5

In ;This Age of Consumerism, What Are the Implications of Giving Students

What They Want? Have It Your Way U

Tracy Davis, Western Illinois University

This essay examines the tensions between the student affairs profes­sion's contemporary focus on student learn in? and its historical fo~us on service. It explores the ;1dvantages and disadvantages of treatmg

collegians as learners versus customers, and the implications for teaching and learning.

University officials are increasingly viewing students as consumers, and campus services are changing to cater to their needs. Given the rising tuition costs, it is neither inappropri~te nor surprising that students demand a quality return on their investment. The problem lies not in atudents being savvy consumers of education, nor is there a problem with the return on the investment students receive from attending a higher education institute. Those acquiring a postsecondary degree enjoy a wealth of outcomes that demonstrate that education is one of the best investments a person c;1n make, financially and otherwise. The problem Ia that in an environment of declining public support of higher education, COrporate funding is encroaching into school matters and blurring Important distinctions bet ween business and ed ucationa I practices.

85

86 CHAL L ENGES OF PROMOTING LEARNING AND

Among the most important distinctions being obscured . d I G. · IS between customers an stuc ents. · tv111g customers what the

marketplace fails miserably as an educational practice Wt'thy . ~lllrt-.··:" higher educatton.

From naming rights of athletic arenas to exclusive soda • COnt-..: ..::l

huge entrepreneurial research grants, corporate influence is the fundamental purposes of education and shaping the exp .• ,

ectati·-·~' students, parents, and even l~ighcr education insiders. In student pressure on bookstores, restdence halls, and food services to profit centers is also increasing while public financial support of education continues its sharp decline.' It should come as no universities in the United States arc increasingly shifting into enterprises.

In an environment of declining public support of higher education, corporate funding is encroaching

into school matters and blurring important distinctions between business and

educational practices.

The shift is not without consequences. Among the most results is the belief that students should be treated like consumers. however, as inappropriate to treat students like customers as it treat customers like students. Companies are in the business ofp ing customer satisfaction, but educational institutions arc called to mote learning. That is, while there arc some valid parallels students and customers, there are critical differences rooted in the sion of each that adversely influence collegians' learning if not fully considered. In today's higher education environment, in light· of contemporary economic pressures, failing to articulate essential differences is catastrophic. In this essay, I explore fun differences between industry and education, describe tensions by the diverse roles that student affairs professionals play, and critical errors we make if we embrace a customer service, stud consumers model, instead of a learning model when interacting college st·udents.

AllONS OF Gl

VING sTUDENTS WHAT THEY WANT" 87

Making a Customer Service Model

pifferences ill • & r Higher Education upnate 10 tniPJ!• cl the related values of financial profit, Joyal con-

. ouences an . , . . ,rporate 10

.

1 efficiency are prevalent tn today s htgher educatton

- ---risrO and ume Y · · 1 1 I · d tull~~ _' 11

'fhese values arc anttthettca to t 1~ ean~mg_ pr~cess an cn.UO"JilCO .th f damental purposes of educatiOnal mstltUtJOnS. The

. to e un , . cJalf\IISl0S . ted with using a student-as-consumer, customer servtce

'ef'S assocta 'd . I b . d • . h dttcation are evt ent 1n t 1e most aste outcome an ~-A

1 ·0

htg er e ' · . . llJY"e 1

·t:! ces sought by corporate versus educatiOnal enterpnses.

U..nnse dt

11eren · · d I · h'l · d P •r- d t' n's primary purpose ts to pro uce earmng, w 1 e 111 us-

... , .. her e uca 1 o . . . n r~" . lly called on to produce profit. CommerCial and sooal obJeC-

...,.,~nua I · b f · h "' t necessarily mutually exc ustve, ut con usmg t e two can tiftS are no f d · I · · · I

I d ge the central focus o e ucatJOna mstttutJOns-name y

deary ama a • teanung. . 1 · · 1 · d ·

0 t

mes associated wtth earntng reqlllre processes t 1at are qUite ts-u co I . h c: I' I . . d b .

• t c. om processes associ a tee wtt pront. ·or examp e, tt ts goo ust -unc .r · . . ness P"cticc to treat customc.:s as ,r they were always nght. After a\1, a l1apPY and satisfied cu~tomer " more hke\y to. remam a customer, thus increi\Sing profit. Thts ts not generally the case tn educatiOn where learn­Ing is a coveted outcome. Wh i \e thecc ace i mpo """ t power d i ff~rcnc<" in education between student and teacher or student affatrs professiOnal that need to be ethically negotiated, the educator holds some level of content and process expertise the learner usually does not. If this were not the ease, no one would pay tuition. In fact, we know that learning occurs through a process requiring dissonance; learning does not occur without some process that replaces previous understanding with new information. At the very least new information causes disequilibrium with what was previously known. In some cases, especially where values, ethics, and deeply ingrained traditions are associated, feelings of anger and resent­ment (natural to disequilibrium) often occur. Educational institutions are uniquely called on by society to not simply replace one dogma with another but to challenge students to more deeply integrate for themselves a more cogent, differentiated understanding. As Stephen Brookfield

stated:

Significant learning and critical thinking inevitably induce an ambivalent mix of feelings and emotions, in which anger and confusion are as promi­nent as pleasure and clarity. The most hallowed rule of business- that

88 CHALLENGES OF PROMOTING LEARN ING AND

the cus tomer is always right- is often pedagogica lly wron teaching with a wi_despread feeling among students tha~·You what th ey wanted 1gnores the dynam1cs of teaching and

. , preventa cant Jea rnmg. '

A second way that education and the marketplace difC . . . 1er IS

customer/consumer language estabhshes an Inappropriate

leads to misunderstanding about the fundamental differences.

