http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/126/do-gooders
This one is a good one for me right now because apparently it's my fault when I'm trying to do a good job at LDSBC.
Recently I've been trying to fight the fact that my turn over rate for first semester English students is ridiculously high. I start semesters with 20+ students in each class, and then all of the sudden by the end of the semester I'm down almost 50%. This semester I didn't want to do it. This semester I wanted to try to retain as many students as possible. I wasn't going to just sit back and do nothing, so I did what the college wanted me to do, I reported every single student that was struggling, and that meant that I reported half of my class.
That's right, I put half of my class into the list of students that needed help to pass my course.
Instead of thinking that possibly it was my students who were struggling, that it could possibly be the issue with my students not having the skills or knowledge required for being part of a university system, the first thing that got said was that it has to be my problem. It wasn't the fact that the majority of my students struggled to graduate from college, are first generation college students, or even the fact that most of them don't even show up to class - no - the real problem was with me, the teacher, the one who was trying to improve their lives and willing to point a light on those that were struggling with the simpliest of tasks of showing up to class, taking notes, and paying attention enough to stay awake.
It only gets worse.
As I was looking through the course when I first started teaching there I was thankful for everything that was given to me, because I didn't have anything. I was thankful for the fact that they had a course ready for me to teach, and that it was put together in a way that I just had to show up and teach and didn't have to rely too much on my non-existant lesson making skills. It was a great thing.
Now that I'm about a year into the teaching thing, I'm starting to notice a major bug in the system. It's impossible for a student to fail the course if they show up and turn things in. Even if it is horribly written, even if there is a quality to their writing that is down right unprofessional and has no right to pass an ENG 101 course, it's impossible for them to fail as long as they turn in every single assignment.
Let's break it down so you can understand.
There's five major assignments.
Personal application of a self help book.
Rhetorical analysis of a self help book.
Synthesis and analysis of a topic given from the university.
Group profile piece of a company.
Personal philosophy.
Each of those is worth 100 points for a total of 500 points.
What isn't told is that attached to many of those are 'checkpoints' and 'journals' that add unnecessary fluff to the course to make it impossible to loose.
In my opinion the synthesis and analysis research paper is the most important and technical out of the entire series. Unfortunately, it's weighted the same as a personal philosophy paper (we'll get to that later), and then the fluff that surrounds it is the exact same weight as the final paper. That's right, it's 100 points, and all of the fluff (including a 30 point assignment that is basically show and tell for college students) is also worth 50 points. That means that even if one of my students manages to absolutely fail that paper and get a 50% on it, if they do all of their fluff assignments, it totals out to be a C, and that is for the most important paper in the course.
The group profile piece is a joke and as long as students work together in the two weeks they have to write it, they'll pass that assignment with an A.
The 'final' for the course is a personal philosophy, but it's 100 points worth of fluff. The writing prompt for the personal philosophy is junk. All it says is explain why you think the way you think. It can be about anything, just explain why you think the way that you think. It could be about how Care Bears are a life influence for you and that your life is strictly influenced by the power and strength that Care Bears and the Care Bear stare gives to you, and you would get full credit. The technical merit of that paper is non-existent, and it essentially comes out to another free 100 points as long as it's turned in.
As long as students show up and turn things in, they can't get anything lower than a C. It's impossible. It doesn't matter if they know the skills required of them, what matters is passing them through the system.
The reason I'm talking about all of this is that I would try to change it, however I know that for this one case, it's impossible. The university isn't focused on teaching skills that are actually used and can be transferred to the real world, they're more focused on helping people believe in Christ. I know that this isn't a bad thing, but it gets in the way of an education. I could try to explain to people why I think that we're doing a disservice to our students by freely allowing them to pass courses even though they have no education and skills that we are promising them, but I'd be instantly put under the spotlight. Instead of looking at the course material or the university, I'd be the one in trouble. It can't be a problem with LDSBC, it has to be a problem with me. The reason my students aren't learning the skills required isn't because of the lack of rigor or the complete lack of credibility from a university, but because I must be teaching their approved lesson incorrectly.
No comments:
Post a Comment