TEACHING INTRODUCTION TO SOCIOLOGY:
A RE-INTRODUCTION
TO THE STUDENT WORLD VIEW
Dennis L. Peck,
Ph.D.
The University
of Alabama
Tuscaloosa, Alabama
35487-0314
Abstract
The author reports on a class
exercise conducted in two sections of an introductory sociology course. This class exercise emerged after an evaluation
of the examination 1 test scores and averages class averages that were considered
unacceptable. The project involves student’s
reactions to and a comparison of in-class examination test scores with two take-home
examinations each of which were composed of the same type true/false and multiple
choice questions. The test results and issues relating to the
experience in a general principles course are discussed within the context of
recent evaluations of the organization of education.
Introduction
It is obvious, as Dreeban (1967)
notes, that schools contribute greatly to the socialization of children, especially
the learning of social conduct norms or principles of conduct most generally referred
to as situationally specific standards for behavior. Robert Dreeban’s analysis is germane to this
study in that he evaluated the process by which children become socialized to
the norms relating to economic and political participation in industrial societies.
Of the four norms (independence, achievement, universalism, and
specificity), the first two norms are of particular interest in that these relate
to personal responsibility and accountability (independence) and, secondly, to
behavior directed toward mastery of the environment according to standards of
excellence (achievement). Schools, as
agency, must not only work to establish general norms that are acceptable over
time and space, but these institutions often are required to work to displace
norms students learn early on in the home environment and from their peers.
We assume that over a period
of years students have learned the conduct norms that ultimately prepare them
for college life. These assumed learned
patterns of conduct, according to Dreeban (1967, p.220-221):
…will lead to the successful
accomplishment of tasks and bring gratification, they adopt those patterns as
the right way to act—that is, they value them.
It is within this context that an ideological dilemma
emerged caused as it were by a recent teaching experience which, in turn, led
to the thinking required for the development of this article.
A Reintroduction to the World View
Given the abstract ideas and
concepts that students often refer to as “vague” or, as Eckstein, Schronike, and
Delaney (1995, p.353) observe, “ambiguous definitions” of terms, teaching the
principles of a sociology course a challenge. After a hiatus of twelve years, I was presented the opportunity
to teach the gateway course to the discipline, an experience I found to be interesting
as well as cause for concern.
As observed by Babcock and Keith (1995 p.215), a critical element in the teaching/learning process is the choice of an introductory textbook. During the fall 1998 term, I selected Sociology (Stark 1998) for use in two sections of the introductory course. Despite the organizational similarity to other textbooks on the market, Stark’s publication differs from the clone type complaint posed by Agger (1989) in that the author’s approach is much like an engaging discussion with the reader albeit the subject matter pertains to the substance of the discipline. Consistent with the analysis of Babchuck and Keith (1995) who identify the major characteristics of the most popular sociology texts, the book authored by Rodney Stark relies heavily on scholarly books and journal articles. But the text is easy to read and it is full of important historical and contemporary facts and issues that are cast by the author into interesting sociological explanation.
In class, I discussed Stark’s
easy writing style, relating his method to what could be described as “a discussion”
with the reader, a style I thought, given the clear presentation and integration
of fact and concept, would be appreciated by all. As is usual for an introductory text, the number
of topics cover the entire discipline in a total of 21 chapters, only 16 of which
were assigned as outside reading.
Although the class is freshman
level, many students who enroll in the introductory principles course are at an
advanced stage of the educational process; few students are true freshmen. Indeed, the majority of students are at the
junior level; a significant number also were seniors, some of whom also were anticipating
graduation at the end of the term.
The course requirements were
neither unusual nor rigorous. Initially,
four 80 point true/false and multiple-choice examinations based on the reading
assignments and the lecture material were scheduled. The lowest score of the first three examinations
was to be eliminated prior to the determination of the final grade.
The contemporary issue germane
to this project appears consistent with the commentary offered by William Glasser
(1969, p.35):
Today much of what we call
education is merely knowledge gathering and remembering. Problem solving and thinking, never strong
parts of our educational system, have been downgraded in all but a few scientific
subjects.
Glasser was of course referring
to high school students. But many of these
same students become stymied at the college level where such thinking is both
encouraged and expected. Unfortunately, as noted by Eckstein, Delaney, and Schoenike
(1995, p.361), our own college textbooks also may contribute to this problem:
Most textbooks put the jargon in boldface, provide a glossary of
alphabetized terms, and offer
multiple-choice questions on demand so we can test the successful memorization
of those terms.