Alexat_1der Astin illus_trated ho': an industrial or business mo~:l propnate for measunng educatiOnal outcomes. He argued that sequence of this business orientation is that it portrays students degrees as ' produced' by the institution, in much the same wa mobile is produced at a factory."~ The business model ob:can

·1 ·1· d · I · d b d ur1 responst )I tty an mvo vement reqUire y stu ents in the learnin cess. Good students are responsible for reflecting critically, g

ambiguities, giving and receiving feedback. A customer does not responsibilities beyond the economic.

A third way that confusing the fundamental purposes of education is damaging relates to the increasing calls for Those not familiar with the unique processes associated with may expect, for example, that students progress in a unid upward or inc reasingly complex manner. What we know about ;md educational processes, however, is that sometimes students get before they get better. William Perry, in his well -known study of students' intellectual development. used the terms temporizingand to describe students who felt overwhelmed by a developmental and who were either treading water in the face of the difficulty ing) or actively moving in an opposite direction to avoid it What business or customer service models might categorize as learning models may describe as naturally occurring phenomena.

In addition, the Astin metaphor of cars produced in a factory

forces the fundamental differences in corporate arenas compared to cn tional measures of accountability. 6 In th e former, we can use number of cClr units produced in a day or year as one measure. But does a unit of learning look like? What we do know is that learning ally escapes measurement in such tangible and simplistic ways. Even most psychometrically adequate tests measure achievement, not I For example, which student hns learned more, the one with a Record Exa m (GRE) verbal score of 350 or the one with 450? We may

oNS OF GiVING sTUD ENTS WHAT THEY WANT?

