How do you get people to do what they don’t want to do?

24 06 2013

johnson-treatment-8ee35a57bd6f096f888467bfb612ea1d39fa848d-s40

When I grow up, I want to be Robert Caro. For one thing, the man is an incredible historian. The chapters in The Power Broker about the building of the Cross Bronx Expressway may be the best narrative anybody has ever written about anything ever.* What I envy more than the guy’s writing skills though are his persistence and patience. He’s literally been writing about Lyndon Johnson since the 1970s and all four volumes of this eventual five volume set have been worth the wait. Think about the patience it takes to interview all those aides twenty – maybe thirty – years ago when they were still alive and to wait decades before there thoughts make it into your narrative. Think of the persistence it takes to keep writing about the exact same subject decade after decade.

In fact, when you consider all of Caro’s work, he’s really been writing about the same thing since the 1960s: power. First with Robert Moses, then Johnson, Caro’s books (as I’ve seen him explain many times in interviews like this one) are really all about power: How to get it, how to use it and mostly importantly how to use it well. This is particularly true with Lyndon Johnson because LBJ started from nothing, got lots of power, lost it and then found it again. There’s also that fascinating Good Lyndon/Bad Lyndon phenomenon. We liberals cheer The Great Society and condemn Vietnam, but there really both two sides of the same coin. Grateful for what Johnson was willing to give us, we elected him in a landslide in 1964, but the Vietnamese wouldn’t trade their independence for a new TVA. When he was Vice President, the Kennedy people called him “Uncle Cornpone” to his face, but when he became President, Johnson could intimidate people into doing his will without them even noticing. [This is the famous “Johnson Treatment” pictured above.]

MOOCification is about power too. If people with access to power want to convince recalcitrant professors to accept MOOCs, arguing that they must be because this must be is a terrible idea. Yet this is precisely what the two quotes following mine in that New York Times article from last week try to do. First, there’s my online buddy Phil Hill, making an argument I’ve read from him a million times on every form of social media except Facebook**:

“The problem with this MOOC-as-labor-issue argument is that it has no place for students and learning,” said Phil Hill, an education technology consultant. “Our starting point ought to be what students need and whether this is an effective form of learning.”

Whenever Phil makes that infuriating argument, I usually respond with some variation of “profs gotta eat.” Not surprisingly that argument works really well on other profs, but not so well on Phil. However, I want to point out to Phil’s clients that they can’t just wish the class divide away. Since profs gotta eat, they’re going to worry about eating whether you tell them they’re allowed to or not. Moreover, plenty of us believe that by looking out for our interests we are looking out for students and learning. Therefore, making this kind of argument simply serves as a way to shut down all discussion of the subject, which will only breed resentment.

Perhaps the real problem with higher education labor policy today is that too many people don’t care how much resentment they breed. The next quote in that article after Phil’s is even worse, if such a thing is possible:

“The issue in higher education is how we get to scale,” said M. Peter McPherson, president of the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities. “The question now is how long it’s going to take for faculty members to stop saying they can use the same textbooks as others at other institutions, but they can’t use the same lectures.”

Darn it, faculty, what’s taking you so long to accept your own obsolescence? Can’t you see the same future that I see (without you in it)! It’s right there in front of your noses! That kind of argument didn’t work on my 8-year-old the last time I tried it and it won’t work on faculty either. Even smart people without class consciousness need to be convinced that they are the ones who have to sacrifice for what’s right. Acting as if your position is the one inevitable future is really just an admission that your argument is too weak to stand up to close scrutiny.

You don’t even need to be a business professor to see that this is a terrible personnel management strategy. Professors of all kinds know the limits of power because we have to convince people to do what they don’t want to do every time we step into the classroom. In other words, employer is to employee as teacher is to student. We manage our classrooms the same way that our employers have to manage us.

That’s why letting too many non-professors into the MOOCif-ication process is a pedagogical disaster. You can’t just say “grade the essays of your peers” and thy will be done. Here’s Karen Head, in another jaw-dropping explanation of what it’s really like to be a superprofessor, documenting firsthand one of the many reasons why peer grading can’t work:

Because the qualitative process is central to our course, I wanted to require students to participate in peer work in order to get credit for assignments. When I wanted to make the penalty for not completing peer review a 100-percent deduction per assignment, the Coursera support team responded that the maximum deduction could be only 20 percent. Coursera acknowledged that other instructors had complained about the penalty figure but gave no indication as to when or whether the problem would be addressed. Predictably, many students have not completed the peer review, leaving others with little feedback. In my opinion, the instructor, not the platform, should determine how an assignment is evaluated.

I’m not convinced upping the penalty would help much either. You can’t make students care when they don’t care. You have to inspire students to care, and you can’t do that if the only way they ever see you is on tape.

Thomas Leddy of the now legendary San Jose State Philosophy department, in “Are MOOCs Good for Students?,” tackles this same general issue with respect to reading assignments:

Another essential component to genuine education is close, careful, critical reading. MOOCs, however, discourage the acquisition of college-level reading skill. When the edX package of Sandel’s lectures was proposed to us, we were told that the amount of time students would spend using the platform would be monitored. They were expected to work online at home for nine hours a week, mainly watching videos and taking quizzes. Assuming a typical load of five courses, students who took only MOOC courses would spend about 45 hours per week watching video clips and taking quizzes. What time would they have left for reading Plato, Shakespeare, or Freud?

