Course Syllabus

Note: Individual Instructors complete the asterisked (*) components of the syllabus. ALL other components will be prescribed by University College, the Department Chair, or Course Custodian and must be included on each instructor’s syllabus as provided.

x NEW (CAC Approval Date): 4/20/06

UPDATED (Date): 7/13/07

*TERM (Spring I) / YEAR (2008) / CAMPUS LOCATION (Santa Maria)

COURSE NUMBER, TITLE and CREDITS

EDAU 678 Leadership for Diversity, Equity and Community 3 credits

*INSTRUCTOR NAME AND CONTACT INFORMATION
David R. Preston, Ph.D.
voice : 805-709-0120
e-mail: dpreston.learning@gmail.com
office hours / or out of class time contact information (BY APPT.)

CUC COURSE CUSTODIAN

Michael Stuckhardt, Ed.D.
stuckhar@chapman.edu

BULLETIN COURSE DESCRIPTION

Candidates will examine issues related to equity, diversity and their implications for educational settings. Personal and community biases will be scrutinized regarding: race, gender, socio-economic status, culture, sexual orientation, religion, second language learners and persons with special needs . Through coursework, group work, and situational case studies candidates will be challenged to examine their attitudes toward these critical issues and to become sensitive and proactively responsive to them. Candidates will learn of the leadership capacities needed to ensure access, academic and social equity for all members of the extended school community.

PREREQUISITES

None

RESTRICTIONS

None

ESSENTIAL EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES

Word, EXCEL and Site/District Data Systems

COURSE LEARNING OBJECTIVES
This is a required Course for the Preliminary Administrative Services Credential. The course content is aligned with the California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (CPSEL) and the Standards of Quality and Effectiveness from the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (C.C.T.C).



By the end of the course the candidate should be able to . . .
1. Examine and self assess their own stated and implied assumptions, attitudes and expectations regarding race, gender, class, sexual orientation, ability, age, culture, language and religion. Help others to identify, examine and self assess the same qualities, so that school policies, curriculum and relationships support a fair environment within the extended school community. (CCTC) 4 a, 4e, 4f, 5a, 5b, 6d6

2. Develop the concept of moral, transformational leadership and begin to apply its theoretical principles in praxis. Understand how to lead a site in creating the conditions and supervise practices that lead to high expectations and achievement for all students. This knowledge includes a collaborative approach to insuring an appropriate learning context that meets the needs for each child in the classroom as well as extracurricular and co-curricular activities. (CCTC) 4a, 4b, 4e, 4g, 6e1, 6e4, 6f3, 10e

3. Recognize the underrepresented groups of the extended school community and the historical and philosophical forces that have led to inequities, to critically analyze current conditions and to work to redress the situations that limit: respect, voice, access and opportunities to fully participate and succeed as learners/citizens in the school community. (CCTC) 4c, 4d, 5b

4. Conduct inquiry, become knowledgeable and have direct experience in working with at least one of the aforementioned groups found in California schools. This expertise includes knowledge of their history and characteristics as well as the ability to discern the historical and philosophical forces that have given rise to institutional practices, policies, laws and allocation of resources that have negatively impacted that group in schools. To understand the need for transformational leadership and systems change which make equity, diversity and access central to institutional policies and practices. (CCTC) 4b, 4c, 4d, 4h, 6d1, 6d5, 6d6, 10f

5. Understand that we change ourselves, not others. As leaders, to use the course tools to facilitate group communication and change processes that foster academic and social success based up democratic principles of equity, access, citizenship and community. (CCTC) 4e, 4f, 5g, 6d5, 6d6

6. Understand that public education needs a multi level and multipurpose system to assess whether it is meeting its
own stated purposes. If a purpose of education is to sustain a democratic society, then to be publicly accountable, assessment must include:
• the degree that there is an open, safe and welcoming environment across differences for the direct experiences of learning and living together as citizens.
• The degree that the stakeholders of the extended school community participate in educational partnerships, and contribute to building a just and fair school community with access to quality, meaningful curriculum, programs, pedagogy and discipline for all participants.
(CCTC) 4b, 4d, 4h, 5c, 5d, 6d5,6d6, 6f3, 10f
7. Reflect deeply and communicate effectively a vision, rationale and commitment to principles of affirming diversity, seeking equity and cultivating social justice for all members of the extended school community in a democratic society. (CCTC) 4a, 4c, 4e, 4f, 5a, 5b, 5e, 5g, 11f, 11i

