One of the classes that shaped my views on higher education was my undergraduate introduction to psychology class. I knew that I wanted to study psychology as science by the time I arrived at college. Introduction to psychology was a necessary evil. I signed up for an experimental version at San Francisco State University during my freshman fall quarter. There were two distinct aspects, out of class and in class. Out of class, all the reading was online and self-paced. (It was 1997, before widespread video on the internet). In class, you asked questions and took quizzes. It was perfect for me. I completed the course before Halloween with an A. Interestingly, that class had one of the largest failure rates in the entire university.
Self-pacing is a two edged sword. I was an outlier. I went as humanly possible. I had a clear goal and moved effectively and efficiently towards that goal. Most of the other students didn't. It wasn't their self-pace wasn't too slow, it wasn't a pace. They stood still and were wanting for a push that never came in that class.
Initially, I had thought the format of class was a bad idea. Why create a system that allows most people to fail? It is possible to create a system in which people succeeding is the default. Now I realize the early pruning is a benefit to the students themselves. Those students didn't have the ability to self-pace, an important skill for knowledge work. They had a lifetime of being primarily pushed forward (i.e., it is the 4th grade and now you study fractions). I would do something that wasn't an option - offer a class to teach self-pacing skills.
No comments:
Post a Comment