Focusing on but one function
of the human brain; memorization (the certainty principle) diminishes the major
function of the brain; that of creative thinking and the thoughtful exchange that
emerges from the educated thinking person. Realistically, student concerns are perhaps more consistent with
what Glasser refers to as “the measurement principle,” or the measure of how well
the certainty principle has been applied. In
other words, students, among others, have become conditioned to rote memorization
and the use of high grades as the measure of their academic success.
The Results of Examination One
The first examination, covered
the first four chapters of the text (pages =107) and related lecture material,
produced a class average that was considered to be less than satisfactory. Based on a standard of 90+ for A, 89 - 80 for
B, 70 - 79 for C, and 60 - 69 for D, the overall test results for each of the
two sections were low. (See Table 1)
Table 1. In-class 80 Item Examination Number1:
Class I (N = 59) Class
II (N = 60)
Score Percent Score Percent
Mean 51.4 (64.3) 49.7 (62.1)
Median 51.0 (63.8) 50.5 (63.1)
High 68 (85.0) 64 (80.0)
Low 36 (45.0) 33 (41.3)
S. D. = 8.16 S. D. =7.08
With 48 correct (out of the
80 test items) equal to a minimal passing grade of 60, the average class grade
of D (64.3 and 62.1 respectively) was cause for concern and, in turn, raised several
important questions. The first was, how
could material presented in this easy and most readable text along with the fully
outlined lecture material result in such a low test score average?
Second, given the results of what was considered to be an easy examination,
what could be expected in the future? Third,
what could I, as the course professor, do to assist these students to perform
at a higher level? And, finally, what
could the students do to improve their scores?
With all its vigor and cause
for individual anxiety, test taking is an analysis of individual achievement,
denoting preparation and mastery of the assigned material (Dreeban 1967, p.225).
Through the use of a standardized grading scale the relationship between
quality preparation and achievement (whether high or low) appears, as Dreeban
notes, almost self-evident. But if the
norms of independence (responsibility and accountability) and achievement (mastery
of the material) fail to take root in the primary and secondary stages of the
educational experience, then there is little reason to expect students who do
not perform well on examinations will accept the result as being related to the
failure to govern their own activities. Rather
than accept responsibility for the less than “expected” outcome, student reactions
often take many other forms, not the least of which is to place the blame for
personal failure on the course professor who creates examinations that are “unrealistic,”
“unfair” or “too difficult.” This reaction may be attributed, as noted by
Dreeban (p.232), to the “equity principle,”
or from the perspective of students, a lack of equity or fairness.
Several students complained.
One student, “a graduating senior,” stated the lecture delivery was at too high
a level, as were, he stated, the assigned readings. Perplexed, I soon determined what the course professor would do. That is, my intent was to embark on an exercise
in learning. But it was also important
to receive student reactions. This input
was garnered by requesting the students’ response to the following question: “What
can I do to improve my grade on the next examination?”
The responses were varied if not surprising.
One student offered a less than inspirational statement such as “memorize
the book.” Yet another male student, who scored one of
the highest grades (81 percent), indicated his needs as follows: Stress what is important. Review for the exam.
Tell us what things are important to study for the exam.
However, most individuals responded in a more reasonable manner. The following statements are representative of student reactions
to this question.
One female student, who scored
at the 50 percent level (40 correct out of 80 questions), responded:
What I can do is to actually read the chapters.
This first test sort of caught me off guard, and I was really unprepared
for it. Taking better notes can also help with the
studying.
Another female, who scored 50 percent, stated:
Study. Read the chapters. Look at my notes. I didn’t
study at all because I had three papers due that week. Since the lowest grade is dropped, I decided
not to worry about it. I think most people
felt this way, so grades should improve. This is my last semester, so I really
have to pass. I will study next time.
Yet another woman wrote:
What I think is my main problem
is that I don’t understand everything that you say in class, which makes it hard
for me to know what will be on the exam (scored 69.6 percent).
One student, who was unable to purchase a copy of the
text until only a few days prior to the examination, but earned a C grade (72
percent) on the examination, wrote:
I could enhance my performance
on the next test by doing the reading. Because I got the book so late I did not read the chapters. Also, I could begin preparing for the exam
earlier than I did.