8. Improve the learning of all students and subgroups of students based on the utilization of multiple assessment measures to evaluate student learning. (CCTC) 11c

MAJOR STUDY UNITS
1. Examining Personal Assumptions and Building Theoretical Concepts
Reading and Discussing
Adult Learning Theories, Critical Theories and Pedagogy, Moral Leadership, Transformational Leadership
Constructing Cultural Autobiographies and Cross Cultural Interviews and
Observation, Participation and Reflection on Panel Discussion

2. Identifying Underrepresented Groups and Learning About Historical and Philosophical Movements towards Equity through readings, discussions and written reflections
Race, gender, class, sexual orientation, ability, age, culture, language and religion.


3. Facilitating Connectedness and Civil Engagement between school and community
Working with parents, families and local community members
Working with community groups, (civic, business, corporate and social agencies)
Working with policy, law and finance at multiple levels
Understanding the aspirations and goals of each group through facilitation
Understanding fairness and respect as central to schooling in a democratic society
Taking action to build fair communities across differences through facilitation

4. Facilitating Connectedness and Civil Engagement among the school constituencies
Governance: Roles, Rules, Norms, Structures, Procedures and Processes
Curriculum: Core Curriculum, Pedagogy, Discipline
Programs: Co Curricular, Extracurricular, Externships, Partnerships
Staffing: Hiring, Supervision, Evaluation, Dismissal
Understanding the aspirations and goals of each stakeholder group
Understanding fairness and respect as central to schooling in a democratic society.
Taking action to build fair communities across differences.

5. Facing Challenges and Overcoming Barriers to meaningful, equitable change
Magical, naïve and transformational problem-posing- P. Freire
Roles of perpetrator, bystander and citizen.
Collection and distribution of resources
Law, policy, regulation and norms
Ethical Dilemmas-Case Studies

6. Using the following strategic tools for implementation and assessment
Cultural Proficiency: Strategic Planning, Leading the Conversations
Listening Across Differences, Discourse and Silence
School/Community Diversity Panel/Task Force
Equity Audits, Community Forum
Culture of Inquiry, Collaborative Social Action Projects
Inclusive Vision for Learning, Assessment and Accountability

7. Integrating commitment and passion for fairness and justice into your leadership profile and personal identity.


*INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES
Lecture, Socratic discussion, group work, student presentations, individual research, case studies, media and alternatives/additions as appropriate



REQUIRED TEXTS

Lindsey, R.B., Roberts, L.M., and Campbell-Jones, F. (2005). The culturally proficient school: An implementation guide for school leaders. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press. (ISBN: 0761946810)

Payne, R. K. Ph.D. (4th Revised) A Framework for Understanding Poverty, Aha! Process, Inc. Latest Edition. (ISBN: 1-929229-48-8)

Chapman On-Line Bookstore: WWW.mbsdirect.net/chapman



RECOMMENDED TEXTS

Amanti, C., Gonzalez, N.E. & Moll, L., (Eds.) (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing Practices in Households, Communities and Classrooms. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (ISBN: 0805849173)

Marshall, C. and Oliva, M. (Eds.). (In press, 2006). Leadership for social justice: Making revolutions in education.

Ryan, J. (2003). Inclusive leadership, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

*STUDENT PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS
participation & successful, timely completion of assignments


*METHODS OF EVALUATION FOR DETERMINING GRADES
observation, written/oral feedback on assignments

ATTENDANCE AND OTHER CLASS POLICIES
Class Attendance policies are determined by each instructor and shall be included on the course outline distributed during the first week of each class. The university recommends as a minimal policy that students who are absent 20% of the course should be failed.


CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
ACADEMIC WRITING STANDARDS

Specific writing standards differ from discipline to discipline, and learning to write persuasively in any genre is a complex process, both individual and social, that takes place over time with continued practice and guidance. Nonetheless, Chapman University has identified some common assumptions and practices that apply to most academic writing done at the university level. These generally understood elements are articulated here to help students see how they can best express their ideas effectively, regardless of their discipline or any particular writing assignment.

Venues for writing include the widespread use of e-mail, electronic chat spaces and interactive blackboards. Chapman University is committed to guaranteeing that students can expect all electronic communication to meet Federal and State regulations concerning harassment or other “hate” speech. Individual integrity and social decency require common courtesies and a mutual understanding that writing--in all its educational configurations--is an attempt to share information, knowledge, opinions and insights in fruitful ways.

Academic writing (as commonly understood in the university) always aims at correct Standard English grammar, punctuation, and spelling.

The following details are meant to give students accurate, useful, and practical assistance for writing across the curriculum of Chapman University College.

Students can assume that successful collegiate writing will generally:

• Delineate the relationships among writer, purpose and audience by means of a clear focus (thesis statements, hypotheses or instructor-posed questions are examples of such focusing methods, but are by no means the only ones) and a topic that’s managed and developed appropriately for the specific task.

• Display a familiarity with and understanding of the particular discourse styles of the discipline and/or particular assignment.

• Demonstrate the analytical skills of the writer rather than just repeating what others have said by summarizing or paraphrasing

• Substantiate abstractions, judgments, and assertions with evidence specifically applicable for the occasion whether illustrations, quotations, or relevant data.

• Draw upon contextualized research whenever necessary, properly acknowledging the explicit work or intellectual property of others.

• Require more than one carefully proofread and documented draft, typed or computer printed unless otherwise specified.
DOCUMENTATION
Any material not original to the student must be cited in a recognized documentation format (APA, ASA, MLA or Chicago-style) appropriate to the particular academic discipline. For quick reference to documentation standards for various fields you may refer to: www.chapman.edu/library/reference/styles.
Deliberate use of information or material from outside sources without proper citation is considered plagiarism and can be grounds for disciplinary action. See the explanation of Academic Integrity below.

ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
As a learning community of scholars, Chapman University emphasizes the ethical responsibility of all its members to seek knowledge honestly and in good faith. Students are responsible for doing their own work, and academic dishonesty of any kind will not be tolerated. "Violations of academic integrity include, but are not limited to, cheating, plagiarism, or misrepresentation of information in oral or written form. Such violations will be dealt with severely by the instructor, the dean/center director, and the standards committee. Plagiarism means presenting someone else's idea or writing as if it were your own. If you use someone else's idea or writing, be sure the source is clearly documented." Other guidelines for acceptable student behavior are specified in the Chapman University College Catalog.


ACADEMIC WRITING GUIDE


Student’s Name________________________________ Instructor _______________________________

Paper Assignment ______________________________Course Title______________________________


(Instructor: Read the entire paper through then reflect on its merits employing the following criteria. Our goal is to provide guidance to the student progressively in order to improve the quality of his or her writing.)

Criteria Comments NSW Dev WD
The writer demonstrates an understanding of the assignment by using a style, form and language that is appropriate for its intended audience.
The writer has chosen a topic in accord with the assignment and limited it sufficiently to explore in depth in the space allotted.
The paper focuses its presentation by means of a clear statement of purpose (thesis statement, hypothesis or instructor posed question) and logically organized sub-topic paragraphs or sections.
The writer substantiates abstractions, judgments and assertions with specific illustrations, facts and evidence appropriate to the assignment and/or discipline.




The writer has added to on-going discussions of the topic with his or her own critical analysis, rather than simply repeating what others have said through quotation-stacking, paraphrasing or summaries.




The writer draws upon research whenever necessary to support critical analysis or assertions made and properly acknowledges the work of others by utilizing a standard documentation format acceptable for the course.




The paper conforms to the minimal essentials of Standard American English grammar, word choice, spelling and punctuation.





N S W = Needs Significant Work, D = Developing WD = Well Developed


OVERALL RATING

The writer meets the needs of the particular audience and succeeds in his or her intended purpose--honestly engaging the subject and establishing her or his authority by offering a persuasive and supportable analysis. Needs
Significant Developing Well Developed
Work
⎮⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯→
Comments:



A. If this version of the paper is to receive a grade, the grade is_______. Instructor______ Date ______


AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT STATEMENT

Any personal learning accommodations that may be needed by a student covered by the “Americans with Disabilities Act” must be made known to the Campus Director or Advisor as soon as possible. This is the student's responsibility. Information about services, academic modifications and documentation requirements can be obtained from the Director of a Chapman University College campus.

QUICK ACCESS TO THE ON-LINE CHAPMAN LIBRARY RESOURCES
http://www.chapman.edu/library/


SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, B. A., & Boykin, A. W. (1992). African-American children and the educational process: Alleviating culture discontinuity through prescriptive pedagogy. School Psychology Review, 21(4), 586-596.

Arroyo, C.G., & Zigler, E. (1995). Racial identity, academic achievement, and the psychological well-being of economically disadvantaged adolescents. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 69(5), 903-914.

Banks, C. (2005). Improving multicultural education: Lessons from the intergroup education movement. New York: Teachers College Press.

Banks, J. (2004). (Ed.) Handbook on research on multicultural education (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Banks, J. (1997). Educating citizens for a multicultural society. New York: Teachers College Press.

Boler, M. (Ed.). (2004). Democratic dialogue in education: Troubling speech, disturbing silence. New York: Peter Lang.

Bracey, G.W. (Ed.) (August 2005). Equity and Excellence, Special Issue: Social Justice Implications of No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis Group. 38 3.

Cortes, C. (2002). The making- and remaking- of a multiculturalist. New York: Teachers College Press.

Cortes, C. (2000). The children are watching: How the media teach about diversity. New York: Teachers College Press.

Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children. New York: New Press.

English, F. W. (2002). On the intractability of the achievement gap in urban schools and the discursive practice of continuing racial discrimination. Education and Urban Society, 34(3), 298-311.

Freire, P. (1987). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.

Freire, P. (1998) Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy and civic courage. Lanham MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Hollins, E. R. (1996). Culture in school learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hooks, b. (1994). Education as the practice of freedom. New York: Routledge.

Hooks, b. (2003). Teaching community, New York: Routledge

Howard, G.R. (1999). We can’t teach what we don’t know. New York: Columbia University Press.

Kozol, J. (2005). The shame of a nation. New York: Crown Publishers.

Marshall, C. (Ed.). (2004). Special issue: Social justice challenges to educational administration, Educational Administration Quarterly. XL (1).

McCarty, T.L. (Ed.), (2005). Language, literacy and power in schooling. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Mitchell, A. (1998). African american teachers: - unique roles and universal lessons. Education and urban society, 31(1), 19.

Oakes, J. & Guiton, G. (1995). Matchmaking: The dynamics of high school tracking decisions. American educational research journal, 32(1), 3.

Okagaki, L. & Frensch, P. A. (1998). Parenting and children’s school achievement: A multiethnic approach. American Educational Research Journal, 35(1), 123-144.

Peeke, P. A., Steward, R. J., & Ruddock, J. A. (1998). Urban adolescents’ personality and learning styles: Required knowledge to develop effective interventions in schools. Journal of Multicultural Counseling & Development, 26(2), 120-136.

Pollock, M. (2004). Colormute: Race talk dilemmas in an American school. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.

Riechl, C. (2000). The principal’s role in creating inclusive schools for diverse students: A review of normative, empirical and critical literature on the practice of educational administration, Review of Educational Research. 70(1), 55-81.

Rueda, R., & Garcia, E. (1996). Teachers’ perspectives on literary assessment and instruction with language-minority students: A comparative study. Elementary School Journal, 96(3), 311-332.

Schultz, K. (2003). Listening: A framework for teaching across differences. New York: Teachers College Press.

Shields, C.M. (2003). Good intentions are not enough: Transformative leadership for communities of difference, Lanham MD: Scarecrow Press.