8g

'th 111

e confidence that the latter has a better verbal score,

~~~ ~ . ,.,_ , te which one ;,rned the tnost tn the content ma. What 1otll.,. <>" t ;''both students took the G R E a yea< prior to achieving the

;i..,...,..~~:;nd the fir~t scored 200 the fiT't time •nd the other 400? ~~who is r<spon>tblc for :tudent \earnmg knows the dramat.c ~- of skill levels, cbaractenst.cs, expenenw_. a~d htSWtCS repre­cfi'l""'j, studene that clearly elude the snnphst.c mdustna\ outcome .,.ttd_ ·Y ically demanded 111 the corporate world. We know that stu ­~ ~g· does not progress in the same manner. Affective, cognitive, cttnt -rn• · · I I . . . fl I . . . nd other dispoStttOna naractensttCS>n uence t" unfoldmg of

tclefltlt)'• a · 1 · · c1 1 M ffi · . with different tnotvt u.s. oreover, e ctency measures-----when kiJ1'tnS 1 \ · . 1 f l . , lied

10

sentient, comP ex >etngs •_n t" process o growll, learn mg. ~development-are absurd. Learnmg outcomes cannot even be mea­

an ttd in the time students ,re engaged iu their college education.' It is :

11111100

for s.,ds planted in college to grow to fruition much later in ur~ What business hos customers who have changed their minds over

1

;me about a service they received that was i ni tia II y threatening, chailen g-

InS> or otherwise negative? Businesses measure customer satisfaction; educational institutions, however-; measure learning performance.

111 Student Affairs Supposed to Develop Students, Promote

Learning, or Serve Customers?

Tile problems associated with using a business model in the context of hlslter educotion b<come even more complicated when applied to the student affairs profession. While most faculty are clear that learning is at the epicenter of their classes, most student affairs professionals have competing models upon which they base their practice. There have been at least three distinct approaches to student affairs work during the past SO years: focusing on student services, student development, and student learning.~ In addition, Blimling identifted four communities-student administration, student services, student development, and student learn­ing-that guide the practice of student affairs.9 The student administra­tion community of practice focuses on the distribution of resources,

procedures, policies, and organizational leadership. Those coming from a student services community of practice perspective focus on a business ~eland cost efficiency with emphasis on student satisfaction. Profes­tlonals taking a student development approach focus on psychosocial

90 CHALLENGES OF PROMOTIN G LEARNING AND

growth of students and see out-of-class programmatic in equally valuable as in-class learning. Finally, those with., st d

. . . . " · u ent commumty of practice focus VIew student affairs profession

1 . . . · · as as m the learnmg process and the college environment as., se I . " arn ess where learning can happen anywhere. Professionals are gen l I . I . . f . I . etaUy a )OUt w liC 1 communities o practice t om1nate the expectatio

. h . 1 . . fl 1 c ns supervisors, w IC 1 111 turn 111 uence I 1c penormance of their There have been times in the history of student affairs when a

mentality that operates separately from the central educational of the institution was dominant. The 1949 Student Personnel Pain represents a clear administrative and services approach descri~· supportive functions of student personnel work as supplernen~ng central tasks of "intensive class-room lcarning" 10 In addition, th~g National Association of Student Personnel Administrators in A tive on Student 1\ffnirs concluded that "the work of student affairs not compete with and cannot substitute for that academic exoeril'ftl and that "student affairs enhances and supports the academic The distinctions, however, between cognitive and psychosocial between in - and out-of-class learning are artificial. Not only do nitive developmental issues outside the classroom have an impact dent learning inside the classroom, there is strong evidence that and other forms of development (e.g., identity, moral) occur That is, those of us in academia may care who gets credit or what lates learning and development, but the recipient generally does not. tinguishing cognitive learning from psychosocial development mischaracterizes the phenomena. As a result the authors of"The Learning Imperative," Learning Reconsidered and many student scholars have called for the integration of student learning and ment that reduces the artificial dualism of in -class and ou growth. 12 With these artificial differences dissolved it should become that the work we do in higher education, whether as faculty or affairs professionals, is centrally about educating students in a that honors the processes associated with learning rather than service.

The differences in communities of practice and the differing purposes captured in each community are, however, not simply sophical. Some of the work in student affairs docs in fact need to more like a business. Areas of financial aid, building management, services, and the like require business skills and are typically foundcin

IONSi ~O~F~G~IV~I~N::_G ~S:_;,TU::_::D:..::E.-N_TS_W_H_AT_TH_E_Y_W_A_N_T_, _______ 91

th e who are charged with promoting student cocurri­

:,,.;,c;;~ divisi~n as d ~~velopment. Residence life offices and food services (dial' ~earn~ng 311cornpeting with private intere~ts providing similar ~er-

;paeastnglY While it is legitimate that this causes some confusion, • d nroducts. . . . f f· 'I' . ~an r d rnisunderstandmg, .'t ts not a~1 excuse or a1 mg to :emem-

eenswoth an h rnost businesslike operation on campus must still func­bef tha~ e~en t educational environment where learning is the central don wath!O an ennot demonstrate the educational value of living in the -t.ci

11 If we ca . . ~0 • h II then rnaybe we need to focus more on art1culatmg and

_ ... _ce as 1

. . . F ,.,_.,.,:·

3

ropriate outcomes t 1an on mcreasmg customer service. ~ or-ang

1PP is a rnovement on many campuses to more clearly identify

tunatcly. t 'ere ' · · d · I b fi f h · • tcomes and Illummate e ucatwna ene 1ts or t ose engagmg ~ntJ~S ~~ass experiences. The American College Personnel Association, an out 0 cle holds an annual Residential Curriculum Institute aimed at (or examp , . . . . , d . 1 . .

d·ng residential programs Ill an mstitutwn s e ucatwna miSSion,

,oun ' . 1 . . h . hcl ~ g develop assessable learnmg outcomes, an< exammmg t e Impact th'pl~ift has on campuses. Similarly, community standards models are ~~ing in popularity. At t~e Uni.versity of~evada, Las V~g~s, ne,~ resi­denture challenged to clanfy their expectations and to antiCipate work­lnS together toward commoi~ goals and through challenging diffe~enc~s" nd to "learn how to negotiate, solve problems, and be a contnbutmg

member of a tearn-skills valued by graduate schools and future employ­ers."" Leatning-oricnted expectations to work through challenges stand In stark contrast to consumer expectations for satisfaction. Moreover, the differences necessitate that employees in the marketplace know how to provide customer service, while educational institutions require profes­sionals who can promote learning. McDonalds, Walmart, and Bank of America are employment possibilities for those frustrated by or incapable of honoring an educational mission and the related learning processes. What distinguishes student affairs from corporations are the learning spe­cialists who go beyond the technical aspects of student affairs work to promote cognitive, affective, and psychosocial growth and develop­ment-not simply providing customer service.

Examples of Customer Service Mentality and Negative Impacts on Student Affairs

A few years ago, when higher education institutions were still publishing printed copies of course registration catalogs, I remember seeing large

92 CHALLENGES OF PROMOTING LEARNING -----------------------------------------------_AND

type, bulleted promises on the cover for sin gle rooms in wired (now wireless) capability, and dining facilities that . out. There is nothing inherently wrong in providing these ;rovtde it raised questions about whether we were concerned about customers or students _as learners. What do we know about engagement and Iearnrng outcomes that occur in the conte

. I l . . . I I . xt of wrt1 roommates anc mteractrng wrt 1 011ers 111 physical s ?

·d · I · f I · I Pace. Are consr enng t 1e rmpact o earn1ng to t 1e same extent that w d · l · 7 Tl · · 1 e contOrt ..a meet consumer- nven c esrres. 11s IS on y one minor ex

1 L·

· I bl · ll · 1 1 amp e potentia pro ems r<Hsec )y usrng a mar <etp ace mentality in th of higher education. e

Faculty members have faced the confl ict caused by the s customers model in higher education and corporate encroach decades. Grade inflation has fueled student expectations for hig~ent with minimal effort and there is clear evidence that expectations receding., . The corporatc-i n flucnccd customer service model is at the heart of an unseemly connection between student ' faculty and grades. Evidence shows that teachers can "buy" better tions through more lenient grading.' " In addition, research into expectations of their professors indicates that "student s desire inducing activities that do not necessarily make them learn more.~>l6

Just as faculty can be tempted by shortcuts to better student lions, student affairs professionals <Jre seduced by l he efficiency of students as customers. I have either experienced or witnessed how customer-service-influenced practice subver ts a learning student affairs in several ways. rirst, I have seen residence life and practices that allow roommate switching without· consid underlying conflicts or even the requirement of meeting with attempt reconciliation. It's not uncommon, for example, for roommalll to experience tension with identity issues (e.g., scxu<J I orientation, gious pr<Jctices, or cthnicity). Rather th<Jn appropriately viewing natural tensions as teachable learning moments, customer influenced practices seek to efflcicntly satisfy consumers (parents and dents), paten tially subverting l he le<Jrni ng mission of the ed instit·ution.

A second example of how the customer service model is ately applied in student affairs relates to stnt:cgics we usc to evaluate learning impact. When we design student programming, from ing events to sexual assault prevention programs, we tend to measure

OF GIVING STUDENTS WHAT THEY WANT? 93

~ 00

the nu~ber of people who attend. In fact, some funding ~-s foctlS exdusrvely on the number of students served. Learning

aiSO"UJJ'"

Not onlY does a corporate model risk confusing uatity with quantity, but also there is an incentive to

qprovide satisfying entertainment at the expense of the centra/learning outcomes.

. 1· tl·c measurement. More learning can occur in an inter--• d such s1mp IS . . gO es .

1 .

3 people, hypothetically, than a program w1th 600

.-ntion 1nvo vtng " 1 I h · · "bl ...... d"ng to Alexander Astin, A L 1oug 1t IS poss1 e to assess dees· j\CCOf I . . tten f plant in terms of the number and quality of tts products,

.a.e impact o a . . .1:1• 1 · act of college is not necessanly reflected 111 the number of

the actua tmp . f I . h" "' 7 N 1 d duates or even the quah~y o t 1e_rr ac. revemen_ts. ot on y o~s Its gr. te model risk confusrng quality w1th quantity, but also there 1s

corpora . .

I t···c to provide satisfy1ng entertamment at the expense of the

an ncen .. CCJltrllllearning outcomes. - .

In addition to efficient (~ather th<~n dev~lo~mental) roommate confl1ct resolution and disproportiOnately quan.tttative ~utco~e measures, the customtr service model of student affa1rs practrce fa1ls to account for important phenomena as~oci<Jted with l~a~~ing. For _e:ample, most of us who have been charged w1th the rcspons1btlity of adv1smg a student group kJ1ow that it would be more efficient and easier to outline responsibilities ,nd lead the organization. Compared to producing learning, it is much

simpler and much easier to satisfy others in the organization if we take the lead ourselves. But s<Jtisfaction is not what we are c<~lled to produce; rather, we are uniquely charged in education to create learning. Learning sometimes (and in my experience often) requires making mistakes and allowing students to learn deeply from those experiences. Paulo Freire reinforced the important distinctions between marketplace behavior and educational processes in his criticism of a banking metaphor of learning. '

8

He claims that teachers using the banking metaphor will try to deposit knowledge into students hoping for good returns on their investment. Banking, however,

attempts to maintain the submersion of consciousness; [while] problem­posing strives for the emergence of consciousness and critical intervention

94 CHALLENGES OF PROMOTING LEARNING AND

in reality. Problem-posing education affirms men and wo the process of becoming-as unfinished, uncompleted b ~en as

emgs i a likewise unfinished reality.' 9 n

According to Freire, raising awareness of being incomplete . . h I f h I . . ' not ou. tent expertise, IS at l e 1eart o t e earnmg enterpnse. More ~·

· · f I l b · k d b · over ~ng IS o te~1 en 1ancec y mtsta es ~n y posmg problems. This'~ ·~• ts rarely It near, almost ne~er eftlCie~t, and stands 111 sharp co/ otfiii.'< general marketplace strategtes rclatell to customer service. tfast

Conclusion

I know of no one who would claim that we should test or grade before allowing them to check out at the grocery store, but calls for ing students as customers abound. As budgetary constraints

choke off resources for education (ironically bailing out those who ated the most recent tlnancial crisis) college and university admi are being forced to respond to increasing demands for accountalil Unfortunately we appear to be losing focus on the essential between corporate and educational purposes and processes. As "academic institutions have come to resemble the entities they now colleges have been transformed into big businesses. Major schools, particularly private ones, are also landlords, tax h research-and-development surrogates, with admin istrators and

raisers lauding it over faculty." 20

The risks of continuing to misunderstand fundamental di between education and business, and continuing to use a vice model in higher education, are simply too great. While the of higher education and student affairs has changed, the purposes related to learning have not. Applying an inappropriate phor and parallel terminology will have distinctly negative con It will lead to a focus on satisfaction, not growth and developmer:l~ eftlciency, not effectiveness; to quantity, not quality; and to a tal subversion of the most important thing that sets education apart other civic enterprises: learning.

Robert Rhoads, in describing John Dewey's vision of higher said that "Dewey saw educated citizens as something more than a of individuals with technical skills, vocational inclinations, and

S OF GIVING sTUDENTS WHAT THEY WANP 95

, . • nd h< ""' democr•CY as more tha~ ',Politic•\ econ?my of ":..loStJOns. A etition and entrepreneurship.

2 1

If we contmue to llP"' _... ts colllP ' . ,_ ~r,.e ~ t be commodified by corporate mterests and a market

,, .. ~ -' cauon o ~u ·nlose the more fundamental broader focus on democ-

mentaltt)'• we Wlmic interests are important, but the proverbial tail should ,.q.ourec~no the dog. It is our responsibility to be educators and not pOt be wa~ngproviders, and it is the students' responsibility to be learn-

' plY sef"l ce . $1Jtl ed in their 0

wn development and not s1mply customer~. There-ets engll8 d to challenge and support students as they expenence the (o~ we ncb\alencc, and unavoidable frustration involved in deep

anger. am t

~taming.

NoteS a 'b ld ll 13 & feldman, D. 1-1. (2006). State higher education spending and 1 Afth• a , ., . . ' l J

11

1 0

.f/liP/rer J-'t/l((lltron, 77(4), 6111-644; Miller, T. (2003). Govern men-.. dification? U.S. higher educatiOn. Cllltural Studres, 17(6), 1197-904. the tal rcvo t. ourr 1 1 " " . , .

tall"' or commo . · · · k 1 'J'h · 1· · .r I · I · ., k 0. (2003). Urrrversrtrcs rrr. the rrwr etp ace: e commercra rzatron o1 1r~ w

~!:.'Princeton, N.J: Princeton Univ~rsi~y Press; Molnar, A. (1996). Gi:in~ kids tire

I . The oommercralturtrorr of Amerrca s sclrools. Boulder, CO: Westvtew/Harper-

""'ntJ$. . t• J' 1 . . 'J l k CoUin.: Molnar, A. (2005). Sclrool wmmercrrr rsm: ·rom 1 .emocratrc u ea to mar et ecmr-my. New York, NY: Routledge Falmer; Miller, Govern mentality or commodification?

0 3, Brookfield, S. (1995). llaomirr~ a critically reflexive teacher. San Francisco, CA:

JOISCY·Bas.~. P• 2 I. 4, Astin1

/\. (1993). Wlrat llrtlttcrs in college?: Four critical years revisited. San francisco,

CA: Josecy·Bass, p. 17. S. Perry, W. G. (1970). forms of irrtellectwrl and etlliral rlevelopme11t in tile college years:

A &theme. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

6. AAtin, Wlt11t nr11tters in ro//e~:e? 7. Bowen H. (1977). lrrvestmcrrt irr leami11~: Tire i11divirluala11d social value of Ameri-

mn higher etl11catioll. San francisco, CA: )ossey-Bass; Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2()0S).Ifow college affects st11derrts: A tlrird decade of researclr (Vol. 2) . San Francisco, CA: I<*}'·Bass;V~ill , P. (2000). Beware tire idea of the str.tdc11t as a customer: A dissenting view.

~rltved from http://www.pcople.vcu.edu/ - rsleeth/NotCustomers.html 8. Ender, S.C., Newton, F. B., & Caple, R. B. (1996). Contributions to learning:

Prtsent rtalitics. Tn S. C. Ender, F. B. Newton, & R. B. Caple (Eds.), Contrilmtil1~ to llllming: 11re role of studerrt affairs (pp. 5- I 7). San hancisco, CA: ]ossey- Bass.

9. Blimling, G. (200 1) . Uniting scholarship and communities of practice in student

aft'tirs. ]oumnl ofColle~e Stutlerrt Development, 42(4), 381 - 396.

I

10. Amtrican Council on Education. ( 1949). Tile stude11t perso1111el point of view. Wash-

nston, DC:· Author, p. ~. -~Nati~nal Association of Student Personnel Administrators. ( 19117). A perspective 011

1 uf/aiTs. Washington, DC: Author, p. 9.

96 CHALLENGES OF PROMO

TING LEARNING AND ~

12. American College Personnel Association. ( I 9%). The student I . lm11licat ions for St udent Afl1irs. /ouma/ of Col!e~e Student /)I'Fe/

11111

earn• . . . . llem, 37(2 Keclrng, R. P. (Ed.). (2004). Leamnrx remnsrdered: J\ canrpus-wide 1(

1

),

· I · DC · I A · · f l ' cus 011 cxfwrrerrce. Was 11ng ton, : Natrona ssoc rJtron o Student Personnel

American College Personnel AssociMion; End er, S. C., Newton , r:. II

( I 996). Contri~1ution s to lea rning:. Pre:~e nt rea lities. In S. C. Ender, F. 11

'_' N~:Pie,· Ca ple (Eds.), Cmr trrlmtrng to ll'lmrurg: The role ofstrulerl/ offarrs (pp. 5- l

7) S 011

CA: )osscy-Bass; King, P., & Baxter Magolda, M. B. ( 1996). A developllle~ta~n on learnin g. /otmral o( College Studen t J)eFelopnrerrt , 37(2), 1 ti3 - i 73.

13. Unive rsit y of Nevada Las Vegas. (2009). Your guide to m n,111111

;1y livin

Las Vegas, NV: Author. g

14. l~ojsta czer, S., & Hea ly, C. (20 I 0). G rading in American co lleges and 7i:uclrers College Uerord. Retrieved from h t tp:J /www. tc record .o tcntld = 15928

15. Krautmann, A. C., & Sa nder, W. ( 1999). G rades and student evaluations ers. F'.rorwmics of /:'ducat ion Review, I R, 59- n3; Mehdizadc h, M. ( 1990). Log

and student co urse eva luations. /ounral of /Jconomir l:'dumtion, 2 1, 7- 2 1.

16. C honko, L. n., Tanner,). F., & Davis, R. (2002). What arc they thinkin 1 ex pecta tion s <111d self-assessments may he the hane of teaching evaluations. g.

I!drmtlion for Ilusiness, 77(5), 27 1- 28 1, p. 272. 17. Astin, What 1111111ers in college?

Ill. Freire, P. ( 1993). Pedagogy o( tire oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum (O riginal work published 1970)

19. Ibid ., p. 84.

20. Miller, T. (2003). Govern mentality or co mmodifica tion ? p. 902.

2 1. lthoads, R. A.. (2003) . How civic engagement is re fra ming liberal f?el'i('IV, 5(3), 25- 21l, 26- 27.

To Err on the Side of Learning

Usa Boes, Harvard University

h allies and our}Joses that distinguish marketplace and

·fying t e v, . , t . . . dan 1

age ,111

d metaphors, Tracy Dav1s illummates the danger · nal angu. ' . . ec)dcat1°. nsumer-drivcn approach to student learnmg and htgher

_~ _.J. pttllS a co . . vaau0 tomes Davis arttculates three fundamental dtffcrences _. t'on ou c . . cvuca 1 • dustry and education. First, consumer models overlook that ~n .10 process involves challenging students in ways that create dis­the Jearn'~~ disequilibrium, experiences that would be avoided from sat-

nancc a I I . . b d •.t. • pproaches. Seconc, )UStness perspectives o scure stu ents' IIJiactton a . I . . nsibility and involvement tn the earmng p~ocess by focusmg on =ction and service. delivery. And finally, proht measures can rar.ely be t;anslated to educattanal outcome measures beca~se stud.ent learnmg , Inherently a complex human phenomenon that 1s multifaceted and :~otive. Without disregarding calls for quality from students and effi ­ciency and accountability from funding institutions, Davis reaffirms higher education's commitment to. grow.th: develo~ment, effectiveness, and quality-all central to the learmng miSSIOn of h1gher education. This response explores three additional tensions between learning and service: the limits of student satisfaction, a conceptualization of informational and transformational learning, and how one achieves the scholarly goals of higher education by recognizing and affirming a complex set of roles

and relationships within that community.

The Limits of Student Satisfaction

Concern about student satisfaction with campus services and the aca­demic experience should not be overlooked but should be weighed against other goals and concerns. Satisfied students are more likely to have a sense of belonging to the campus community and become alumni who remain connected to the institution.' Furthermore, these alumni have the potential to offer important forms of influence and financial support to their institution. However, administrators and faculty are also responsible for judging whether what is satisfying to students is also safe and supports educational goals. Although higher education has refuted

97

98 CHALLENG ES OF PROMOTIN G LEARNIN G AND

-~

an in loco parentis relationship with students, a move that tr i I . I . . I I I . . b eats as ac u ts 111 t 1e1r own ng 1t, t 1e u tlmate responsJ i)ih, ~or

·' creatin and healthy environment for students still falls to the admi-· 8a f~1Cult_r. For example, although student~ ~lay request and be satisfi l1branes that offer 24-hour access, adm1n1strators can decide th ed access does not symbolically communicate a healthy campu:t ment. Along with other programs that support well -being

l . d d . . , un leac ers can commumcate to stu ents a ecJsJon to close 11·br .

. . . · anes r~lJdmght to .6:00a.m. as a structural f~rm of su1:port. Connectin tJCes to learnmg ~oals helps student affa1rs pror:essJonals and facul; purposeful expenences and programs and ach1eve their goals.

Framing practices from a learning perspective also provides affairs professionals, faculty, and a.dministr~tors with a framework can use to understand and work w1th dissatisfied students. In the displeasure with a campus service, such as limited library hours, affairs educators can advise students about avenues to provide live feedback or ways to address the issue. As Davis has articulated isfaction may also arise from dissonance or disequilibrium to a ' existing frame of reference or way of knowing. In these cases, a solving response has the potential of preventing rather than learning. An alternative for administrators and faculty is to become ous about the dilemma, and to try to understand how a student structs the issue as a way to promote a change in perspective.

Informational Versus Transformational Learning

The consumer-learner dichotomy lends itself to crenting a dichotomy between higher education's goals of inOuencing what know and how they know it. Building on Mezirow's work in Trnnsformation ,l Kegan di stin guishes informational from transformatioi learning. A change in what a student knows is informational:

Learning aim ed at increasing our fund of knowledge, at increasing repertoire of skills, at ex tending already established cognitive into new terrain serves the absolutely crucial purpose of deepening resources available to an existing frame of reference. Such learning is ally in-.form-ative because it seeks to bring valuable new contents into existin g form of our way of knowing.'

GI~IN~G~S~T ~UD~E~N~T~S~W~H~A_T _T_HE_Y_W __ A_NT_? _____________ 9 __ 9 t .. PLICATIONS OF GIV

c tion learning involves qualitative differences in trans,onna . . "

IP ~ontfllSt, 1

is part 0 ( a process 111 whrch taken for-granted d ts know. 1 · h b. f · d · d ) ......., stU en · ( enning perspectives, a rts o mm , mm -sets

,..~ ( eference 111 ' · · II II f "-riJCS o r . 1

·ve discriminating, open, emotwna y capa) e o lito I ore mc us1 , I~ m . ~

0 that they may generate beliefs and opinions that

d reflecttve s . . , h ' h . k ..s. .. mre, an . r J·ustified to gUJde action. 4 T 1s c ange m now-~-·co- more true o , . . . .nJ prove tter of adding capacity or substttutmg one perspec-

• more than a ma . I . h c . If . k ingiS h "Trans-fonn-ntwe earnmg puts t e 10rm 1tse at ns . 'th anot er. . d . ) " s R I K b~ WI d t ·ust change, but Increase capacrty . · o )crt egan

of change (an. 00

1~at "genuinely transformational learning is always to clarifies by saymgepistcmological change rather than merely a change

me extent an · · · ~ h · f f d f SO . 1 epertoire or an mcrease rn I e quantity o un o in t>chavJOra r

led "6

know ge. le of the distinction between these two types of knowing can An examp 11 d · h · I · d . the experience of students enro e Ill a p ys1cs course ( esrgne

be rten 1" · 1 d · · 7 1'h 6

ear Harvard students w1t 1 outstan mg preparation. e (or rst·Y f 1· ~ 1 bl d · d

I r Of this course era ts comp 1catec pro em sets, estgne to

instruc o · . . . dd the concepts he JS teachmg and new ways of approachmg them. ~ ~~e the students to think more coherently about problem solving, t:e ;roblems have to be suffi~ien tl y novel and difficult to resist solution by standard cookbook technrques because these students are .extremel_y (aclle and able to try out many standard approaches very qurckly. Thrs has worked for them through high school and they have never really had to think hard about what they were doing. A desired outcome from the instructor's vantage point is to create problems that Kegan and Lahey describe as "ones we don't so much solve as let solve us. They cause us, In some way, to change our minds. "8 The physics instructor hopes that in addition to teaching new tools, his assignments will promote trans­formative learning experiences, and that students' approaches to problem solving will become much more intentional.

While responsiveness to calls for accountability are important, consumer­and market-driven approaches to higher education risk being addressed by assessment measures that answer the question, Do students know ~ore?-or informntionnllearning-as a result of attending college. What IS harder to assess, and arguably a more important goal of higher educa­tion,.is; Do students also know differently?- that is, transformational learmng. While it would be easy enough for the physics instructor to Provid 'd · . e evt ence that h1s students know dozens of ways to solve prob-lems, documenting the development of an approach to problem solving

--100

that is conceptually more sophisticated is challenging. ueual­

measures and remaining committed to the goal of creating

Although higher education has refuted an in loco parentis relationship with students, a move that tre ts

students as adults in their own right, the ultimat: responsibility for creating a safe and healthy

environment for students still falls to the administration and faculty

learning experiences for college students is consistent with a centered focus in practice, and it's a good reason to be cautious nervous about institutional obsessions with a consumer-driven ship with students.

Complex Learning Relationships

Marketplace approaches in higher education rest on clear consum­producer roles. As Davis argued, these models arc ill suited for education because they obscure the responsibility students have process by which they produce learning. Thinking about student as a product is also not appropriate in higher education because product, knowledge creation, is also a central, and sometimes goal. Within a community of scholarship-a complex interg<>n<>•fttl set of relationships between faculty, administrators, and knowledge creation flourishes. Through engagement in the being employed in campus offices, leadership on campus and participation in research teams in laboratories, students nificant contributions to the learning experiences of the and faculty members as well as the products of their work. Our ment to learning-centered practice involves more than achieving able student learning outcomes, it is based on the comm developing a community of intergenerational relationships among engaged in scholarly endeavors.

101

untability-from students, parents, funders, alumni, and "-"~ for acco f . h . I v- . t defend our use o resources 111 1g 1er education have

obhc- 0 · · the r th than being drawn mto product-dnven, customer service rnent. Ra er seful educational practice should shift the discourse to --Acts purpo l . .d fi1V" in' development, and knowlec_ gc creatiOn. Ev1 ence to support this Jeartl g,h

1 0 necessitates the creat1on of assessment measures and pro-

roac as f I . . h h valu

ate the kinds o earmng we w1s to promote at the level ms t ate . d'l'dual student, a program or course, and for graduates overall

(the 10 IV · . • • 0 • the language of learnmg, rather than busmess-sector services and 0Stn8 · d · t t I · · · productS, wiU help those 111 aca eme remam rue o t 1e1r mtss1on.

Notes J( h G. 0. (1998). Strengthening the ties that hind: Cultural events, rituals, and

ltcJ:do:s. in J, N. Gardner & G. Van dcr Veer (Eds.), The swior year exp~rience: Facilitat­intlnttgration, reflection, closure, 11111itrmiSittoll (pp. 152- 170). San Pranc1sco, CA: Jossey-

~ Metirow, j. & Associates. (Eel~-) Leami11x as transformation: Critiwl perspectivPs m1

11 thtorr ill prn~:ress. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.

J, !<egan, R. (2000). What "form" transforms? A constructive-developmental

approa~h to transformative.'carning. In J. Mezirow & Associates (Eds.), Leamit1x as tnms­,.rion: Critical perspertn•cs 011 11 theory 111 proxress (pp. 35- 69). San Francisco, CA:

IOMf·Baaa. 4. Mn.irow, Learnin~: as tmnsjormatio11, pp. 7- 8. 5. Kegan, What "form" transforms? p. 48. 6. Ibid. 7. Howard Georgi, Mallinckrodt professor of physics and master of Leverett House,

tetchta Phy8ics 16 at Harvard University. 8. Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. (200 1 ). flow the way we talk m11 rhanxe the way we work:

Sftrll IA"RU£1KtS for tra11S[ormatirm. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass, p. 64.

Further Reading and Related Blog

Craig Berger, Miami University

I3ok, D. (2003). Universities in the marketplace: The cor higher education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Bok, a former president of Harvard University, examines the associated with the commercialization of higher education acknowledging that occasionally the benefits that accompany ' cialization can outweigh the risks. I3ok laments the gradual erosio university's values as the largest issue, warning his audience of n be lost with continued commercialization.

Kegan, R. (2000). What "form" transforms? A constructive-devPin..-..; approach to transformative learning. In ]. Mezirow (Ed.), Lear"'""'' transformation: Critical perspectives on a the01y in progress (pp. San Francisco, CA: ]ossey-I3ass.

This chapter distinguishes between information and transtorm~•!~. learning, describing the latter as involving transformation of the know or make meaning of experience. Kegan explains the intersectio." development and learning across the lifespan and offers insight into implications for adult learning.

Miller, T. (2003). Governmentality or commodification? U.S. higher cation. Cultural Studies, 17(6), 897-904.

Miller explores the tension in American higher education between differing philosophies: viewing universities as an opportunity to age governmentality and recognizing that universities engage in modification. Miller examines how administrators of u approach research as being initiated for the public good and training the citizenry in self-regulation, while also viewing being increasingly driven by corporate needs and teaching as a good.

I3log URL: contestedissues.wordpress.com Corresponding Chapter Post: tinyurl.com/contestedissuesOS

102

6

What Are the Risks and Benefits AsSociated With Allowing Students to

Fail If Learning Results? Creative Learning for Challenging Times:

The Promise and Peril of Risk

Michele M. We/kener, University of Dayton

We are in an unprecedented time when it comes to the world's complexity-never has the need been greater for students to be prepared to think for themselves and act creatively to solve per­

plexing problems. As an artist, faculty member and administrator in higher education, faculty developer, and researcher of creativity in college students, I am passionate about creating environments where students can extrdsc such skills. In the art culture, risk, experimentation, exploration, and even failure are expected routes that lead to finding one's own style, voice, and signature statement. My awareness of these expectations first began to intensify as I advanced from student to instructor of art. Early in my career when I taught introductory courses in drawing and painting I watched bright students act unsure of their efforts on the first days of class. Students would frequently confess a lack of creativity before l would even have a chance to talk with them about their work. When a pattern of

perceptions started to emerge, I began to question how and why these · students sometimes do not consider themselves creative and what they

103