Finally, a female, who achieved a low B grade (80 percent),
responded:
I need to do the readings more
than 1 week before the test. I should
spend more time working in the Study guide. I feel the information in class stayed with me; was easier to understand.
Mostly it is bookwork.
Results of Examination Two
Somewhat encouraged by some
of the above statements, the decision was made to schedule a 100 question take-home
examination. Similar in format to the
first examination, the second examination was passed out in class on a Monday
along with the following instructions: “This is a take home examination.
You are bound by the student honor code; you are to work alone on this
test without receiving assistance from anyone.”
My overture to this class of
students was intended both as a learning experience and a challenge. The challenge was to learn the material and
do well on the examinations. The intent
behind what I considered to be a unique opportunity to learn, encouraging these
students to again review the chapter material.
Assuming each student had previously read the chapter material and had
a reasonable set of class notes, it was thought students would perform well on
the examinations and, perhaps, in spite of what may represent an unconscious resistance,
learn something about their society.
The examination was to be returned
the following class period (Wednesday) at which time the students were to attach
a signed statement indicating whether they had worked on the examination alone
or if they had sought assistance. The results were encouraging; the class average increased to 82.6
and 83.1 percent respectively, a low B grade.
Table 2. Take Home 100 Item Examination Number 2:
Class I (N = 63) Class
II (N = 66)
Score Percent Score Percent
Mean 82.6 (82.6)
83.1 (83.1)
Median 85.0 (85.0 84.0 (84.0)
High 95 (95.0) 97 (97.0)
Low 49 (49.0) 59 (59.0)
S. D. = 9.02 S. D. = 8.16
Inspired by the results I again
requested students provide an evaluation. Focusing in part on the student honor code, one male student responded:
One thing about this kind of
test is that the majority do not prepare like they would for an ordinary test.
I would almost prefer the regular kind of test because then I would know
I earned the grade on my own, rather then something to refer to…. While I admit
that I partly worked with another (2 viewpoints are better than 1), and I did
check I received assistance, I will bet most received assistance from a classmate,
but checked they didn’t receive assistance…. I will say I did get to evaluate
each question in depth and bring up questions to each solution.
So, in essence, I did probably learn quite a bit from this test. (Scored
86 percent on examination two).
Lamenting that he had not taken advantage of the opportunity
presented, a male student wrote:
This approach does have value.
I do think that this approach can help students truly learn the material.
But, unfortunately, I personally did not take full advantage of this opportunity.
I did not spend the time on the test that I should have. (Score of 80 percent).
Focusing on the time required, a female student stated:
Though the test was still difficult
& there were questions I was not sure of—I learned a great deal from
the exam. 1st it was lengthy
& covered a great deal of text so I had to make myself allow the appropriate
amount of time. 2nd it made
me pay attention to the details in the readings rather than just general ideas.
Even if I didn’t do that well, this was a valuable learning experience.
The only problem was that even when I knew an answer (because of notes,
lecture etc.) I still felt I needed to try & find it in the book! Very time consuming!
Another woman wrote:
I believe that the take-home
test was very valuable because it required me to think and to learn more. I like the idea of the take home test because
there wasn’t as much pressure on me as far as having to be ready by the exact
class time. I had a couple of days to
do it instead of just 1 hour. I believe
I learned more with this test because I was actually trying to learn instead of
just memorizing the material. I spent
more time reading the material and learning than just memorizing definitions.
I understand the material better. (She
scored an 85 on the second examination, a 68 percent on examination one).
Although no one spoke out in
class against the take home examination, not everyone was in favor of the idea.
One female wrote:
Before taking this test, I
was against having a take home exam because I tend to be somewhat competitive
and I didn’t want anybody to cheat. But
when I took the test, I was able to be much more relaxed & spend much more
time reading the questions before answering them. I read the chapters before the test and went over my notes. I think I was better prepared going into the
test because I had so much more time to fit studying for it into my schedule.
I do think I learned more from this section than I did the last exam, and
I think a lot of that is due to the nature of the way the test was given.
I took me about 4 hours to complete the exam, and I learned a lot more.
(Scored 84).
Focusing on what is perhaps an unintended aspect of
the exercise one woman wrote:
I thought this experience had
both positive & negative effects. Positively,
I didn’t feel pressure to complete the exam, as I would have in a classroom.