Journals
Educational Administration Quarterly, Corwin Press
Educational Leadership, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD)
The Kappan, Phi Delta Kappa
Thrust for Leadership, Association of California School Administrators

Electronic
Education Week http://edweek.org
Education Policy Analysis Archives http://epaa.asu.edu
Education Trust http://edtrust.org
Institute of Educational Leadership http://iel.org
Southern Poverty Law Center http://teachingtolerance.org
Videos/DVDs
Last Chance of Eden (2002),
Walking Each Other Home (1998).
Lee Mun Wah Color of Fear (1995),

*INSTRUCTOR’S CLASS BY CLASS ASSIGNMENT SCHEDULE
[Attach sheets as necessary.]

The Socratic Method

THE SOCRATIC METHOD (adapted from Ray Linn, LAUSD)

The key teaching method used in this class is called the “dialectic” or “the Socratic method.” This approach consists of a continual dialogue including questions, answers, and criticisms/clarifications of answers. It is one way of pursuing truth, and it can be used directly in conversation or indirectly in discussing literature that has been read in class. The method is so simple that at first it doesn’t seem like much of a “method” at all. It is, however, and I think it is the best method for pursuing truths about human beings and their assumptions about reality and abstractions such as values, culture, and the social foundations of education. The dialogue which follows illustrates how the Socratic method was used in a high school class to explore the topic of status as a possible goal of human existence. The dialogue is rearranged and idealized, but it provides an idea of how the Socratic method works and where it took participants in their discussion of a widely held value of modern society. As you read it, consider your own private desire to be held in high esteem by others and, by imagining yourself in the role of Student, ask yourself how you would answer the questions in the dialectic.

Teacher: Is there anyone in this room who is not greatly concerned with achieving high status? Is it worth living for?

Student: What else am I to live for? I sure don’t want to be a loser, and I know that when I make it I’ll be happy.

Teacher: Don’t all desires make you unhappy with your present situation in the world? If you want to be big, you must now feel small, and thus you aren’t happy.

Student: Perhaps, but when I make it...

Teacher: Make what? Just what are you going to “make,” and how will it make you happy? Society might give you some sort of symbolic prize for your efforts, but you are essentially a body with desires. How can a symbol satisfy a desiring body?

Student: But after I’m rich and famous, I’ll have lots of fine bodies to choose from!

Teacher: Perhaps, but as Philip Slater says, you’ll do without them while striving for that carrot, and how long will it take? And even if you’re right about what will happen after you hit the big time, what makes you think you’ll be loved for who you are? If it’s money that brings you to her attention, perhaps it’s money that she loves.Besides, the problem with status-lovers is that they’re always trying to show that they are superior to the people around them. To have status is to act superior. Do you truly love people who think they’re superior to you? Do status-conscious people produce the impulse of love, or the desire to tear them down?

Student: So? (This student is not “superior”)

Teacher: Isn’t it inevitable that status-seeking separates you from other human beings? Since status is a self-centered goal, it focuses your attention on what’s going to happen to you—which automatically separates you from the people around you. Do you prefer the feeling of loneliness?

Student: No, but nobody wants to be close to a loser either.

Teacher: Why not try to meet the Other as an equal? And if you persist in defining yourself as the “superior,” are you different from the slime that joins the Klan in order to establish a sense of superiority in the world? As long as the desire to be high dominates your consciousness, don’t you have to look down on the Other? Isn’t it logically impossible to define yourself as superior without defining someone else as inferior? And isn’t this what you, just like the Klansman, are doing all the time?

Student: Maybe so, but I’m not a loser.

Teacher: What are you, essentially?

Student: As Descartes said, “I am a thing that thinks.” To be presently aware of these thoughts, I must exist as an unchanging mental thing.

Teacher: Are you such a “thing?” As Hume says, look again: can you find an unchanging thing, in addition to your changing thoughts and feelings? When I introspect all I find is a bunch of changing thoughts and feelings and impulses—are you so different?

Student: OK, I can only be certain of the changing thoughts and feelings.

Teacher: But is this the reality you pay attention to when you try to rise up and be the best thing around? Or do you ignore this changing internal reality when you act like you’re the top rat in the rat race? Is Tolstoy right when he says that the great thing that you want to be is merely a pretense, and that in attempting to become it you must ignore the real life that is within you? Since society only gives status to fixed positions like “judge” or “executive,” doesn’t the status-seeker have to ignore the real, changing feelings and impulses that are within? If so, is Tolstoy right in saying that status-seeking leads to death?

Student: What else should I do with my life?

Teacher: Why not return to the “living” by ignoring your desire to be superior, and instead focusing your consciousness on the reality of human needs and feelings? Why not focus on meeting the needs of people around you?

Student: I don’t care what you say, achieving a high position is important to me.

Teacher: Look around the room. Would your status with your peers still be as important if you knew you were going to die tomorrow?

The actual classroom dialogue went way beyond this brief and condensed version, and it contained twists and turns not mentioned here, but these are some of the questions, answers, and criticisms of answers which were expressed in class. In analyzing the Socratic method of pursuing truth, several things may be stated: first, it is essentially a negative method. People using it are often trying to tear down the ideas they hear; they listen to others’ propositions, usually with one ear turned toward what is wrong with it. If they don’t listen in this critical way, if they aren’t willing to think negatively, the method cannot exist.

The Socratic method works best when its practitioners have developed a sensitivity to logic and semantics—specifically, to what makes a good argument and what doesn’t (logistical fallacies), and to language that is vague, misleading or meaningless. Asking clarifying questions such as, “What do you mean?” is essential to the Socratic method. In Preface to Plato Havelock argues that this question marks beginning of this particular approach to the search for truth. Questioning the meaning of the key terms in an argument is especially important in using this method. So is an awareness of the vague clichés of the day, e.g., “He’s making it…” “This idea sucks…” “That’s sick…” “It’s awesome…” etc. Again, for the Socratic method to work practitioners must be willing to think negatively, to look for and identify instances of insufficient evidence, and for sloppy use of language.

In attempting to justify this negative approach to education, we can begin by noting that the Socratic method first grew out of a particular way of thinking about knowledge that surfaced in 5th century Greece. For Socrates, a great many knowledge claims and value claims seemed empty, meaningless, and even destructive. The traditional Homeric view of things was still a major part of Greek education in the 5th century, even though it had little to offer the world in Socrates’ day. In addition, the Sophists had revealed the apparent relativity of all answers about what is real and what is good—so that what might be true in Athens wouldn’t necessarily be true somewhere else. Given this social situation, it was difficult to accept the traditional idea that knowledge was simply the collective memory of the community. In other words, knowledge was no longer thought of as a set of established truths which an older person knows and simply pours into the head of a younger person. In an era of competing answers, cultural relativism, and skepticism, the “lecture method” no longer seemed adequate. When one way of seeing things gives rise to many, it’s difficult to believe that memory alone produces knowledge. Thus Socrates began to think of knowledge in a different way: as something achieved by individuals actively searching for the truth through constant questioning and criticism. Active, critical questioning, rather than the acceptance of secondhand opinion, became the key to knowledge. Thus Socrates tells us that, “The life without criticism is meaningless.” Since we too live in an era of competing answers, cultural relativism, and skepticism, Socrates’ method seems well-suited to today’s classroom. When there are many competing answers about what human beings are like and what they should do, all answers become questionable, and at this point so does a straight lecture approach to education. It seems more sensible to survey the competing answers with a critical mind, actively investigating for ourselves what has meaning for us and what does not.

In addition to providing an ideal method for this skeptical era, there are other advantages to the Socratic method: first, it takes the subject off the page and places it in the student’s life. One problem with a straight lecture/reading approach to education is that it often fails to bring the abstractions into the student’s experience. For example, in some epistemology classes students are simply asked to read and listen to lectures on Descartes, Locke, and Hume; they are asked to get the issues straight, to think about the problem of skepticism, etc.—but they are not asked to relate the issues to their own lives. The problem is that when this relation is ignored education becomes a meaningless, formal exercise. The value of Socratic questions like, “What do you actually observe when you think one event causes another?” and “Do you know more than my dog Brewster?” is that they force students to consider how epistemological issues relate to their own lives. Thinking about this relation is important even when studying something as removed from students’ lives as epistemology; for example, one of the great values of skeptical arguments such as Hume’s is that they tend to discourage rashness (“because I know I might be wrong”) and encourage tolerance/appreciation (“because I know that even foreigners might be right”). But this kind of influence is possible only if the student relates the abstract issue to his own situation in the world.

