Push and Pull

The cost of technology can be daunting, but the value in savings over the long run can be staggering. Teachers are perhaps better as facilitators rather than sage on the stage (in my words; Anson might disagree with this). DE offers inter-institutional opportunities.

Let's tackle the "sage on the stage" metaphor first. I am probably a bit naive, but I find it hard to believe that anyone teaching Freshman Comp uses the pure lecture model anymore. So I have been wondering what the current equivalent to the "sage on the stage" model is for Freshman Comp. I really liked Lennie's "push vs. pull" terminology that we started talking about at the end of class. In these terms, I think the equivalent to the "sage on the stage" is the instructor who is all "push." Even if the instructor is enlightened in terms of pedagogy (for example, lots of freewriting, workshopping, peer review, etc.), if the instructor is deciding unilaterally what (and how) the students need to be taught, then many of the students will have less than an ideal learning experience. To learn to be better writers (and I am not arguing that Freshman Comp is only about that), students need to be able to "pull" the information they are lacking from whatever resource is most useful. It may be the instructor, or it may be a writing center, Web site, other students, or just about any other source. Effective instructors need to set up an environment in which the "pushing" is limited to the things that all students absolutely must know (learning outcomes translated into specific measurement criteria, shared terminology, theory, specific technical skills, etc.) or respond to (model artifacts, etc.) and "pulling" is facilitated in ways that serve all students regardless of learning style. I think setting up such a learning environment is probably easier now than ever before. One is not limited by the parameters of the physical classroom, the class meeting time, or even office hours. As to whether or not (or to what extent) Comp instructors should be teaching technology, I think it will vary depending on the environment in which the learning will take place. Certainly, training in required skills (blogging, using WebCT, or whatever) must be made easily available, either in class or through some other channel. However, unless the learning outcomes are specifically tied to learning particular "tools", then I don't think such instruction should make up a significant portion of the "pushed" material.

This may be a bit off topic, but I wonder a lot about who should determine the learning outcomes for Freshman Comp. Ideally, these outcomes should be a negotiated contract between administrators, teachers, and students. Most of us don't live in that world yet, so we are forced to balance system/university/college/department requirements with our own teaching philosophies (hopefully informed by a reasonable understanding of our students' needs). Most of us are part of English departments (either currently or historically), so I suspect that most of us consider writing an important skill. Also, Freshman Comp is a service course, which means we must meet the requirements of other departments: to produce students capable of writing coherent papers in other disciplines. With respect to our students' needs, we recognize that they will need to be able to communication effectively in whatever endeavors they choose to pursue after college. But will they all need to be able to write, at least in the ways that we traditionally conceive of writing in Freshman Comp? That is, will they need to write arguments, expository prose, and narratives? Or will they be more likely to express themselves in multimedia: video, podcasts, Websites, and the like? What is the common ground among all those modes of communication? Isn't that what we should be teaching instead of focusing on specific writing genres? I think the ability to develop and apply critical thinking skills is the foundation for being able to communicate thoughtfully and effectively. As to whether one can directly "teach" critical thinking, I am not sure. However, I think much of the content we "push" to our students should be things that promote critical thinking: writing, video, audio and multimedia "models" (supplanted with theory, when necessary) that force students to grapple with logic, evidence, rhetoric, bias, etc. In turn, we should ask them to demonstrate their ability to communication their engagement with these ideas in whatever form fits the rhetorical situation, with an eye to as much variety possible given the external constraints listed above. As to "training" the students to perform these communicative acts, I think we should rely on the "pull" model as much as possible. As to the economic part of the equation, I imagine the actual ROI is beyond my ability to calculate, but any investment in technology that will facilitate a balance between push and pull that will likely result in significantly improved learning outcomes (and, hopefully, increased student and faculty satisfaction) is money well spent.