I was able to relax and read through the questions and think them out.
On the negative side, I didn’t feel the pressure to study as much as I
would have—not to say that I didn’t study. But,
I didn’t feel the “do or die” mentally that usually comes along with test preparation.
I think that the experience was beneficial to the class.
It showed your willingness to help us and made us responsible for ourselves
by saying here it is but please be honorable about it. (Ranked at 93 percent).
With a focus on learning, an obvious intent of the
exercise, a male wrote:
The questions were asked in
such a way that I needed to understand the material, for the most part,
rather than to memorize it. Understanding
far outweighs memorization in benefits, even if my grade is lower.
I was able to spend plenty of time (about 3 ½ hrs) on this exam to take
in and digest the material. (Scored 90 on examination two, improving from 75 percent
on test 1).
Perhaps the following set of comments provide the kind
of student reaction professors seek when attempting to encourage the learning
experience. As one woman noted:
The exam really challenged
my thinking. It also made me realize within
the 1 hr + 15 min we took the first examination (about 50 minutes); and I compared
this to the take home it took to answer the questions on this second exam (about
two days 6-1/2 hours: 3-1/2 (Monday night, 3 hours - Tuesday).
This exam I was well prepared for, but the questions were a little tricky.
It caused me to think more & I honestly feel like I’ve learned a lot
w/in these 4 chapters. I don’t know how
others feel, but it seems like I put a lot of effort into answering those questions
& it was very challenging, but very rewarding. (81 percent).
Challenge notwithstanding, some students react in an
unanticipated manner. One example is captured
in the statement drafted by one advanced-level student:
I have always been a straight
A student. I received my lowest test grade
since I’ve at the University on your 1st test. I was very disappointed. This test, however, I think, or at least hope
I did better. I spent many hours beforehand
preparing for this test. Even still, I
had to use the book extensively & found it to be extremely challenging.
I do feel that I got a much better grasp of the material.
Had that particular test not have been a take-home, I would not have done
very well even though I had spent so much time preparing. (Scored 88 percent on
the examination v. 70 percent on the first examination).
Another wrote:
I greatly appreciated the opportunity
of being able to do a take-home examination. Although I read each of the chapters, I didn’t
completely grasp all of the concepts until I completed the exam. The exam was very challenging &
forced me to think carefully about each response. I believe that I got more out of this test than I could have even
imagined to accomplish by taking an in-class exam. (83 percent).
Perhaps the following statement best captures the intent
behind the exercise:
This test was useful to me
as a learning device. It caused me to
go into a more in-depth use of the textbook, and in some cases to connect ideas.
The test was more of a learning experience than a record of memorization
of facts. It allowed me to focus on the issues being discussed as much or
more than the grade I would be assigned for what I could remember off hand and
what I could not. In addition, this test
showed me the importance of being thorough in note taking. (93 percent v. 80 percent).
What is learning really about?
Forcing the issue of analytical thinking may not initially have been the
intended outcome of this exercise; nevertheless such thinking may have taken place,
as noted in the following:
By doing the take home exam,
I was forced to really dig and read and understand some of the concepts. Some of the questions required knowing three
or four, maybe more, concepts to answer the question correctly. I liked the test. (90 percent v. 70 percent).
Critical Thinking in Education
In the Introductory section
to Schools without Failure, William Glasser (1969) argues that analysts
of school organization generally cast their critical eyes toward the social, environmental,
and cultural factors affecting the success of students, but they generally fail
to evaluate the role that school organization has in causing student failure.
Briefly, Glasser's assessment is that this organizational structure and
the resultant high student failure rate is the result of an educational philosophy:
…of non-involvement, non-relevance,
and limited emphasis on thinking. Education must move toward the opposite philosophy – of involvement,
relevance, and thinking—or we will not solve the overwhelming problems of children
who fail in school (1969, p.xiv).
Perhaps an irony exists here. By responding to the challenge to provide “relevant
courses” for students, university faculty and administrators alike reorganized
the curricula during the past several decades, but they may have been remiss in
addressing the issues raised by Glasser, such as “involvement” and, especially,
“critical thinking.”