In connection with this point, it seems that nothing enters a student’s life as much as the concept of “no.” A nonchallenging comment like, “That’s an interesting answer’’ encourages complacency rather than critical thought. “No, you’re wrong” or “Your sentence is meaningless” or “You have no evidence for that,” on the other hand, are challenges to the mind that demand action. “No” is something that must be dealt with, something that must be taken into account rather than ignored. If a teacher referred to your self-centered love of status as “interesting” or as “one of the many things that human beings live for,” would you have thought much about it? Such tepid niceness might allow an extremely self-centered student to feel good about himself, but it evokes little serious thought about what the student is living for. Pragmatists are basically right in asserting that we don’t reflect on our experience until we have a problem. “No” presents the problem in clear relief.

Another advantage of the Socratic method is that it fosters critical thinking skills—skills that remain long after the particular subject matter is forgotten. By “critical thinking skills” I mean the ability to separate what is valid and true and significant from what is nonsense. After prolonged exposure to the Socratic method, students tend to internalize it—so that even in their private thinking when they run a proposition through their mind they simultaneously search for its weakness, e.g., “The teacher’s statement might be right, but where is the evidence?... And what does he mean by…?” This critical way of thinking about one’s private thoughts is not natural, and it is one of the main consequences of exposure to the Socratic method. In an era dominated by the media, modern politics and so much nonsense, developing critical thinking abilities is important. One problem with the lecture approach to education is that it doesn’t encourage the student to constantly think critically, but when he leaves the lecture and faces the modern world he will be better off if he does.

The Socratic method has great value for another reason: it sharpens the teacher’s mind, and leads her to constantly delve deeper into her subject. This is because it forces her to constantly think of the key questions and issues related to the subject she is teaching. The most important questions, key terms, and relations within a particular subject area are not obvious, and more than a few teachers have trouble writing up essay questions because they haven’t thought out the general questions which relate to their subject. If they use the Socratic method, they have no choice: they must search for the key assumptions, terms and issues in order to raise the right questions.

The Socratic method forces the teacher to pay close attention to students. One problem with a lecture/reading-based course is that allows the teacher to ignore student feedback until exam time (and in many college/graduate courses, not even then). In using the Socratic method teachers are forced to consider student responses daily. Specifically, student feedback provides a formative assessment that identifies intellectual blind spots, false reasoning, clichés and unexamined language, inane values, and other needs for improved reasoning. Of course such intimate intellectual contact can be repulsive, but it does enable teachers to think more realistically about how to communicate and relate the lesson to individual students.

Granted: the Socratic method sometimes evokes too much disrespect for authority, particularly in misguided or dimwitted students, because the method tends to assume that authority is meaningless. Granted: the method sometimes evokes such strong emotions that defenses impair or prevent learning. Granted: the method can often be bruising to a student’s ego. However, without bruising the childhood ego would never be left behind, and the typical delusions of ego about one’s self-importance constitute baggage far too heavy to carry in the search for truth. The Socratic method, by subjecting the ego to constant criticism, is helpful in eliminating the ego from discussions of truth. In evaluating this method, consider the alternatives: would students learn more that is important in their lives during the same limited time period if teachers relied on lecture and reading, or Descartes’ introspection (searching within one’s own consciousness for ideas that are clear and certain), or on Buddhist meditation? Would these or any other approach to the search for truth cause you to think as deeply about your own desire to be top rat?

Please come to class prepared to defend your answer.

Welcome to Our Blog!

Hello Everyone,
This blog is designed to support the work we do in the EDAU 678 course. Every so often I will send an email (either through Blackboard, or directly to the email you provide in class week 1) directing you here for additional information on course content, assignments and resources. Please post your own comments in response and/or provide feedback via email. I will be checking the blog frequently throughout our session.

Please make sure that you can log in, read this entry, and post a response ASAP. Please remember to post a comment, so that I know you have access. Once you have posted a comment, remember to bookmark the blog and check back to see if anyone has answered your comment(s). If no one else does, it is quite likely that I will!

Have a great day,
David