I'm not convinced that students need to pass a comprehensive exam in order
to write a dissertation. I wrote one, & my institution did not require a
comprehensive exam. I buy the second statement, above -- >background
>>knowledge as embodied in rigid stage theories is misguided< I think
Mike's point (I know he'll correct me if I'm wrong :) is that OUR
(graders', gatekeepers') background knowledge is not adequate to define ONE
SEQUENCE OF STEPS for every learner and every kind of learning. It's much
too possible for learners to make unexpected leaps, to get at something from
an unanticipated, not-yet-tried angle, etc. ALSO, I would add (not sure Mike
meant this) that given the complex distributions of knowledge & know-how in
contemporary social practices, we don't do students any favors by demanding
they march through one pathway to full participation in some practice, like
becoming an academic.
Judy
At 08:50 AM 9/28/99 -0400, you wrote:
>I think these points would benefit from some interrogation. I'm not sure
>just where I'd draw the line in following Mike's view of stage theories. I
>agree that theories such as Mastery Learning, which used a staircase as its
>learning metaphor, can lead to some pretty rigid and disenabling
>teaching. On the other hand, most educational systems that I'm familiar
>with assume that learning takes place in some kind of sequence, and that
>some sequences work better than others, and that for at least
>some learning it's hard to do Thing B unless you can do Thing A fairly
>well. If you can't add single-digit numbers, I suspect that it's hard to
>add triple-digit numbers. (if this example is misguided, please pardon me
>for relying on folk wisdom and personal experience)
>
>I'll bet, for instance, that for those of us who work in universities, it's
>widely assumed that people should do coursework before writing
>dissertations. Furthermore, they should pass a comprehensive exam of some
>sort before writing a dissertation. The inability to pass courses or comps
>always disqualifies a student from proceeding to the dissertation
>stage. And I fully support this set of assumptions, assuming that the
>course work and comps are authentic indicators of someone's ability to
>write a dissertation.
>
>So my question is, what's really at stake in this discussion?
>Peter
>At 08:11 PM 9/27/99 -0700, you wrote:
>
>>Hi All-- I have been following fleetingly, but am swamped with quarter
>>beginning
>>
>>Genevieve wrote:
>>
>> Essentially, the department had carved out
>>a kind of 'instructional space' for developmental
>>students that broke with the rigid 'Step A goes to
>>Semester 1, Step B goes to Semester 2 and if you can't
>>follow you fail' flow of student bodies in the writing
>>curriculum. Basically, this was a form of retention.
>>Then, about 3 or 4 semesters into the experience, the
>>Chancellor's Office told us to shape up and cut out
>>all the parallel courses. We were being very bad boys
>>& girls for keeping qualified students back, and a
>>student who passes a particular level is by definition
>>qualified to tackle the next.
>>
>>
>>For a long time we at LCHC have railed againt all forms of
>>"Level 1 before Level 2" stage theories of literacy and
>>numeracy acquition. They are built for domination and conservatism.
>>They select in a deadly way.
>>
>>My colleagues and I have written about this pernicious form of
>>pedagogy/selction in a number of places. Getting this message
>>straight would be, in my opinion, very helpful. But maybe its
>>crooked by nature?
>>
>>This discussion is getting close to what I consder the heart of the
>>matter: the essential duality of formal education FROM THE BEGINNING:
>>its entwinement with (literally) middle class and its double message"
>>transform AND select. Teachers live at the contradictory heart of that
>>matter.
>>
>>Can we make it beyond chaining?
>>mike
>
>
Judith Diamondstone (732) 932-7496 Ext. 352
Graduate School of Education
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
10 Seminary Place
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183