Skip to main content

No Winners in a Curriculum War

Blog: 

When I wrote the proposal for the book that would become The Writer’s Practice: Building Confidence in Your Nonfiction Writing, I described it as an alternative to the text They Say/I Say by Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein for a couple of reasons.

One was that They Say/I Say had sold several million copies and is one of the most widely used textbooks – regardless of subject – and publishers like to know that there is a potential market for a book before they decide to publish it. 

Another reason was because my sincere intention was to write a text that served as an alternative to They Say/I Say. I had used They Say/I Say as a text in my own first-year writing courses and while I liked its overall framing of academic writing as being part of a “conversation,” my experience with utilizing the templates in They Say/I Say revealed what I felt were some shortcomings around transfer of knowledge from one writing occasion to another, and helping students develop as writing problem-solvers.

It did not occur to me that my book may be an opportunity to declare “war” on an approach with a different emphasis from mine. 

Thank goodness, because after reading a recent Chronicle article about the so-called “wars” over math curriculum, it seems clear that engaging in a curriculum war is the worst possible outcome for all involved.

Don’t get me wrong, I think my approach to teaching writing is superior to the method outlined in the They Say/I Say. But that belief is not something that we can measure according to an objective standard that everyone will agree upon. It is contingent on what one values about writing, the kinds of writing products you want students to complete and writing experiences that you believe are important for students to have.

It didn’t occur to me to go to war with a different curriculum because while both curriculums concern student writing, the underlying values that animate the approaches are quite different. 

They Say/I Say is a superior approach if you want students to produce artifacts that read and act like “academic” writing. 

As I say in The Writer’s Practice, while I want students engaging in what I call “scholarly” thinking, I’m less concerned with the production of academic forms per se. My values are rooted in my background as a non-academic teaching inside academia, and a writer whose work ranges across many different genres. 

When we say one thing is better than another, we have to ask “better at what?” Even an answer to the question like “better at teaching students to write” depends on a shared definition of what  learning to write looks like. We do not have universally accepted answers to these questions, so a tug-of-war over which approach is “better” is fruitless unless we first agree on our criteria for evaluation.

I do not have the disciplinary knowledge to weigh in on the specifics of differing approaches to teaching math, but it is easy to recognize that one of the roots of these arguments is a failure to hash out the values that underly different claims of efficacy, or even deeper than that, the values that animate the core purpose of school itself.

The math wars have been going on so long it seems difficult to even know what they’re about anymore. 

At times, I have wished for groups of parents, armed with another of my books Why They Can’t Write: Killing the Five-Paragraph Essay and Other Necessities to march on school board meetings and demand the end to formulaic assignments and the prescriptive teaching that goes along with them. 

I will, and do, criticize these things any day of the week, but I have no desire to go to war on them because I know that underneath their use is a system that supports them, for example the Advanced Placement exams, which are generally terrible at determining how much students have learned, but as an accepted proxy for college credit, have great value to students and parents. 

There’s a hearts and minds campaign that must be won to get a critical mass of people believing that learning is more important than schooling, and that a change in approach will not harm a student’s future prospects, that it is in fact the opposite.

This is very slow going. A recent essay by Ian Bogost discusses the tenacity of belief in standardization and ranking as meaningful parts of our system of education. Bogost believes that the status quo is wedded to the “social function” of these tests and so much energy will go into how to make them “fair” in a generative AI world, rather than putting that effort into reimagining what we ask students to do and why. As long as those assessments matter, giving students tools that help them succeed on them will be valued, regardless of their relationship to learning.

Maybe my distaste for going to war on these issues is rooted in my belief that if I was to truly go to war on these things, I would be quickly crushed. 

After many years now of advocating for this different framework for thinking about student writing, while I’ve met many likeminded people along the way, I have no hopes that my preferred values will ever be widely shared. This sense has been reinforced by interacting with the likeminded who describe their own efforts as a kind of resistance against an intractable opponent.