The future needs of society
will require that students develop a higher order level of thinking as opposed
to rote memorization of terms and definitions (Steele and Marshall 1996). Indeed, this requirement already exists in
the economic marketplace. Sociology as
a discipline and especially the introductory sociology course is well positioned
to assist college students achieve this higher order. This is the kind of thinking required by Stark’s
introductory text, especially when third order analytical examination questions
are used. I did not anticipate any problem
given the two classes were composed primarily of upper class status students.
Critical thinking is liberating.
Shepard (1999, p.xv) offers several reasons for why critical thinking is
important for college students. These reasons include the need to challenge
conventional wisdom, make informed judgments, and formulate solutions to problems.
These reasons extend well beyond individual need and hold important consequences
for society within politics, work, economics, and family life.
Results of Examination Three
Based on the test results and
the student reactions to the first take-home exercise, the decision was made to
continue this method through the third examination. A format similar to the first two examinations
was established, but this time students were advised that some additional third-level
questions would be selected from the Stark test bank which, along with questions
based on the lecture material, would constitute a 100 point examination.
It is noteworthy that level three questions require analytical thinking. That is, certain facts must be taken into consideration in order
to reach a conclusion and thus the appropriate response to the question or statement.
Again, the format for examination three was true/false and multiple-choice.
Inclusion
of third level questions made the third examination more challenging. Although the majority of the student evaluations
again appear to support the effort, student reactions included a new component.
Apparently level three “think” questions represent a challenge that, for
some individuals, may be too difficult to realize. The class averages declined
to 74.1 and 75.3 (see, Table 3). In the
following, student perceptions of the second take-home exercise are provided:
I like the take home tests
b/c I can think the questions thru. I
all ready read all the chapters & if I would have taken this test in class
I would have failed it b/c things that were asked could only be answered if you
could look it up in the book. (Male who scored a 68 for examination three; 59
percent and 87 percent for examinations 1 and 2, respectively)
Table 3. Take Home 100 Item Examination 3:
Class I (N = 64) Class II (N
= 67)
Score Percent Score Percent
Mean 74.1 (74.1) 75.3 (75.3)
Median 76.5 (76.5) 76.0 (76.0)
High 90 (90.0) 89 (89.0)
Low 41 (41.0) 34 (34.0)
S. D. = 10.49 S. D. = 9.60
However, many of the student
responses symbolize a different world-view from that which the course professor
intended. Rather than perceiving the test
exercise as a learning challenge to integrate the material, some students viewed
the experience as a task even more difficult than a regular examination, as noted
in the following:
I believe that on the whole,
this examination was much more difficult than the last one. I spent roughly the same amount of time on
the two tests; however, I was twice as prepared for this test. I had come to class, taken what I felt was
adequate notes & had gone over the chapters before. With all of this preparation I would think
I should be able to take this almost as an in-class assignment & do well.
However – in reality I spent well over 6 hours on this assignment.
I felt that this test actually took away from my learning experience because
I was not focusing on the main ideas and points but rather was looking for specific
answers to questions I felt were almost unrelated. I felt that, especially for a 100 level class, this test tested
much more than an overall understanding of sociology. In all honesty, I am fearful of the final because I truly do not
see how I will be able to prepare. (72
v. 86 percent for examination 2 and 74 for examination 1).
One can only attempt to identify
what thoughts and ideas engage the minds of students, especially when the exercise
was intended to enhance the learning experience. What could have gone wrong? Perhaps the answer to this question is contained
in the following:
I hate to be rude, but this
test was a joke. I worked on it for 2
days. Tuesday night I was up until 4:00
in the morning. I felt that about 30 questions
were totally ridiculous. About midnight
after working for almost 6 hours I was in tears. Compared to the last take-home test I felt
like I learned very little. Who really
cares about the age French boys leave home or what Japanese artists draw of American
soldiers. I feel as though this test was
made to be hard. And you succeeded.
If I had to take this test for the final— I might have just turned it in.
Without my book or notes, I would not have passed it. I think that if you are considering to make
the final that hard please consider an open book open notes test. I really would like a B in this class. I am a student who is here all the time, and
try hard. (Examination 1 = 69; examination
2 = 89; examination 3 = 76).
Another individual, reflecting on the difficulty factor,
wrote:
I enjoyed the take home test,
but I also thought it was exceptionally hard. I regularly attend class, listen, take good notes and review &
read outside class but this test was Hard. I spent a lot of time reading and thinking
about each question. With time the answers
appeared but I know I would have flat out failed this test had it been
given in the usual 1 hr. and 15 min class period. (Female with examination 1 =
64; examination 2 = 73; examination 3 = 77).
