Page last updated February 13, 1998.
Site Faculty.
BACK to"Grading, Good Faith, and Legitimacy"
Back to Dear Habermas Table of Contents

Internal Campus Memos on Teaching

on Grading, Good Faith, and Legitimacy

1. A paragraph (as requested) on my panel presentation at the American Society of Criminology annual meetings in San Diego. My panel, which was shared with Dr. Susan R. Takata, who chairs the new Criminal Justice Department at the University of Wisconsin, Parkside, was presented at 8 a.m. on Wednesday, November 19.

   I was thrilled that we had a professor from Norway, several from England, and one from Wisconsin, who knew Susan. For an 8 a.m. session, on the first morning of the conference, we had the best attendance I'd ever experienced. And it was their interest in Habermas. That is a major change of focus for our papers and articles. We have been talking about teaching techniques, distance learning, the learning environment, and both Susan and I were unhappy with the sessions, since they rarely attracted people who were seriously interested in theory.

   This was our first panel put together to discuss the effects of applying Habermasian discourse to our teaching. And this panel seemed to attract the audience we had hoped for. Now Robert Christie, of my department, and Susan Takata and I are planning several future presentations, two of which have already been accepted, on critical theory applied to the legitimacy of the learning environment of higher education. So this was an exciting experience, and we all thank you for supporting it.

   Also, it might be a good idea for me to tell you that twenty-five years ago Susan Takata was my student at CSUDH, worked with me on her first professional paper, and joined me at the Pacific Sociological Association to present that paper shortly after her matriculation at Berkeley for her Ph.D. Now she is Chair of the Department of Sociology at the University of Wisconsin, Parkside. Yes, she is also chairing the new Department of Justice, as she sets that up. She was interviewing to fill some of her faculty positions in San Diego.

   One reason that I share so much of this with you is that I had promised Jamie that I would give her information on the papers that we were having accepted on critical theory, growing out of our collective research on distance learning, which has been funded partially through faculty development. Two of our papers on Habermasian theory have been accepted for Spring conferences, and we are just preparing one for the national meetings in sociology in August. Both Robert Christie and I were funded through faculty development projects that led to much of this. We were also funded through the academic tech grants, but that, too, went through faculty development and Jamie at some point. More on all of this later. For now, an abstract of our presentation in San Diego, as promised.

   This panel will discuss the interdisciplinary focus of Jurgen Habermas' "Between Facts and Norms" and how his theoretical approach crosses boundaries while building bridges between criminology, law and sociology. We particularly like Habermas' characterization of the problem as one of tension, tension that can be resolved through the bridge of communication provided by the law, and its foundation upon legitimacy. Our attempt to discover a citizen-like role for students within the administrative and economic power of the educational system has led us to feel and document that tension. Habermas offers us a theoretical foundation upon which to interpret the results of our experience and on which to build further attempts. We choose to examine both the tension and the social integration provided by law in this microcosm of our experimental work. The purpose of this panel discussion is to describe what we do as a Habermasian model. Using scholarly theory considered too advanced for upper division undergraduates, we have altered the perceptions of education, and the perceptions of self. In addition, we have altered the relationships between the students, the university, and the surrounding communities.

2. At the same time, I want very much to thank you for your having lent me Angelo and Cross' Classroom Assessment Techniques. It has been invaluable. Let me be more specific.

   Their recognition that "the process of identifying and clarifying goals" can be overwhelming and even threatening made me realize for the first time that I was not alone in that. Of course, I can define them. I am a learning theory specialist. But I did not understand the affective component. Silly. Because I teach Krathwohl's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Affective Domain. And I teach Habermasian discourse, with the Habermasian respect for the bringing of all validity claims to the discourse table. But I never before put the two together.

   Angelo and Cross' inclusion of the Teaching Goals Inventory, which I have gone over many times before, brought me closer, in this context, to the extent to which my experimentation with the Habermasian model is reflected in my goals, and why I feel so uncomfortable with some of the past uses of that inventory. I am hard at work trying to combine the Habermasian model with the more traditional inventory. I think a brief summary of that will enter my syllabus, so I can clear up similar confusions my students must have faced, because I wasn't so clear about my goals in traditional terminology with which they are familiar.

   I also found their work extremely enlightening with other problems I have experienced. This very semester, as I learned through reading students' essays that they were indeed learning more and faster and writing better, I stopped in both classes, changed the overall requirements to give them more latitude, to let them participate more effectively in their own learning environment. It was good. But as I read Angelo and Cross, I realized how hungry I was to include the students, and how hard that might be for them. Angelo and Cross point out (p.28) the importance of making changes slowly, of starting with only one class, of not biting off more than your energy and the students' can manage in one semester. So now I see a little better how my changes are difficult for both me and the students, even when they really do work for the student. For that, thanks to both you for lending me the book, and to them for writing it.

   But they offered more. I have already incorporated "Focused Autobiographical Sketches" into one of the research projects with a community group. That research will be reported in one of the critical theory papers. Again, I have moved quickly. Knowing now that that is stressful, I will plan for that.

