Introduction: Absence of Discourse in College Education
Although schools and colleges intend to prepare students for ideal literacy, the existing practice is far from the ideal due to the absence of discourse in college education. Theodor Sizer, while highlighting eight principles of learning and “The Seven Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education,” argues that “Americans agree on the goals for their higher learning,” but all the words such as literacy, ability, knowledge, self-knowledge, social ethics, etc. “beg definition” (264). David Barton and Mary Hamilton call literacy a “social event” best defined through literacy practices, context, and texts (248). Mezirow calls it the US and Australian governments’ goals of “key competencies,” such as information analysis, problem-solving, and judgment, etc. (270). Barry Alford calls it critical literacy (281), while W. J. Reeves says that education or literacy in college means being culturally aware, and this process of “Becoming culturally aware involves change, and change is frightening” for the students for which they are not prepared (342).
According to the above quotes from these renowned educationists, American schools as well as colleges have well-defined objectives. However, the problem lies not only in the implementation of these objectives in the real context but also in clarifying these objectives to the students. The result is often a complete or partial failure in the fulfillment of the real objectives. The major problem is that real learning does not take place, which includes making the students good critical writers, good individuals, autonomous thinkers, knowledge seekers, decision-makers, problem solvers, and independent individuals.
This poses a problem, as discourse rarely takes place. The students are to amalgamate into the social fabric following their exit from college life after graduation, but they rarely prepare for this during their stay in college. Therefore, in such a situation, the real problem arises in all aspects of learning, from critical thinking skills or literacy to autonomous thinking, problem-solving, and independence of mind.
Absence of Discourse in College Education
In the realm of critical literacy, discourse plays a crucial role. Discourse, understood as a form of dialogue, holds significant importance in literacy. Unfortunately, meaningful dialogue is a rare occurrence within the educational system, with only a few top colleges and universities facilitating it. Theodore Sizer, while narrating the schedule of a school-going boy named Mark, contends that in Mark’s tightly packed schedule, there is minimal opportunity for meaningful discussions with tutors, highlighting a systemic issue prevalent across the entire United States. Sizer describes this as a disparity between “one of words and the other of practice” (263). The problem, according to Sizer, lies in the lack of clarity regarding the real objectives of going to school for students like Mark. The mere rhetoric of objectives does not address the issues faced by students dealing with “restlessness in school,” where some students are merely passing time (263). Sizer argues that there is a lack of rationale behind this practice, as it fails to contribute to the development of a “whole person” (266).
Sizer further contends that the absence of discourse or dialogue is a significant factor contributing to this issue, stating that “the opportunity of teachers to challenge students’ ideas in a systematic and logical way is limited” (266). However, discourse does not occur in isolation; it happens within a social context. Barry Alford supports this idea, emphasizing the importance of including student voices in the classroom, echoing Ira Shor’s perspective, even in issues related to composition (280). The ultimate objective is to foster critical thinking skills among students.
Reason of Absence of Discourse in College Education
Barry Alford’s argument revolves around the idea that students’ notions must be challenged to prevent their thinking from stagnating. Without such challenges, students are less likely to become analytical thinkers or effective problem solvers. The absence of engagement with boundaries and a reluctance to challenge accepted notions hinder the development of critical thinking skills, as students fail to question what is deemed acceptable (281).
This situation poses a challenge for teachers and professors, as critical thinking and problem-solving are fostered within a discourse that constitutes a literacy event, expressed either verbally or through written texts. According to David Barton and Mary Hamilton, literacy is a “set of social practices” observable in events mediated by written texts (248). While they expand the definition to encompass social, cultural, political, and financial aspects, problems arise when these dimensions shift with the changing power structures and institutional demands, diluting the real educational objectives. Despite the occurrence of rituals like receiving a graduation certificate, Sizer argues that genuine learning, encompassing various facets, seldom occurs, stating that “One certainly does not learn these things merely from lecturers and textbooks” (266).