Some light can be observed
at the end of the tunnel when students indicate they understand something about
the learning process. One woman wrote:
The take home examination was
very helpful for me. Having the questions
& the book there helped me to grasp the concepts better. Sometimes, I have a hard time seeing the big
picture about the ideas discussed in the book, so being able to take the test
home helped me significantly (Examination 1 = 86; examination 2 = 91; examination
3 = 73).
One female captures much of that which every Professor
desires to hear (or read):
I honestly do believe I learn
a great deal from these take home tests. They
are difficult, but I assume you make them that way to make us learn.
I think it gives us responsibility. It’s a hard test—it (the final grade) shows
your effort. It is a good representation
of individual effort. (Examination 1 =
65; examination 2 = 83; examination 3 = 72).
Yet another statement offers some support for the effort
to encourage learning:
I approach this test in a slightly
different manner. I split the test into
a two-day project and found it less stressful. I still took about six hours, but it seemed
to go by quicker. I believe the take-home
test is still a great learning experience and I enjoyed actually learning
the material. Despite my different approach,
I did find this test more difficult than test #2.
However, I don’t think the material was harder, I just had more controversial
views on these topics. I enjoyed these
chapters more than any of the fourteen we’ve covered.
The theories and the concepts were really thought provoking, and that is
why it might’ve seemed harder to me. (Examination
1 = 75; examination 2 = 96; examination 3 = 88).
One woman, reflecting on the worthiness of the assignment,
wrote:
I really appreciate the take
home exams. I spent well over five hours
on it. I think that it makes us go through
each chapter more carefully. When I study
for exams I do not learn as much about the book/material as I do when studying
for take home exams. They are hard, but
I spend time on them. I don’t want you to think we don’t take them seriously. I think most of us take advantage of the opportunity.
(Examination 1 = 50; examination 2 = 77; examination 3 = 80).
Of course, failure to understand
the importance of the achievement standard is not lost on all college students.
Many students are aware that the university experience provides an important
arena in which to prepare for their ultimate success in other aspects of life
around which achievement is organized. The
student who drafted the next statement offers some insight into the anticipated
future work-related process.
The format of the last two
exams has been great. I think it benefits
the student by allowing time and resources to do the best one possibly can.
In the future, all of us will have adequate time and material when facing
problems in our careers, so why not allow us the chance to use materials and time
during tests now? I think the format is beneficial and am thankful
for the opportunity. (Examination 1 =
66; examination 2 = 92; examination 3 = 77).
The Final Examination
We
had reached a point in the semester where continuation of the exercise was impractical.
Despite strong urgings from a number of students to create a take home
final examination, the decision was made to employ the traditional testing method
as originally scheduled. A regular in-class examination similar to the
first examination was set. One major difference
between the final examination and all previous tests was the decision to include
only level one questions (recognition type questions) from both the test bank
and the lecture material. Accordingly,
the students were informed that no level two (association) or level three (analytical)
questions would be included in the final examination.
The results for the final examination, as shown in Table 4, indicate the
class averages substantially declined (average grades equal 65.6 percent and 66.9
percent respectively).
Table 4. In-class
80 Item Final Examination 4:
Class I (N = 63) Class II (N = 66)
Score Percent Score Percent
Mean 52.5 (65.6) 53.5 (66.9)
Median 53.0 (66.3) 54.5 (54.6)
High 72 (90.0) 69 (86.3)
Low 26 (32.5) 30 (37.5)
S. D. = 10.82 S.
D. = 8.44
Discussion
I
began my discussion of a dilemma experienced by raising some questions. I now return to these issues in developing
a discussion of the class-learning project.
Numerous reasons can be explored
in the attempt to explain the disappointing results of this experiment in learning.
Perhaps the achievement levels can be attributed to the differences in
educational experience, including the assumptions held by professors and the four
kinds of students (activists, fun-seekers, careerists, and intellectuals) identified
by Nash and Calonico (1993 p.89-94). Although
data are not available to test this model, it does appear that not all students
view the educational experience in the same fashion.
