Having just finished David Olsen's book, "The World on Paper," my reaction to
the "Statement of Understanding" was in line with Olsen's theme: while the
"content" of any written statement is clear, it's illocutionary force (or
intent) remains ambiguous without oral discussion of it to build trust
between students and instructor. In the hands of a cold-hearted instructor
(God forbid), the Statement could be taken as an abdication of responsibility
by the instructor.
This would only partially be solved, I think, by adding a comparable set of
statements of responsibilities of the instructor or of the institution, as I
once saw Judith Torney-Purta do with her developmental psychology course. In
the latter case, the danger would be that everyone becomes legalistic, argue
over whether they are meeting their written, signed obligations, etc. This
can ONLY be overcome, I believe, by FTF communications that convey or develop
mutual "maps" of teachers and students intentions for each other. These
intentions cannot be represented well on paper, at least at the beginning of
the course. (That, incidentally, is David Olsen's argument in his book, as
well as mine here.)
Thanks, Edouard; I want to see if I can make use of your "Statement of
Understanding" in my course next term!
Kelvin Seifert