledge.

I also have to disagree that education is indoctrination. Perhaps with many,
it is, but it shouldn't be. As a composition instructor, my goal is to help
my students learn to think for themselves and to learn how to improve their
writing--not to move them toward Marxism or capitalism, maternalism or
paternalism, or other pseudo-political-ideological-binaries that are not
part of first-year composition content, but to give them the thinking tools
to decide for themselves the direction in which they wish to move, which are
part of that content. I am not saying that students will not write on
political or ideological topics. I usually let my students choose their
topics. My role is help them learn how to complexify their understanding of
their topics and transform that understanding into an argument persuasive to
their audience. My role, again, is not to move them in one direction or the
other on their topics. The latter can be indoctrination, while the former is
education.

Charles Nelson

5.  Exposing students to the spectrum of significant scholarly
> viewpoints on the subjects examined in their courses is a major
> responsibility of faculty. Faculty will not use their courses for the
> purpose of political, ideological, religious or anti-religious
> indoctrination.
>
> The hell I won't, and the hell we all don't.  My fyc students come to me
> after 12 years of indoctrination about the nature of knowledge, the
> possibility of objectivity, and what makes "good" writing, NONE of it
> consonant with what I professionally know to be true of research and
> writing.  Now, it *happens* that my teaching philosophy is one of
> persuasion rather than assertion: I believe that putting students in
> real-world situations and giving them questions to ask about it will
> lead them to the same conclusions I have reached, over time, about the
> differences between what they've been taught good research and writing
> is, and the ways people *actually* get it done.  But, if I wanted to
> make and enforce rules that indoctrinated my students in the very same
> way (but to a different end) that all their previous education has done,
> wouldn't that be within my purview as a teacher?
>
> The notion that *some* education indoctrinates while other education
> doesn't is itself faulty.  If education didn't indoctrinate, it wouldn't
> be education and it wouldn't work.  (The notion that education is
> valuable, necessary, "a ticket to work"?  All indoctrinated.)  There is
> only more or less compulsory indoctrination.
>
> Furthermore, fields *come with* ideologies.  You cannot be an engineer
> unless you adopt instrumental, analytical, and division-of-labor
> ideologies.  You HAVE TO think that way to do that work.  At some level,
> this is true of all fields.
>
> Now, I know this isn't what the writers of this document mean.  They
> MEAN to prohibit "agree with me or fail" compulsory indoctrination.
> Most people in most disciplines would acknowledge such approaches to be
> bad pedagogy or even academic misconduct.  Again, therefore, a problem
> already taken care of by peer-review and tenure systems.  What this rule
> DOES is ignore the realities of education in general in its attempt to
> correct a particular and rare problem.

------=_Part_29591_21393851.1159638081676
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Doug, thanks for explaining your perspective in detail. I can see where you're coming from. Some of it makes sense, and some doesn't. The part on indoctrination seemed to be tackling something other than the ABR. It was talking about indoctrination of political, ideological, or religious natures, while you were referring to the nature of knowledge and writing. For me, these are apples and oranges. The former is pedagogical misconduct while the latter, I hope, refers to an appropriate introduction into disciplinary knowledge.
 I also have to disagree that education is indoctrination. Perhaps with many, it is, but it shouldn't be. As a composition instructor, my goal is to help my students learn to think for themselves and to learn how to improve their writing--not to move them toward Marxism or capitalism, maternalism or paternalism, or other pseudo-political-ideological-binaries that are not part of first-year composition content, but to give them the thinking tools to decide for themselves the direction in which they wish to move, which are part of that content. I am not saying that students will not write on political or ideological topics. I usually let my students choose their topics. My role is help them learn how to complexify their understanding of their topics and transform that understanding into an argument persuasive to their audience. My role, again, is not to move them in one direction or the other on their topics. The latter can be indoctrination, while the former is education. 
 Charles Nelson <div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">5.&nbsp;&nbsp;Exposing students to the spectrum of significant scholarly
 viewpoints on the subjects examined in their courses is a major responsibility of faculty. Faculty will not use their courses for the purpose of political, ideological, religious or anti-religious indoctrination.
 The hell I won't, and the hell we all don't.&nbsp;&nbsp;My fyc students come to me after 12 years of indoctrination about the nature of knowledge, the possibility of objectivity, and what makes &quot;good&quot; writing, NONE of it
 consonant with what I professionally know to be true of research and writing.&nbsp;&nbsp;Now, it *happens* that my teaching philosophy is one of persuasion rather than assertion: I believe that putting students in real-world situations and giving them questions to ask about it will
 lead them to the same conclusions I have reached, over time, about the differences between what they've been taught good research and writing is, and the ways people *actually* get it done.&nbsp;&nbsp;But, if I wanted to 
make and enforce rules that indoctrinated my students in the very same way (but to a different end) that all their previous education has done, wouldn't that be within my purview as a teacher? The notion that *some* education indoctrinates while other education
 doesn't is itself faulty.&nbsp;&nbsp;If education didn't indoctrinate, it wouldn't be education and it wouldn't work.&nbsp;&nbsp;(The notion that education is valuable, necessary, &quot;a ticket to work&quot;?&nbsp;&nbsp;All indoctrinated.)&nbsp;&nbsp;There is
 only more or less compulsory indoctrination. Furthermore, fields *come with* ideologies.&nbsp;&nbsp;You cannot be an engineer unless you adopt instrumental, analytical, and division-of-labor ideologies.&nbsp;&nbsp;You HAVE TO think that way to do that work.&nbsp;&nbsp;At some level,
 this is true of all fields. Now, I know this isn't what the writers of this document mean.&nbsp;&nbsp;They MEAN to prohibit &quot;agree with me or fail&quot; compulsory indoctrination. Most people in most disciplines would acknowledge such approaches to be
 bad pedagogy or even academic misconduct.&nbsp;&nbsp;Again, therefore, a problem already taken care of by peer-review and tenure systems.&nbsp;&nbsp;What this rule DOES is ignore the realities of education in general in its attempt to
 correct a particular and rare problem.</blockquote></div>

------=_Part_29591_21393851.1159638081676--