Theorizing Teacher A's Redesign: an Accidental Polemic

At the end of Wednesday's class, Jennifer asked us to theorize the following (we didn't exactly have time for it, but I was interested and kept it in mind):

"Based on data showing that this method improves students' interest in reading and therefore promotes learning, Teacher A allows students to choose their reading for the unit. However, the students all choose inappropriate texts, and Teacher A responds by redesigning a list of more appropriate texts that the student may choose to read for the unit."

Put simply, we are faced with defining "appropriate texts" for our student-centered classrooms. However, not meaning to be obstinate, I don't think that is the central problem when evaluating the given scenario even though it is an essential question for us all to answer before giving our students the choice of texts they will read for class. The problem is Teacher A's decision to revoke a choice the students had already made. I will outline a few of the theoretical points we have covered in our reading, and then come to my point.

We have read composition studies theory and experimental data that supports the idea that student-centered curriculum stabilizes student motivation and keeps them interested and engaged in their reading process. Alfie Kohn describes many of the typical ways teachers ruin student motivation to read in "How to Create Nonreaders." He states convincingly that student autonomy "supports deeper learning and enthusiasm." Therefore, it is our responsibility grapple with this perspective and employ it to the benefit of our students.

In addition, Vygotsky among many others like Stuart Greene and Sugie Goen who have theorized composition studies contends that reading is a social practice. The work we do in our classrooms requires a community of students working together to discover meaning. To build such a community of social learners, the instructor facilitates the creation of trust between colleagues, instructor included. The classroom is a safe place where students can freely explore ideas, whether they are wrong, right, or hypothetical. Their colleagues support participation without judgment. This support and encouragement must be fostered by the instructor in order to give the student the confidence to take risks and improve their reading.

I feel obligated as a first-year graduate student among my colleagues to briefly address the uncertainty some of us feel with the idea of a student-centered classroom as a good learning environment. Here is the theory as I understand it. The institution of higher learning presumes that the teacher has a moral standard that they must attain for teaching student objectives in their courses. If a teacher designs a highly democratic, student-centered classroom, the institution (as well as her own moral foundation as a teacher) obligates her to lead the students toward the learning objectives for that course. It would be unethical for an instructor to knowingly let even a single student meander into a purposeless gulag of misinformation. 

Having now framed my point, I get to it.

Beginning with student choice, Teacher A undermined the purpose of her class. The students were given a chance at autonomy by choosing their own texts, but choice that can be revoked is not choice at all. There is therefore no support from the instructor in promoting student motivation and interest.

Secondly, by negating student choice, Teacher A betrayed student trust within the learning community. Students will feel as though they made a wrong choice, serious enough to have the curriculum redesigned. I imagine it would be difficult for students to recover their sense of community after that, and possibly even more damaging, recover their confidence in their choices. Student risk-taking would stall because of their crisis in confidence, making the possibility of learning much more difficult.

Finally, based on undermining the class and inhibiting student learning, Teacher A has made an error with moral consequences. Teachers make changes to their curriculum frequently, depending on what works well or whether time runs short. Teacher A unfortunately has destabilized the purpose of her class. With students now timid autonomy, they will struggle to make important decisions for the class. Teacher A's course objectives in question, what becomes of her moral standard for student learning? A significant part of her purpose for the class has changed, and it must be redefined to be at all ethical. This moral problem is compounded by the loss of trust and confidence the students experienced. It would have been better to begin the class with a list from which the students could choose texts than to give students the impression that their choice is meaningless by taking it away. She has done the students a moral disservice, and I sound so earnest because it may take some students a very long time to recover their confidence after sending them the message that they can't be trusted to choose a text that interests them. With so much at stake for the future of student learning, a teacher must understand the moral responsibility she has to her students. Otherwise, she has failed them.

I didn't intend to write a polemic, but I only discovered the extent of the stakes as I continued writing and my tone gathered mass as I went. I leave the defining of "appropriate texts" to other time or another colleague. I thought it was more important to discuss these problems first.