Philosophical
reflection on the class exercise within the framework of idealism (see Theodorson
and Theodorson (1969 p.194) may lead one to assume the typical student holds an
intense desire to learn, to diligently work in preparation for a special role
in the world community, and to contribute toward enhancement of the quality of
life. Thus, learning and performance,
as an ideal type, would be expected to correspond to a high degree.
And, this may indeed be the case for some students.
However, despite the fact many students claim to have learned from this
experience, the overall grade performance bears little resemblance to the expectations
held by an idealistic albeit pragmatic professor.
Indeed, in general, the empirical observations do not correspond well with
the ideal type mental construct initially envisioned.
It
appears almost too obvious to argue that the world-view of some professors and
that held by the typical student may be based on discrepant ideologies. That is, the values, as characterized by a
dominant student ideology, tend to assume a normative set characteristic of a
belief system that differs somewhat from that of the past. Learning for the sake of learning is replaced
by an emphasis on grade performance simply because grades are rewarded with credentials
that symbolize one’s preparation for the professional, informational, and technology
oriented reality of a post-industrial society.
The reading assignments for
the term were not large; only 16 of the 21 chapters in the Stark book were required
reading. Examination 1 included four chapters
totaling 107 pages; the other assignments included 94 pages for examination 2,
126 pages for examination 3, and 113 pages for the final examination.
In sum, a total of 440 pages of reading and review glossary material required
student attention.
The
final examination results closely parallel those of examination one; it seems
apparent from the class averages that perhaps only a few students gained
much insight from the “learning” experience despite the consistency of written
comments in support of the professor’s expressed goal.
The test scores for each of the examinations are shown in Table 5. Comparing the results of examination one with
those of examinations two and three are especially noteworthy; the average scores
for the two classes for each of these three examinations are similar. Average
scores for the in-class examinations 1 and 4 also do not vary to any great extent;
the averages for class I are 64.3 and 65.6 while the averages for class II are
62.1 and 66.9 respectively.
Table
5. A Comparison
Class I Class II
Mean Score Percent (Qs) Mean Score Percent (Qs)
Exam1 51.4 64.3 (80) 49.1 62.1 (80)
Exam 2 82.6 82.6 (100) 83.1 83.1 (100)
Exam 3 74.1 74.1 (100) 75.3 75.3 (100)
Exam 4 52.5 65.6 (80) 53.5 66.0 (80)
However, some differences can
be noted, namely the results for the in-class examinations one and four compared
with the performance recorded for the two take home examinations. Each class test, as noted, was similar in format
although the content differed from examination to examination in terms of the
level of sophistication of some of the questions/statements. Although the in-class performances are consistently
low, the average class scores for take-home examinations two and three are more
encouraging: 82.6 and 83.1 for examination 2 compared to 74.1 and 75.3 for examination
3.
Less encouraging is the substantial
decrease in the scores observed when examination two and examination three are
compared. The obvious question is:
Why should the two take-home examinations, each of which allowed students
to make use of the text and their class notes, differ so dramatically?
A reasoned explanation may
be attributed to a student dependency and/or complacency that has carried over
from the junior high and high school periods into the college experience. The test results suggest that a dependency
factor may indeed operate in the introductory level courses. Many students appear to be accustomed to having
the parameters of examinations laid out for them in a very specific manner. When such direction or guidance is not provided,
some students may be unable or perhaps unwilling to function at a level expected.
Recall the earlier statement by the student who wrote:
Stress what is important.
Review for the exam. Tell us what things are important to study
for the exam.
Some professors choose to narrow the range of learning
opportunity for students by informing them of the material most likely to appear
on the examination. Unfortunately, by
establishing the “test review” boundaries that identify material that is important
to “study” (as well as that which is not), such professors unwittingly support
this student “learning dependency” factor.
In their concluding analysis
of modern education, Nash and Calonico (1993, p.96) observe that the meaning of
education is changing in the American society.
Given their assessment of the assumptions upon which the American educational
system is structured, and their discussion of student types, these analysts conclude
that: 1) the orientations students hold of the academy are formed prior to their
entry to a college or university and, 2) the state of the economy and the political
mood of the country determine student perceptions toward and choice of course
work. In both instances, non-involvement
and apathy seem to hold sway. Although this changed meaning may be nothing
other than a normal part of cyclical change, the reactions of contemporary college
age students to the challenge of higher education may well have roots in a previous
experience.
