next »

[bethelcollege]

I always find myself agreeing with Paul Trout at some level. Then I'm almost always ashamed that I have. The illustration provided with the "Observer" column, showing a white male professor shaking his finger in the face of a young white woman with downcast (and probably sullen) expression, is provocative.  And that's the tone of the article.  The assumed "rightness" of the faculty perspective, the assumed "wrongness" of the student perspective almost always dominates Trout's writing.  And as in almost everything I've read by him, he returns to his chief frustration: student course evaluations.  Again, he provides no context on these evaluations: when a student writes "I think the teacher should not try to impose his viewpoints on us," are we to be irritated because we were trying to teach grammar, or justly rebuked because we were supporting George Bush, James Dobson, or the Dalai Lama?

[buglet]

Seems to me he is talking about the inherent tension in education....challenging students to think about a topic deeply without alienating them.  One of my best grad school profs said to his advisees...I can't be your friend when I have to grade you.  Trout seems to be saying the same thing...the relationship between student and teacher is at some level inherently adversarial.

Trout's article also made me wonder if the constant evaluation and realization of one's own ignorance is the reason why most folks coming out of Ph.D. programs have their self-esteem shot to ****.  (This is of course dependent on the level of their emotional sensitivity.)  Even to this day, I always tend to assume people know quite a lot more than I do.  It prevents me from being egotistical, but sometimes making such assumptions can be to my detriment.  Finding that balance whether as a teacher or a learner is difficult indeed.

[bethelcollege]

I agree with you that this "inherent tension" appears to be what the article is about.

But notice who are the targets of Dr. Trout's anger or amusement: paragraph 4: the "trappings" of higher education in commencement [i.e., all of us are complicit in this ritualized salvation-through-education drama]; paragraph 5: students who do not do well on exams or papers, who might not express themselves well, who are not up to "advanced ideas," who are not the equal of "smarter peers"; paragraph 6: modern "shameless" students who do not know they need improvement; paragraph 7: those who have determined that "belittling students" is inappropriate and have created the "comfortable classroom atmosphere"; paragraph 9: those who have made "concessions," with examples in paragraph 10. And notice how "shame" is now "inherent" in "the mentor-mentored relationship," by the way. Huh? Paragraph 10 also hints at dismissal of the constructivist approach of the "guide on the side" model. And then we turn to the course evaluations.

And notice how "instructors have a professional obligation to honestly and decently test, grade, monitor, correct, challenge and criticize students" suddenly means that if "we're doing our job we will necessarily embarrass many of them." I assume it's inadvertent that "teach," "nourish," "guide," "inspire" are omitted as antecedent to testing, etc., but I'd like to be assured of it.

I agree that fraudulent educational practices do exist, that defraud the students of real learning and do not challenge them. Taking a student's money and failing to enable him or her to make progress on meeting the course's outcomes is indeed fraud.

At the same time, why does it sound like Dr. Trout is defending professorial bullying in the classroom. Might not that student be right: "Try not to dwell on [your Ph. D.]--it is indirectly condescending." Maybe that's also a way of saying, "What authority does it give you in _this_ instance?" And why does it feel like we're back to social class, ethnicity, and gender battles with such a combative perspective?

[buglet]

I'm sure that some bullying goes on in the classroom, and that is deplorable, but again, exerting intellectual authority is a very delicate balance.   Most 18-22 year olds are on the threshold of adulthood.  They are legally adults, but oftentimes still adolescents in their attitudes and behavior.  (And I recognize there is often a huge leap of maturity between a fresher and a university senior) So, while we do our best to treat them with respect, I think it is true that they aren't our peers in the classroom when we are teaching our subjects.   I know in medical matters I am not the peer of my doctor, and I know on the subject of popular music, I am not the peer of my students.  But in my class, I am the pied piper, and I expect the students to follow my tune.   We play the symphony together, but I am the conductor. 

This means as profs we have to be understanding that we are not always dealing with some students who are fully mature adults, but we also have to recognize that some are.  We have to try our best not to be  condescending to students, but we can't let them get away with irresponsible behavior.  This is tough sometimes.  For instance, I try not to "shame" them into performing, but there is no denying it is embarrassing for them when they don't show up prepared and they are called on to answer a question or contribute to discussion.  Their embarrassment will happen no matter how much I as a professor try to mitigate that embarrassment. 

Trout may be overbearing in his use of authority in the classroom.  I don't know.  His emphasis on "shaming" students may give us some disquiet, but I'm hesitant to point fingers because I don't know how he goes about his business in class.  But I do think he is correct that "shaming" and "blaming" goes on in the student-teacher relationship.  It seems to me our job is to recognize that and be sensitive to the ramifications that may arise from this inherent tension between a mentor and an "enforcer" if you like of intellectual discipline.

[mikey]

Hello, Forum Friends!  What a provocative article!  I read the preceding comments with interest, as well.

Bravo, Paul Trout!  A wonderful article, beautifully written, and what a powerfully worded conclusion!

I, for one, grant to Mr. Trout the assumption that he teaches with the respect and dignity that we all expect.  I believe it is uncharitable to question his motives or to respond with suspicion of his teaching techniques.  I approach his article, and I believe others should, too, without reading anything into his text that is not there.  (BTW, I would caution my students in a like manner.  They also love to make unsupported inferences, guesses, and comments about texts.)  So let us grant him that, and continue the discussion from there.