J-Source points to a couple of columns in the Ottawa Citizen by journalism profs. The first, Students of mediocrity, by Andrew Cohen, criticizes today’s students for being lazy and having a “lack of intellectual depth.”
In the age of instant gratification, the Web is king. It’s not unusual to assign essays and find no books listed in the bibliography. Many students use Wikipedia alone and don’t hide it; they consider it the first and last word in research, just a click away.
In class discussion, which is usually animated, it is striking how few students mention an argument, an event, or a book. Their knowledge is superficial, and their view is often impressionistic. It is “I feel” rather than “he thinks.”
Of course, they always know what they feel, but less often, what an expert thinks. The student is the authority.
Curiously, Cohen opens his column with one of those legendary stories about a crazy exam scenario told to him by a colleague, but doesn’t seem interested in finding out if it’s true or not.
The second column, It’s what students can do when they leave us that counts, by Dave Tait, says the kids are all right. He also tracks down the truth behind the exam story.
True, many students come here with a shaky grounding in fine points of grammar and many haven’t yet learned to proofread carefully — or why it’s so important. This is actually one big reason we exist — it isn’t just to make sophisticated conversation about ideas; it’s to teach. This includes teaching basic skills to otherwise smart folks who, for whatever reason, haven’t learned them yet.
That’s why it’s so important in a professional program for teachers to work closely with students, use up every available moment of teaching time, mark assignments themselves instead of passing them off to teaching assistants, and make extended one-on-one conversation outside of class an integral part of the student experience.
My concern as a teacher isn’t what my students can do as they come into my hands; it’s what they’ll be able to do once they leave me.