Thus, these findings support
William Glasser’s (1969) assertion that the two principles of certainty (rote
memory and feedback) and measurement (test scores) dominate the primary and secondary
systems of education. Some of these students
appear to have been conditioned by what Glasser refers to as the Certainty
Principle; that is, they learned from teachers who emphasized teaching techniques
that are consistent with “teaching to
the test.” And, during the 1990s, the cultural value placed
on scoring high marks has not been lost in the educational milieu. Given that high marks are translated through
test scores, the mark of a well-educated person is deemed to result from test
scores rather than one’s ability to think and to creatively ponder. Despite the more recent enthusiastic call for
high level thinking by analysts such as Persell (1992) and Steele and Marshall
(1996), as previously noted by Glasser (1969, pp.38-39), numerical values serve
as the high-water mark of educational achievement. Having been socialized to respond to the certainty
of an answer and being rewarded in turn through the measurement principle, students
cannot be faulted for expecting much of the same when entering into the hallways
of higher education.
Ideology or world-view, according
to Boudon and Bourricaud (1990 p.208), is “…a species of the genus which is constituted
by beliefs [the behavior of social actors depends on beliefs]” where “…most ordinary
individual action or collective action, implies support for normative propositions”
(p.209). In other words, values and norms are important when assessing human action
as well as reaction. Within this context, the extant academic ideology
may be under challenge by an administration supported student world-view that
values grades rather than the pursuit of and the accumulation of knowledge.
In concluding this discussion,
Glasser’s (1969, p.43) insight of the past seems to hold relevance for the contemporary
experience:
The goals of education are to give people the mental tools to deal
effectively with new situations,
to place fewer restrictions on their lives caused by fear of difficult problems,
and to enable people to deal with new situations and difficult problems rationally
rather than emotionally. None of these goals can be attained by the
present emphasis on the certainty and measurement principles.
Such thoughts are consistent
with Jon Shepard’s (1999) rationale for why critical thinking is important to
college students. Students who are unwilling
or unable to think through the problems of life and who care little about the
political and social issues that lie outside their secure academic world of student
isolation will not provide the maximum effort an increasingly complex society
demands for success. As Glasser asserts,
both students and their elders alike often fall back on their reliance on the
certainty principle. In turn, a failure
to resolve difficult situations that require the ability to go beyond easy (recognizable)
answers leaves both student and professor at odds over the meaning of an education.
References
Agger, Ben. 1988.
“Do Books Write Authors?: A Study of Disciplinary Hegemony.”
Teaching Sociology 17:365-369.
Babchuck, Nicholas and Bruce Keith. 1995. “Introducing
the Discipline: The Scholarly
Context of Introductory Texts.”
Teaching Sociology 23:215-225.
Boudon, Raymond and Francois Bourricaud. 1990. “
Beliefs” Pp. 41-49 and
“Ideologies” Pp. 207-212 in
A Critical Dictionary of Sociology. 2nd
edition. Translated by Peter Hamilton. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.
Dreeben, Robert. 1967. “The Contribution of Schooling to the Learning of Norms.”
Harvard Educational Review. 37:211 – 237.
Eckstein, Rick, Rebecca Schoenke, and Kevin Delaney.
1995. “The Voice of Sociology:
Obstacles to Teaching and Learning
the Sociological Imagination.” Teaching
Sociology 23:353-363.
Glasser, William.
1994. Schools Without failure
New York: Harper and Row.
Nash, Jeffrey E. and James M. Calonico. 1993. Institutions in Modern Society: Meanings,
Forms, and Character Dix Hills, New York: General Hall.
Persell, Caroline H. 1992. “Bringing PCs into
Introductory Sociology Courses: First
Steps, Missteps, and Future
Prospects.” Teaching Sociology
20: 91-103
Shepard, Jon M. 1999.
Sociology Belmont, CA.: Wadsworth.
Stark, Rodney. 1998.
Sociology 7th edition. Belmont, CA.: Wadsworth.
Steele, Stephen F. and Sherry Marshall. 1966. “On Raising Hopes of Raising Teaching: A
Glimpse of Introduction to
Sociology in 2005.” Teaching Sociology 24: 1-7.
Theodorson,
George A. and Achilles G. Theodorson. 1969. Modern
Dictionary of
Sociology. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell. Pp.193-196.