The question then arises: How is real learning achieved? The answer points to the identified problem of the absence of dialogue or discourse within the social structure of colleges and schools, influenced by various external factors and ulterior motives.
Agent of Change: Absence of Discourse in College Education
This implies that the essence of this discourse or agent of change is communicative. Jack Mezirow, presenting his theory of Transformative Learning, argues that true learning occurs when two conditions, “habits of mind and point of view,” undergo a change (269). Quoting Habermas, he asserts that various ways of learning exist, such as impressionistic and normative, but the most crucial is communicative learning, involving the engagement of two individuals in a dialogue to reach a consensus (269). However, the recurring issue is the infrequency of such occurrences in schools and colleges, as Theodore Sizer has emphasized in his article, stating that dialogue is “strikingly absent” from the school context (266).
Mezirow underscores this same problem, which acts as a hindrance to communicative learning. He believes that the ultimate goal of all U.S. literacy objectives is to develop autonomy in individuals. However, he notes that the path leads back to discourse, which he describes as a disposition “necessary to become critically reflective of one’s assumptions and to engage effectively in discourse to validate one’s belief” (271). Without the engagement of discourse or, more aptly, dialogue, this disposition cannot be attained. Consequently, autonomy, not to mention other analytical, problem-solving, and decision-making qualities in students, remains elusive.
Conclusion: Absence of Discourse in College Education
Effective discourse is essential to address the literacy crisis in schools and colleges. However, the challenge lies in identifying this discourse, as the objectives of educational institutions, framed within the concept of “thorough and efficient education,” are expressed in terse and abstract language that requires further definitions and elaborations, as noted by Sizer and Barton & Hamilton (261, 247). This highlights a significant lack of connection “between stated goals, such as those of the California high school … and the goals inherent in school practice” (Sizer 266). Bridging this gap in goals necessitates a discourse between students and teachers, which is the true objective of the academic world.
Barry Alford emphasizes the importance of this discourse, which he terms as community discourse or discourse within the student community, aiming to facilitate the learning of critical literacy (281). The rationale behind these community discourses and teacher-student dialogues is multifaceted, as teaching and learning do not occur in isolation. Jack Mezirow contends, “We learn together by analyzing related experiences of others to arrive at a common understanding that holds until new evidence or arguments present themselves” (269). Addressing the issue of effectiveness, he asserts that it occurs only when there is no coercion, equal opportunity, critical reflection of assumptions within the context, and a willingness of speakers and listeners to engage empathetically and listen to each other (272). However, since this ideal condition is not prevalent, the natural consequence is the absence of discourse, which lies at the heart of the problem hindering genuine literacy development in schools and colleges in the United States.
Works Cited: Absence of Discourse in College Education
- Alford, Barry. “Freirean Voices, Student Choices.” Pedagogy 2.1 (2002): 115-117. Project MUSE. Web. 9 Jul. 2022. <https://muse.jhu.edu/>.
- Barton, David & Mary Hamilton. Local Literacies: Reading and Writing in One Community. Routledge. 1998. 6-13. Print.
- Mezirow, Jack. “Transformative Learning: Theory to Practice.” New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 74. (1997). 268-274. Jossey-Bass Publishers. Web. 09 Jul. 2022.
- Reeves, W.J. What and Who is College For? College Isn’t For Everyone.” USA Today. May 2003. Web. 09 Jul. 2022.
- Sizer, Theodore. Horace’s Compromise: The Dilemma of the American High School. New York. Houghton Mifflin Company. 2004. Print. 260-267.
Relevant Questions about Absence of Discourse in College Education
- How does the absence of discourse in college education impact critical thinking skills among students?
- What are the potential consequences of a lack of discourse in college education on the development of students’ communication and collaboration abilities?
- How does the absence of open and diverse discourse in college settings affect the cultivation of a well-rounded and informed perspective among students?
