Yes, I think this is a spectrum, and I don’t at all believe that what I do would work everywhere. I get the cream of the crop of students; they’ve done a lot in their lives to even reach the point that have read my course description.But I begin with the premise that they are naturally inclined to learn, and…
Yes, I think this is a spectrum, and I don’t at all believe that what I do would work everywhere. I get the cream of the crop of students; they’ve done a lot in their lives to even reach the point that have read my course description.But I begin with the premise that they are naturally inclined to learn, and I don’t think that’s limited to grad students.
Much of what I teach revolves around Systems Thinking, based on Senge’s The Fifth Discipline, being
1) Personal Mastery
2) Mental Models
3) Shared Vision
4) Collective Learning
5) Systems Thinking
With this in mind, should the instructor be the ‘arbiter of truth’? In Personal Mastery, it’s reasonable for the instructor to determine if the student has mastered the topic (e.g., 3rd grade arithmetic). But the value of the instructor’s perception of reality declines as the purpose of learning moves consecutively higher in the hierarchy. A PhD dissertation, by definition, cannot be evaluated for Mastery, because it must be unique. To complete the degree, you must know more than anyone else in your topic, meaning no one else can be judge of your mastery. Eventually, it is up to the student to teach their committee.
So, can we shift the responsibility for ‘truth arbitration’ lower on the spectrum? The 3rd grade math teacher must insist that 2+2=4, but can we lower the grade level at which we expect students to find truth on their own?
As you discuss in your excellent dissertation, grades are extrinsic and transactional, and I posit that we’ve lost emphasis on authentic learning in a means which creates societal value. In fact, a challenge I face is that my grad students are so conditioned to expecting points and grades that I need to wean them off their mental models that feedback in life is continuous and measurable.
IMO - grades have a purpose, but have also become a crutch, for students, instructors, administrators, accreditation agencies, and governments. We all need to reevaluate.
“Differences between students”
Yes, I think this is a spectrum, and I don’t at all believe that what I do would work everywhere. I get the cream of the crop of students; they’ve done a lot in their lives to even reach the point that have read my course description.But I begin with the premise that they are naturally inclined to learn, and I don’t think that’s limited to grad students.
Much of what I teach revolves around Systems Thinking, based on Senge’s The Fifth Discipline, being
1) Personal Mastery
2) Mental Models
3) Shared Vision
4) Collective Learning
5) Systems Thinking
With this in mind, should the instructor be the ‘arbiter of truth’? In Personal Mastery, it’s reasonable for the instructor to determine if the student has mastered the topic (e.g., 3rd grade arithmetic). But the value of the instructor’s perception of reality declines as the purpose of learning moves consecutively higher in the hierarchy. A PhD dissertation, by definition, cannot be evaluated for Mastery, because it must be unique. To complete the degree, you must know more than anyone else in your topic, meaning no one else can be judge of your mastery. Eventually, it is up to the student to teach their committee.
So, can we shift the responsibility for ‘truth arbitration’ lower on the spectrum? The 3rd grade math teacher must insist that 2+2=4, but can we lower the grade level at which we expect students to find truth on their own?
As you discuss in your excellent dissertation, grades are extrinsic and transactional, and I posit that we’ve lost emphasis on authentic learning in a means which creates societal value. In fact, a challenge I face is that my grad students are so conditioned to expecting points and grades that I need to wean them off their mental models that feedback in life is continuous and measurable.
IMO - grades have a purpose, but have also become a crutch, for students, instructors, administrators, accreditation agencies, and governments. We all need to reevaluate.