   There is a statistical assessment on productive learning time that I would like to use in both statistics and moot court next semester. I know, I know, one at a time. But I will count the added stress, and knowing now, I will be better able to manage the newness for students. Both of these are courses in which I have a great deal of expertise. I hope that will offset.

   There are other techniques I want to assess in Angelo and Cross. It has been a hectic semester. That translates into: May I please keep the book for a longer period of time? It has been a wonderful help. Again, thank you.

3. We spoke at the last TOPS meeting about the learning environment. That fits very much into the Habermasian model that we are using. In that model, students are seen as full citizens in the curricular and learning process. That means that we take their complaints about not understanding seriously, even when they don't make sense to us. That also means that we struggle to remain a "learning" sub-system by considering what doesn't work with the students, rather than assuming that they aren't trying, aren't serious, aren't smart enough.

   The problem is that I keep seeing this in all its critical theory implications. I understand legitimacy in the system of law, and I understand the crucial translation of that legitimacy to the educational institution. I teach legitimacy, the privileging of subjectivity, the importance of having a citizen's voice in an autopoietic non-learning sub-system. I used to teach this only in sociology of law, but now I find my students bringing the theory into other classes.

   I have felt confused and disorganized when I couldn't see why I couldn't straighten out the tentacles on the octopus of critical theory. Now, thanks to your discussion of learning environment, (and we didn't have long for it), and to my reading of Angelo and Cross, I am beginning to understand that I don't have to give up anything. How could I give up pieces of this model which engendered the following in San Diego:

   One of the professors from England told us that his sociology department had worked out a system for sharing as citizens in the decision-making. But their provost came to them and said that he would have none of their faculty governance. All of us faculty in the room were astounded that a provost would say such a thing openly. One of our CSUDH students, taking part in the panel, turned to the professor and said: "I can understand your Provost's validity claim. He is entitled to make that claim. And in the interest of legitimacy it is important that all claims be brought to the table. But I would make a very different validity claim. And I would be heard." [I quote from memory, but plan to ask the student, Antoinette Wicks, to make sure I have reasonably reported her words.] I am rarely competitive with Susan Takata of Wisconsin. Her students participate in East Coast conferences, ours in West Coast conferences, because of the cost. But as Antoinette said this, I must confess my chest expanded, and I was very proud that this was a West Coast conference and this was a CSUDH student. YES!!

   You can see why I'm not willing to give up learning like this. But now I am seeing more clearly where exhaustion and confusion creep in. This is a lot to undertake. Until now, Susan and I haven't found the audiences and the colleagues we sought to help us expand this model. TOPS has helped with that. I am finding now more traditional assessment techniques, instead of large numbers of complicated essay exams. I can mix those. I am finding that we have undertaken an enormous task in seeking student involvement, and I can now place that more effectively in the overall structure that students and I must deal with simultaneously.

   I also need reinforcement for slowing down. Hmm. Well, not really. It isn't slowing down I really want. I want to include everything I can understand that will help my students as quickly and as extensively as I can. But if I understand how hard that is, if I understand that I'm stretching as a teacher and as a person to do that, then I can be more understanding of myself and my students when a piece doesn't work yet, needs more work, needs for me to keep the faith, not give up on believing in me and the students, and try again.

   ---

   ---

   The following is a memo from November 16, 1997, outlining my objectives to a faculty member who shared my teaching concerns to visit my classroom. This memo is indicative of the lack of opportunity that college faculty have for sharing teaching. This visitation did not happen. But when the Dear Habermas site went up the faculty member to whom it was addressed was able to share through the site itself. There are ways to share even in the busy world of the modern urban campus. But there are tragic failures in most of efforts along the way. Better support for technology and for teaching as a primary activity might have made the magic of sharing happen a little sooner.

   The teaching objective outlined in preparation for sharing were:

   1. To add some theory, by giving the class summaries of readings that are beyond what they can cover in one semester. For this class I have given brief summaries of Tarnas and bell hooks.

      I want them to have the theory for their discussion. But I also want to give them some of the flavor of the books, so they might read them later.

   2. I'm covering topics they've discussed on their own before, but superficially. I want to bring them back to theory, and show them how to get there from their more natural debates.

   3. I want to participate in their discussion, so that I can guide them through discussion of the concept that will lead them to write good academic essays on the topic.

   4. I want them to share notes on the discussions so they can share ideas for their essays as colleagues might in a learning environment that included an ethos for publication.

      We tried this for the first time last Tuesday. I wrote it up for them, based on what happened on Tuesday, and based on an intensive student discussion with me afterward Tuesday night, shared that on Thursday, went to San Diego to a conference with some of them this Tuesday, and now we try it again. I know that learning is messy, but I'll be glad to invite you back for much neater performance next year.

      I thought my attempt to drag them through the Western canon, when they've been screaming about that, and through bell hooks' visuality would be fun to share with you. Hope you enjoy.

      ---

      ---

      BACK to"Grading, Good Faith, and Legitimacy"
      Back to Dear Habermas Table of Contents
      Jeanne.