I suppose that is also the language of war, but not a war anyone believes they’re going to win.

I had hoped, briefly, that people seeing ChatGPT (and now GPT-4) chew through the kind of writing assignments students are often asked to do would get more people questioning the value of those assignments, but the closing of ranks to protect the status quo seems well underway. 

My view is that a war over the curriculum only serves the purpose of freezing things in place while the war rages, but maybe I’m wrong, and I’m missing the moment to overturn the old ways for something better and new.

Deep down, though, I know I don’t believe in going to war over these issues, even when know I’m right.

The only thing left for those of us who believe in different things is to keep believing in them, live those values as best you can and see how many others you can bring towards those beliefs along the way. 

--

If you are looking for a different way of thinking about teaching writing, check out my course: Teaching Writing in an Artificial Intelligence World.

Show on Jobs site: 
Disable left side advertisement?: 
Is this diversity newsletter?: 
Is this Career Advice newsletter?: 
Advice Newsletter publication dates: 
Wednesday, March 29, 2023
Diversity Newsletter publication date: 
Wednesday, March 29, 2023


Udimi - Buy Solo Ads from Inside Higher Ed https://ift.tt/ni9lECb
via IFTTT

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Author discusses book on grad school

Graduate school is a great mystery to students, and to some faculty members, says Jessica McCrory Calarco, the author of A Field Guide to Grad School: Uncovering the Hidden Curriculum (Princeton University Press). Calarco is an associate professor of sociology at Indiana University. She believes many faculty members (as well as graduate students, of course) will benefit from her book. She responded to questions via email. Q: How did you get the idea to write this book? Why did the issue speak to you? A: This book started as a tweet . Or, rather, as a series of tweets about the hidden curriculum of higher ed. Ph.D. student Kristen K. Smith had tweeted about the need to better educate undergrads about grad school opportunities, and it made me think about how opportunities in academe are often hidden from grad students, as well. Reflecting on my own experiences in grad school, I thought about the many times I'd found myself embarrassed because of what I didn't know -- the

Guest Blog: Where Does the Bizarre Hysteria About “Critical Race Theory” Come From?—Follow the Money!

Blog:  Just Visiting Guest Blog: Where Does the Bizarre Hysteria About “Critical Race Theory” Come From?—Follow the Money! By Isaac Kamola Trinity College Hartford, CT There are now numerous well-documented examples of wealthy right-wing and libertarian donors using that wealth to transform higher education in their own image. Between 2005 and 2019, for example, the Charles Koch Foundation has spent over  $485 million  at more than 550 universities. As demonstrated by Douglas Beets and others, many of these grants include considerable  donor influence  over what gets taught, researched, and even who gets hired. It should therefore come as no surprise that conservative megadonor, Walter Hussman Jr.,  lobbied hard  to deny the Pulitzer-prize winning journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones a tenured professorship at the UNC journalism school that bears his name. Nor that her offer of tenure, awarded through the normal channels of faculty governance, was ultimately  revoked   by a far-

Live Updates: Latest News on COVID-19 and Higher Education

Image:  Woman Charged With Faking Positive COVID-19 Test From U of Iowa   Nov. 5, 6:14 a.m. A lawyer in Colorado has been charged with faking a positive COVID-19 test from the University of Iowa to get out of a court appearance, The Gazette reported.   Emily Elizabeth Cohen was booked Tuesday on a detainer from the Boulder County Sheriff’s Office, shortly after she tweeted that the Colorado court system “just had me arrested alleging I lied about having COVID. Tweeting from cop car.”   The Boulder Daily Camera reported that Cohen is scheduled for a 10-day trial in Boulder County in Colorado starting Dec. 6 for 11 felony counts stemming from allegations she collected fees from immigrant families before losing contact with them without producing visas or work permits.   -- Scott Jaschik Judge Permits Suit Against Montana State to Go to Trial Nov. 3, 6:18 a.m. A Montana judge has ruled that a suit against Montana State University over the shift to online education