So this is curiously broken in both Chrome and Firefox. The composition box is unfortunately missing a cursor.
Comments work though, so I'll leave something brief here.
While I thought both pieces were thoughtful and generally critical of the whole teaching activism/service learning phenomenon I think they raise some interesting issues in their base assumptions.
With all the difficulty associated with the teaching of critical thought, the raising awareness of other viewpoints, and engaging community.... are these different goals best served by being combined into the same course? The dangers/difficulties of community involvement especially merit a close look as to whether that is in fact the best environment to introduce students to these ideas.
The sciences and there reliances on labs offer a great example. Students are introduced to ideas and able to develop a hands on approach, but only in a tightly controlled and carefully designed environment. First year physics students don't get to man the particle accelerator, chemist's don't start with chlorine gas.
Just as Flowers was wary of guerilla service, or run and gun interactions with the community, are students really served by this sort of drive-by critical thinking that leaving the bulk of this work to one writing course performs? Maybe the best way to engender, or educate about, student activism is to encourage projects that speak to the needs of the students communities, before sending them out to advocate for others?
Hey Jackson: Thanks as always for your insightful comments. So does the analogy work that students should first do the critical work in one class and then another one that involves the community? This is actually similar to the one that Herzberg teaches--first critical study then engagement with the community.
It's probably obvious that I see these goals as complementary--critical thinking emerges within the context of community engagement and visa versa. And as much as I take your point (echoed by Bickford) that there are lots of projects within the student community, these also run the risk of a certain kind of narcissism or self-indulgence as they can ignore seeking out other perspectives.
It's probably obvious too that John and I are seeking out answers to these questions each time we teach the course. I don't know if we've found the perfect solution or methodology yet.
2 comments:
So this is curiously broken in both Chrome and Firefox. The composition box is unfortunately missing a cursor.
Comments work though, so I'll leave something brief here.
While I thought both pieces were thoughtful and generally critical of the whole teaching activism/service learning phenomenon I think they raise some interesting issues in their base assumptions.
With all the difficulty associated with the teaching of critical thought, the raising awareness of other viewpoints, and engaging community.... are these different goals best served by being combined into the same course? The dangers/difficulties of community involvement especially merit a close look as to whether that is in fact the best environment to introduce students to these ideas.
The sciences and there reliances on labs offer a great example. Students are introduced to ideas and able to develop a hands on approach, but only in a tightly controlled and carefully designed environment. First year physics students don't get to man the particle accelerator, chemist's don't start with chlorine gas.
Just as Flowers was wary of guerilla service, or run and gun interactions with the community, are students really served by this sort of drive-by critical thinking that leaving the bulk of this work to one writing course performs? Maybe the best way to engender, or educate about, student activism is to encourage projects that speak to the needs of the students communities, before sending them out to advocate for others?
Hey Jackson:
Thanks as always for your insightful comments. So does the analogy work that students should first do the critical work in one class and then another one that involves the community? This is actually similar to the one that Herzberg teaches--first critical study then engagement with the community.
It's probably obvious that I see these goals as complementary--critical thinking emerges within the context of community engagement and visa versa. And as much as I take your point (echoed by Bickford) that there are lots of projects within the student community, these also run the risk of a certain kind of narcissism or self-indulgence as they can ignore seeking out other perspectives.
It's probably obvious too that John and I are seeking out answers to these questions each time we teach the course. I don't know if we've found the perfect solution or methodology yet.
Post a Comment