I was talking with a friend today about the depersonalization of the college experience that Palmer decries in his book and he replied that I was forgetting about the perspective of the organization. Organizations exist to perpetuate their existence. Business is an organization that survives on the basis of its ability to make money. Colleges have a business model built around a product that students purchase for various personal, social, and economic reasons. Unfortunately, this product often looks less like learning and more like a competition to earn a piece of paper bearing the brand reptuation (name) of some university that others will accept as proof of the students' ability to function within a specific field.
Actually, the degree probably has less to do with the students ability to function within that field as it does with the college confirming (perhaps through the process of accreditation) that its teachers have exposed the students to a certain set of information about the field. The reason why colleges focus on exposure to a specific information set is that this allows for "efficient" teaching. One professor can share a standardized set of information with a room full of 50 others who may or may not connect with that information in any way. This is also the power of books: a single idea can be shared with a large number of people without additional effort by the author. Efficiency and standardization is the best way for the educational organization to make the money it needs to stay in operation and perhaps be extremely profitable.
Although Palmer spent some time exploring the idea of a "sacred" subject that students can gather around to explore, this was not the emphasis of his idea in the book "Courage to Teach." The "subject-centered classroom" he describes is not one that requires students to be exposed to all aspects of a subject. Rather, his subject-centered classroom is one in which students learn how to relate to the subject on a personal level.
Students need to personalize the information. They need to engage with it, interact with it, and do so within the context of relationships with themselves and with others. “We honor both the discipline and our students by teaching them how to think like historians or biologists or literary critics rather than merely how to lip-sync the conclusions others have reached (Palmer, p. 126). In this phrase, Palmer outlined the other end of yet another paradox. Students need to know certain things about the subject, but more importantly, they need to know how to be in relationship with that subject.
Although this looks alot more like learning - and a lot more exciting, from the perspective of college administrators, it also looks a lot more expensive! Perhaps one of our roles as educators will be discover or create a new process of education that allows students to participate in the individualized encounter with a great subject. Because of the economics of educational organizations, Palmer argues that a transition to this kind of learning experience will probably not come from an organizational level, but from an individual level when people like us become passionate about making sure that our students get the chance to learn!
Personalization comes only with the sacrifice of efficiency, but if students are to be educated, perhaps this is a necessary expense. Have any of you encountered this kind of conflict between the organization and the experience of learning you would like to provide for your students?
Palmer, P., J. (2007). The Courage to Teach: Exploring the Inner Landscape of a Teacher’s Life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
In an increasingly diverse learning environment, cultural competence may be considered to be an essential tool of the lifelong learner. The ability to navigate a varying landscapes of perspectives and approaches to knowledge, problem solving and relationships is vital for the success of students and graduates alike. Perhaps one function of education could be to equip students to build bridges instead of walls at the points of difference.
That said, I think it is impossible to teach from a value-neutral perspective. Education takes place in the context of a vast web of interconnected ideas, lifestyles, beliefs, etc... Parker Palmer in "The Courage to Teach" makes a strong case against disconnecting the individual from the learning experience in pursuit of a pure objective truth. Basically, don't try to be value-neutral. Recognize the differences and learn to value them as they provide valuable insight into the subject being studied.
Andragogy in its current form probably deserves a criticism of its generalizations that do not account for cultural variations. But does this make its ideas irrelevant?
I would suggest that the proponents of andragogy as well as the critical/feminist/africentric educators all have a similar agenda: to create an educational experience that more effectively serves the needs of its diverse learners. The issue is that andragogy in its current form does not solve this problem for anyone besides me: a western male with white skin. Thus, its uncritical adoption creates an unfair advantage and promote the continuation of injustice simply by maintaining the status quo. But how many different angles do we have to consider in order to create an alternative to andragogy that effectively confronts the status quo? So far we have explored Eurocentric, and Africentric ideas. What would the American Indian perspective be? What about the Alaskan natives? What about Arabic, Hindu, or Chinese cultures? All of these have a significant cultural presence, but have we considered their implications for education yet? I wonder if we ever will...
About the Author
Kevin J has experienced the joy and frustration of adult learning in the context of education programs around the world at more than seven different universities. This portfolio is part of his efforts to rewrite the collegiate experience for future generations of learners.