The Whitworthian

Issue date: 11/20/07 Last Updated: 11/24/07

CORY MARSHALL:
The issue I and many of my peers have with Core 350 is that the class creates an atmosphere of conformity, where student opinions and discussion are not as important as simply staying silent and accepting the lessons.

This is evident both in the large group lectures and with assignments such as quizzes, scenarios, and policy papers.

In the large group, as of Nov. 18, there has not been one moment devoted for the students to question the lessons the professors are giving.

What little discussion allowed is meant for the students to discuss what ways they agree with what the professors say, not necessarily whether they agree.

Quizzes are given once a week, but the answers are not provided for students to learn from their mistakes.

Scenarios assign students to advocate a certain way, fostering situations where students with different opinions - instead of discussing them among each other - suppress ideas in order to meet deadlines.

Policy papers, as well, are simply templates given to students so that they can provide the appropriate "fill-in-the-blank" answers.

In all assignments, students are forced to choose between applying their minds and learning the material, or merely receiving (not necessarily earning) a good grade.

GALEN SANFORD:
Cory, I'm sure you'll acknowledge the difficulties of teaching to a large and diverse group of students. Orchestrating a discussion between over a 100 students is inefficient and clunky.

Generally, large class discussions involve a number of disparate one-on-one interactions between a student and the professor.

Since large class discussions don't engage multiple students in each interaction, they may as well be relegated to after class or office hours.

Further, the diversity of opinions among a large class may confuse students attempting to learn the material.

If the professor is repeatedly contested by unreliable student conjecture, other students likely will not know what to believe.

Still further, students come from all sort of backgrounds

Every major is represented in Core 350.

Because there are so many different levels of understanding and perspectives for each topic discussed in Core, it would be impossible to get every student on the same page, without dictating the data clearly and univocally.

For example, when discussing the climate change crisis in the third section of Core 350, the science majors will bring data that a sociology major might be overwhelmed by.

In the same way, the sociologist might offer an interpretation of the crisis that will be irrelevant to business majors. That business major will understand the pressures corporations are under and may offer a defense that might frustrate the science majors.

If over a hundred different perspectives are offered, it will be extremely difficult to discern truth and formulate an unassailable worldview.

CORY MARSHALL:
Galen, I would like to point out, though, that Core 250 (when I attended the class) set aside time for students to debate the issues and clarify stances. If this is possible in 250, why not in 350?

The diversity of the students should be considered an advantage, not a challenge, toward discussion.

Also, every major is not represented in Core 350: Every major is present.

If the class truly wanted to represent the various majors of the students, then assignments - particularly essays - would be designed to bring out the various fields the students represent. I agree, the business majors in the class do have a unique, different viewpoint than a science major like myself. Unfortunately, since no discussion occurred, I still don't know what theirs is.

GALEN SANFORD:
Again, it's very difficult to "represent" each major in such a large class setting. When I was in Core 250 any opinions and stances were expressed directly to the professor. The only peer-to-peer interactions occurred when students instant messaged on their laptops. And actually we got a lot of discussing done.

Perhaps Core 350 could profit from a bit of student rebellion: Students could use their laptops and Google Documents to discuss the lectures and edit their scenarios. Maybe if students ignored the rules, a could end up collaborating.

The other place student discussion occurred in Core 250, ironically was in the discussion groups. What do you think of the current second section of Core 350, which is entirely held in discussion group format? Did you find more opportunity for dialogue? Most of the discussion I've experienced is complaining about Core 350, rather than discussing the topics. That said, Dr. Waller told me Core 350 is attempting to revise itself this year.

So, now that we've complained, how would you revise Core to allow students to "apply their minds" rather than "suppressing their minds" for a grade?

CORY MARSHALL:
Here's how we can adapt Core 350 to better serve students: Include more "unit two's". Instead of spending a unit on "racism" and a single day on "affirmative action", spend a unit on affirmative action, then one on stem cell research, then one on humanitarian intervention.

The individual discussion groups in the second unit allowed for specific issues to be articulated and, most importantly, lessons to be learned.

As seniors, we have the ability to recognize which issues matter most to us. Therefore, Core 350 should start with a brief large group time at the beginning of the semester to cover its basic lessons, followed by three units covering specific issues in a small-group setting.

Registration would be similar to the Core program now, with students picking three discussion-group topics instead of one.

This style serves to springboard seniors into the post-Whitworth world with knowledge of the issues that they will most likely confront. It also creates an environment where both the professors and students are, dare-I-say, willing and active participants in discussion.

GALEN SANFORD:
I like the idea of implementing Core 350 through three discussion groups.

I get the impression from Dr. Le Roy and President Robinson that small class sizes are paramount to the Whitworth education. It's ironic the three required classes (Core 150, 250 and 350) have a student-to-professor ratio in the large class setting of 150 to 200 during the lectures.

By teaching the entirety of Core 350 in a small group setting, students will have direct interaction with both their professors and each other.

I think you're correct that students will learn.

Cory Marshall is a guest columnist and a senior majoring in biology and history. Contact him at cmarshall08@whitworth.edu

Galen Sanford is an opinions columnist and a senior majoring in philosophy. Contact him at galen.sanford@whitworthian.com.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools

The Whitworthian encourages readers to comment on any content on the whitworthian.com. Article comments can be posted by anyone. The opinions expressed are not necessarily the opinion of The Whitworthian, its editors or its staff. The Whitworthian strives to monitor and delete comments with profanity, advertisements, obscenity, plagiarism, personal attacks, threats of violence or that violate the law or common decency. However, since The Whitworthian does not control user submitted statements, we cannot promise that readers will not find offensive or inaccurate comments on occasion.

For this reason, The Whitworthian asks readers to be responsible and respectful in any comments posted. The responsibility for statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not the whitworthian.com. Readers are also encouraged to report questionable comments by e-mailing editor@whitworthian.com.