Part of learning to teach in the 21st Century is learning as much as you can about your primary audience. It is clear that not only have the cultural references of each generation changed but so have the fundamental characteristics of the people we are trying to reach. So who are these folks? As I mentioned in an earlier post, it is easy to hide behind labels that have been tossed around. It is much more difficult to try and parse out the specifics of the generation and come up with action plans to try and help them learn in a way that best suits their needs.
Luckily, Grace Wigal, director of the College of Law’s Academic Excellence Program, has done just that. Last week, she presented to our faculty a talk designed to help us be more effective guides for generation millennial. During her talk, Grace discussed research regarding what defining characteristics this generation, on the whole, shares. Here is what she discovered.
Generation millenials - growing up with a heavy dose of Nickelodeon and targeted consumerism (like Baby Gap and Sports Illustrated for Kids) - have heard over and over again that they are special. No surprise then that they actually believe it.
• They are confident;
• They are team-oriented;
• They are achievement-goal oriented ;
• They are conventional/conservative;
• They are service-oriented.
Over the next few posts, I want to explore some of the implications for each of these characteristics and discuss the impact that they can have on a professor’s teaching style. I will also share my experiences with teaching this group of kids and how I have seen those characteristics reflected in my own teaching. For me, hearing Grace’s presentation regarding these characteristics, shed light on why my students respond a certain way to different tactics I employ. It’s not surprising: with the average age of WVU law students being 26 years old, we are right in the middle of teaching this generation.
In addition to the internal characteristics of this generation, there also certain external factors that will influence how we teach them. For instance, according to Grace:
• Young adults (18 - 34) have declined from being those most likely to read literature to those least likely;
• Fewer than 40% of high school seniors are spending at least six hours per week on homework;
• Only a quarter of entering college students are reading ready;
• In fact, many college students will not have been required to write a seven-page paper over the entire course of their four year degree.
This can cause huge adjustments for first year law students who are suddenly required to read over a hundred pages of dense law materials in a week while simultaneously writing an 8-10 page paper that analyzes a specific area of the law in rigorous detail their first semester. Never mind the fact that most law schools have a seminar paper requirement to graduate, in which students will have to right an analytically critical paper of publishable quality, usually between 25 – 30 pages long.
Given the huge gap between their level of preparedness and what we expect of them, what is the appropriate institutional response? Is it to simplify (some would say “dumb down”) our curriculum to have our teaching needs meet college students where they are? One of the concerns voiced during the colloquy is that doing this will have long term effects on soon-to-be practicing attorneys who (many feel) will be ill-equipped to perform the complex analysis that clients need.
What about the process of raising students up to the level of academic rigor that we as a law school feel is necessary? The most universal standard for doing that would be by grading students harshly – in essence dis-incentivizing what we feel is sub-standard performance. But then, how does that affect students who have to compete in the job market with other law schools who, many feel employ grade inflation?
This can prove to be a daunting dilemma for professors who want to encourage students to work at an exemplary level yet who don’t want to handicap students by using tougher criteria than at other schools. I have no easy answers.
My own rag-tag method can properly be seen as a paternalistic one. For instance, in my corporate governance seminar, I will have seen versions of my students’ work at least three times before they submit their final draft. That way, I can impart my ideas and standards to them throughout the semester through individual counseling, instead of taking the chance that they will perform to the level I require on their own. However, this method comes at great cost – there is a significant amount of work involved in this one-on-one mentoring and, as a pre-tenured professor, several colleagues have pointed out that it is a cost that will take its toll on my scholarly production (still seen by many as the ultimate yardstick for winning tenure).
So, short of changing the standards of tenure review for professors, doing this work comes with the knowledge that the time I spend with my students will probably not be reflected in my tenure file in a few years time. Still, that is the choice that I have made. Maybe, when it comes closer to tenure I will make a different choice, but for me right now, seeing my students finally perform at the level that will make them exemplary is worth it. However, I’m curious as to choices that other have made. Please feel free to share your thought, comments and suggestions on how to teach excellence to students and what sacrifices will come as a result.
No comments:
Post a Comment