If I assigned my students The Power Broker, which is over 1000 pages long, they’d either not do the reading or murder me. The trick is to assign as much reading as you need to teach history well without alienating too many students in the process and that can be very hard, particularly as the reading skills of the typical college student have dropped through the floor in recent years. Unfortunately, as that Karen Head piece clearly indicates, the customer can do no wrong in Coursera’s eyes. That may yet prove to be good business, but it’s undoubtedly terrible pedagogy.

Lyndon Johnson understood that in order to get people to do what they don’t want to do there have to be both carrots as well as sticks. This goes for faculty as well as students. Drive professors out of their professions and they’re not coming back. Therefore, you have to expect them to use all the power at their disposal to hang on to something they do more from love than for money. Whining about our refusal to accept our own obsolescence will only make us fight harder.

* If you’re a history grad student, do yourself a favor and just get the book out of the library right now and read the whole giant thing this summer. It remains well worth your time almost forty years after publication.

** And that’s not because I wouldn’t friend him there. It’s because I’ve decided that Facebook is just far too creepy for me to ever join it again.

About these ads

Actions

Information

7 responses

24 06 2013
duhring

What is the intended result of an education? A career? A first job? A passion for life?

It seemed to me that until we re-target what we are shooting at, the arguments of how we get there fall without a sound. So, I wrote a short piece on “the gig economy” to frame how work and learning are changing.

http://blog.cogswell.edu/2013/06/gig-economy/

The power shifts extend to every erstwhile salaried position. For example, while universities churn out trained journalists, how will they adapt when no one pays for full-time writers anymore? Maybe we need to measure value and power beyond salaries and jobs? Or maybe jobs need to be viewed as projects and not positions?

25 06 2013
“I want to invest in people, not a computer screen.” | More or Less Bunk

[…] lectures, and all the while trying to produce scholarly work of their own? I hear they have to eat, too. The fact remains that as a student, I want to invest in people, not a computer screen. In […]

28 06 2013
Hack Education Weekly News: The Supreme Court, Bitmaker Labs, ISTE, and More

[…] Inspired by the Adjunct Project, a crowdsourced effort to track the pay of university adjuncts, comes GradPay, a survey about graduate student working conditions. Working conditions are learning conditions, let’s not forget. […]

4 07 2013
jwr12

I think you raise a key issue about reading, and I’d like to add one I haven’t seen as much as I would like.

About reading, and just to amplify your point: Whenever I hear the MOOC-textbook analogy–as well as over the top praise of the “flipped classroom” method, as if it’s really new–I think about this issue. Yes, it’s great if students prepare for class ahead of time. Yes, if they listened to lecture ahead of time, and did the reading, then indeed the class could be taught at a higher level. But to the extent that the demands of MOOCs crowd out reading, then we’re talking not only about MOOCification, but dumbification. I would much rather student read 10 pages of good reading, then listen to 10 minutes of good lecture by superprofessor, or even me. Here there’s perhaps a disciplinary issue. Since, like you, I’m a historian, the idea of peppering students with constant multiple choice exams to “test mastery” has little interest–especially when (again) in a world where no one has enough time, and everyone is overwhelmed by distractions–these exercises will crowd out reading. Blue skying too much about how wouldn’t it be great if students read and attended lecture and did exercises and then came to class is dangerous, when no matter how efficient you make the learning process, it still takes time and one thing is rarely added without another thing being lost.

Anecdotally: So among other things I spend a fair chunk of my time evaluating transfer requests, reading syllabi from other schools. (Some 300 in the past year.) And between pre-packaged web content / interactive material from Pearson (etc.) and the demands on adjunct and teaching faculty, there’s a lot of multiple choice going on, as the fundamental means of instruction at the college level. I would estimate about 10% of the syllabi I see having grading structures in which multiple choice is the only thing going on: no writing, no group exercises, barely any attendance, no critical skills exercises. And this is before MOOCification! I see this not as evidence that traditional education is “just the same”, but rather that budget battering rams and wholesale “content” are taking their toll.

Got to run. Hopefully get to that other point later.

23 07 2013
SJSU and Udacity: Poor Planning and Support, but Valuable Reviewing of Results |e-Literate

[…] his comments. In the context of the NY Times article, that positioning was accurate; however, in Jonathan’s follow-up blog post, he misinterprets my […]

1 07 2014
Peter Onuf on MOOCs |

[…] don’t want to focus on “boutique” MOOCs–they want MOOCs that will allow them to cut labor costs and increase tuition revenue, all to the detriment of the vast ma…. For all of their rhetoric about democratizing education and saving the world, venture capitalists […]

24 06 2013
Jonathan Rees

Edward,

You see, this is exactly why I don’t block you as a troll! Your comments are very useful for helping me understand the other side of this issue. The “This is how MOOCs end…” post that got me that NYT interview was inspired by your stubbornness. This may spark another one.

Your mistake here is to assume that just because administrators have the power to make MOOCs happen means that they will. While they can probably cram them down our throats, but they can’t do that to students and just like the people who ran you out of Historiann’s place on a rail pointed out repeatedly, you are hardly a typical student.

Leave education to the educators. The bureaucrats and technophiles only screw things up.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,295 other followers

%d bloggers like this: