“From Teaching to Learning—A New Paradigm for Undergraduate Education.”
HE 702 Community College Curriculum
September 4, 2007
Ari Senghor Rosner-Salazar
Objective of the Reading
Barr and Tagg introduce the idea of a paradigm shift in higher education in the United States. The Instruction Model is introduced as the current paradigm, whereby institutions are aligned to teach or deliver instruction through the traditional lecture. This model locates the responsibility for learning squarely on the shoulders of the individual student. It also fails to assess how much learning is occurring: “…under the Instruction Paradigm, student outcomes are simply irrelevant to the successful functioning and funding of a college.” (page 5)
The new paradigm, which according to the authors has not yet come into existence, is the Learning Model. In the Learning Model, students, faculty, and the institution are all responsible for learning success. The institution holds responsibility for independently measuring student learning (outside of course grades or faculty feedback) and then focusing on innovative techniques (such as small group work) which will increase student learning. Through continuous re-evaluation of efforts and change of such endeavors, institutions using the Learning Model should see continuously rising success rates. The authors raise a few points about resistance to the Learning Model: 1) The “atomistic” nature of the traditional lecture with one teacher in one room; 2) The defensiveness of departments which focus solely on maintaining fiscal, enrollment, and employee stability; and, 3) The conflict the faculty must face in regard to presenting approved course material as opposed to helping students learn.
Analysis
Barr and Tagg make a strong logical argument against the Instruction Model and in favor of the Learning Model. Higher education’s reliance on instruction as an end in itself is derided by viewing instruction’s parallel in an automobile assembly plant (running the assembly line regardless of whether cars are being produced) and a hospital (just filling beds regardless of whether patients are being healed). The authors’ cavalier and improper usage of sources hurts their argument. No interviews or sources are cited when quoting those who appear to be experts, so it is unclear whether the authors interviewed the sources themselves or obtained the quotes elsewhere. There are historical anecdotes about the Swiss watch-making industry, Galileo, and Stravinsky that should be easily cited, but because there are none, the strength of the argument suffers.
Synthesis
As mentioned above, the authors refer to five scholarly works but do not properly cite them. Also, five sources (Schaefer, Sweeting, Gardner, Johnstone and Fuller) are quoted anecdotally, but only some of their credentials of expertise are identified. The authors discuss the National Commission on Time and Learning while admitting that this commission does not focus on the higher education environment. I sense that research focusing on higher education could be obtained to strengthen the points. Finally Barr refers to his own personal experience with re-learning Calculus. This and others are descriptive anecdotes, but more research would have made the argument more effective.
Implications for the Community College
Community colleges will have a much harder time using learning outcomes to justify their funding because they are open-admissions institutions. Unlike their selective 4-year counterparts, community colleges must accept all who seek to learn. Many of these students come with more economic, cultural, and developmental challenges to learning. As a result, community colleges have lower retention and graduation rates than four-year colleges because their pool of students is not pre-selected. Reorienting a community college towards trying unconventional ideas to increase student learning will be difficult considering that academic legitimacy is already in question. There is also the concern that an additional graduation requirement (exit exam) would be yet another obstacle to students struggling toward graduation.
Discussion Questions
1. The idea of “exit standards,” as advocated by the authors, might help further shift institutional and student focus away from amassing credits toward true learning. However, would such exit exams serve as an additional “Cooling Out” mechanism as discussed by Clark?
2. If students are held accountable for learning under both the Teaching and the Learning Paradigms, how can K-12 educational institutions better prepare students for college-level learning?
3. Would learning modules that, while designed by faculty, only require intermittent student-faculty contact yield increased learning? If so, how would that be received by academics and proponents of the importance of increased faculty-student contact?
Reference
Barr, R., & Tagg, J. (1995, November). From teaching to learning—a new paradigm for undergraduate education. (Cover story). Change, 27(6), 12. Retrieved August 19, 2007, from Academic Search Premier database.
I am intrigued by the idea of exit standards, or proficiency-based credentialing, though its application in practice seems to be riddled with challenges and pitfalls. Who determines the standards? How effective is a standardized assessment in measuring proficiency, when individual learning and application is diverse? What exactly is the point of achieving a particular standard and a particular set point in time? Is it fair to hold everyone to the same standard when the starting point is not the same? And so on.
ReplyDeleteDifficulties aside, at an ideal level, it is nevertheless intriguing because it holds both students and institutions accountable to achieving a certain capacity, while restoring value in the credential itself. Theoretically, it is also open to self-paced learning and a diversified higher education playing field.