Revisiting Not Just Teaching Skill but Values
LaVon Shearer-Ihrig
English 687: Composition Theory & Practice
Professor Cason
Particial Bizzell on William Perry and Liberal
Education
Not
Just Teaching Skill but Values
Patricia
Bizzell article addresses William Perry developmental model of a college
student, how a student will socially evolve and how this will affect their
writing process. William Perry developed his theory through a series of
interviews with Harvard undergraduate men, in which Perry concludes that college
students will pass through three stages of development within their four years
of college. These stages are “Dualism,”
“Relativism,” and “Commitment in Relativism.”
What is interesting, although they are termed as developmental stages/or
world views, they are, however more specifically, a “young person’s attitude
toward schoolwork” (Bizzell 299). [It is also worthy to note here that these
developmental stages were defined only through interviews conducted with young
men, and no women. Since it is generally accepted that young women’s emotional
growth is advanced or different then young men’s it is worth asking if this
developmental model would apply to both genders.]
Placing
Perry’s developmental theory within some of the composition theory conversations
which we have been discussing over these past few weeks was a little difficult;
however, it is Bizzell’s response in how writing instructors can apply (albeit
limitedly, as she admits) to their
students work, in which there are some interesting connections. Furthermore, if
we consider that Bizzell’s interpretation of Perry’s social development theory,
there appears to be a parallel connection if we return to Berlin’s request for
composition instructors to consider the fact that“[i]n teaching writing, we are
not simply offering training in a useful technical skill that is meant as simple
complement to the more important studies of other areas” but instead “[w]e are
teaching a way of experiencing the world” (Berlin 248).
Berlin
was calling instructors to be aware of how their philosophical beliefs will
influence how a teacher instructs, based upon that personal philosophical
pedagogy which then can have a negative or positive influence upon their
students. Since each pedagogical theory has
its own belief in how language, truth, perception work which influences how a
student arrives at understanding, then instructors are to some great extent
influencing student’s philosophical development which Berlin points and Perry’s
research demonstrates.
An
interesting side note, Bizzell states that Perry’s stages are distinctly
different then the well-known cognitive developmental stages that every child
evolves through which was developed by Piaget. The first distinction is that it
is a process that is “undertaken” by students versus the unconscious cognitive
development of a child’s. Secondly, and
perhaps most importantly, the stages that students “undertake” is a
philosophical development which is a conscious choice taken by the student.
To
better understand Perry’s developmental model, I would just like to briefly
outline his three stages. Dualism, as
explained by Bizzell, is “characterized by the belief” that “everything in the
world” fits into two categories---“right or wrong” (300). It is a very black and white approach to
their (students) world view. The Dualist student relies on the “Authority”
(Instructors/Professors) to instruct the “Absolutes” (rules, terms, beliefs,
ect.) to them. To understand what the world means, the student will memorize
these “Absolutes” and then apply them to the proper circumstances. To the Dualist student, the entire education
process is narrowed down to “the process of finding right answers,” and
following the rules. They are dependent upon the teacher to provide those answers;
there is no real amount or evidence of critical thinking within this
developmental stage. (399). Nancy Sommers also addresses this stage of
development in her article “Revision Strategies”, in which this student during
their process of revision is unable to revise because they can only abide by
these black and white rules: “The students decide to stop revising when they
decide that they have not violated any of the rules…At best the students see
their writing altogether passively through the eyes of former teachers…and are
bound to the rules they have been taught” (Sommers 49). If instructors keep in
mind the philosophical developmental stage of this student, instructors can
better understand the inability of students to revision and reflect and begin to
guide them to the next philosophical change which Perry labels “Relativism”.
The
stage of “Relativism” is where “the Absolutes either are unknowable or no
longer exist” and since they no longer exist, the Authority “can no longer
empower one to categorize the world as right or wrong” (300). Therefore the Relativist must create their
own plan for survival by exploring “problematic questions” and “prefers
disciplines in which they abound;” furthermore, the students prefer to work
with teachers who relate “personally with the student” instead of being the
sole “Authority” (300). This student has finally reached the
ability to begin to think about the world in a critical manner and the ability
to perceive the world as neither black nor white but gray—we can find this
student in their mid-level classes and college years.
Finally
the final stage is the world view of “Commitment in Relativism.” Like the perspective of the Relativist, the
“Commitment Relativist” world is still without Absolutes and Authority.
However, the world still has order and the decisions of the Commitment
Relativist “need not be based on solitary self-interest” (300). The interests
are now based on social and cultural values: “[O]ne can make confident
judgments of what is better or worse relative to them, while still realizing
that other people who have sufficiently examined their values may employ
different but valid standards of judgment” (300). The Commitment Relativist works with
authority not as an unequal but as a “mentor or experienced fellow worker”
(300). A student at this stage would be
close to graduating, and secure in their particular area of study; furthermore
this student is able to recognize that although they have their own value
system, it is possible to regard and respect what others may value even though
it may not parallel with their personal value system.
The
bigger question to Perry’s research is why is this important to composition
instructors or for a liberal college curriculum? Bizzel explains that Perry’s objective is to
persuade us to see that this growth in a student’s perspective of the world is
important to instruction. A student who cannot be “self-reflective” is
“anti-intellectual.” As we have seen in
Hayes and Flower’s “Cognitive Process Model” that Reviewing is an essential
part of cognitive thinking and part of the process of writing. When a student reviews, they are reflecting
on the feedback of the audience, considering different world perspectives,
creating meaning through that process and assigning value to what is
understood. This particular stage of
“Commitment in Relativism” echoes the type of philosophical pedagogical theory,
“New Rhetoric,” that Berlin, in his article “Contemporary Composition,” encourages
composition instructors to embrace. He insists this pedagogical theory develops
the type of cognitive thinking process which liberal education embraces,
because it creates an awareness of the self to others and brings about that
critical reflective practice which is necessary for students as they enter the
adult world.
Just as Berlin cautions future instructors to
be mindful of where their philosophical pedagogical practices lie in order to
not confuse their students, Bizzel says that Perry’s research is also useful because we do expose and
influence students to accept and use different value systems: “Perry’s analysis
describes the changes in student thinking that result from their socialization into the academic community”
(305) (my own emphasis); therefore this should make us realize “that as we
bring our students through the process of liberal education, we are not simply
teaching them to think or to grow up…Rather we are teaching them to think a
certain way” (305). Bizzell claims that Perry’s research greatest value lies in
how he helps us see that “our assumptions about the ends of education are
strongly culture bound…To a high degree we persuade our students to our values
through our use of language, in lectures, textbooks, informal discussions, and
writing assignments” (307). Bizzel, like
Berlin, states that Perry’s developmental stages are useful for instructors
because it allows us to see where our students are within the writing process
and their connection to others within the academic and social world.
Overall,
the value in this article is similar to Berlins—we (composition instructors)
need to accept that we do have a moral responsibility to our student and accept
we are teaching a value system. If we do not, we stand the chance of confusing
our students and perhaps disrupt the ability of students to allow the philosophical
developmental process of our students and confuse their ability to write,
reflect and effectively connect to others in society.
.
Works
Cited
Bizzell, Patricia. ""William Perry and
Liberal Education"" Cross-talk in Comp Theory: A
Reader. Third ed. Urbana, IL: National Council
of Teachers of English, 1997. 299-308.
Print.
English
(1982): 765-777. Print
No comments:
Post a Comment