Is Diversity Good?

I her reflection on one of our class sessions, Kim presents the thoughts of two semi-fictitious students surrounding another class-member’s statement of confusion with the direction of discussion. (That was you, right, Kim?) I say “semi-ficticious” because, while neither Rebecca nor Felicity actually exist, I’m confident their thought processes are common enough that one could say our class holds many Rebeccas and Felicitys.

Kim presents the two girls as having very dissimilar reactions to the unnamed student’s outburst. This third student questions whether it is useful to continue discussing the class project’s minor details before its main goal is specified. Rebecca is decidedly resistant to halting the discussion right away, arguing that the minor details will be a deciding factor in the general direction of the goal. Felicity sides with the third student, seeing it as more useful to start working on the project and work out the kinks along the way, as the deadline is approaching quickly. In the end, Felicity “wins,” as the class breaks up into smaller groups and starts tackling the logistics of starting the group project.

The discord between Rebecca and Felicity is also semi-fictitious, being imaginary in this case but real in almost any group-project setting. Nearly every time a diverse group of people is put together to accomplish a goal, at least two of the group members are in disagreement. This is unavoidable. There will always be both Rebeccas and Felicitys, it’s what diversity is all about.

As an instructor of an engineering introductory course, “Diversity” was one of the subjects I had to present to my class of freshmen. The instructions I was given were fairly vague; it was assumed that I knew what “Diversity” was and why it is always desirable. When it came to teaching the class, however, I found myself at a loss. I couldn’t find a logical way to argue that diversity is always better. From an objective standpoint, doesn’t diversity seem like a negative thing when, say, a group of people with extremely differing viewpoints can’t find common ground? Couldn’t this, for instance, ruin the effectiveness of a group project?

I was forced to think of a reason why diversity is better, even in the case of a group of people having absolutely nothing in common, capable only of arguing. The engineering course guidelines offered the cookie-cutter answer of, “diversity teaches people to open their minds to new thoughts and experiences.” Yes, yes. I think everyone has heard a version of this line at some point. It may be true, but I was looking for something more compelling, more relevant.

Perhaps I could argue that, despite the dissonance, diversity might help to increase the ability of the group. For instance, the motivation of the group as a whole might be impacted by the fact that the group members have starkly different personalities.

Joe had good way of phrasing the right way to increase motivation. In his post about group alignment, he remembers a speaker relating the motivation a person should feel towards prayer to the draw caused by a Krispy Kreme “Hot Now!” sign. Although Joe calls it corny, I consider the analogy perfect: motivation is caused by an obvious, loud attractiveness. So how can diversity make a group objective “Hot Now”?

In the case of Rebecca and Felicity, both students have clearly different interests. Although it can’t be said to be absolutely true, a person’s interests generally line up with their skills; they like same things that they are good at. (I don’t want to impose any cause or effect in this case: like we discussed in one of our early classes, it’s unclear whether interest breeds skill because of increased practice or skill breeds interest because of the joy of doing something well.) The same mentality could be raised to the group: a group most likes what it is doing when it is doing it well. If Rebecca and Felicity are both allowed to pursue their particular interests in the group, the overall happiness of the group is raised. The more diverse the group, the more the total amount of different problems it can accomplish, and the happier it becomes.

Of course, this isn’t by any stretch a perfectly logical argument. Surely, the arguments born from the diversity of the group still stand as obstacles towards a happy (and effective) group. This reflection should be taken as more of an advocation for diversity, which I see as an opportunity to make a group “Hot Now”.

Swimming In The Internet

The world wide web is the ocean and “Designing for Effective Change” is a tiny gulf no one has heard of.

Let me start again. I don’t think our class reflections would be any different if, say, they were posted on a private compass page where only we could read them. I agree, Joe, anyone wielding the internet could read this. I really don’t think anyone outside our class is. The world wide web offers the chance for our written thoughts to be internationally public, but I’d say this facet isn’t being utilized here.

Still, the simple fact of having our reflections online, international or not, may have an effect on how we face our job of writing.

The world wide web, being a source of near-instantaneous, often accurate information, makes fact-checking an almost mindless exercise. This fact is the writer’s boon as it offers quick and easy access to correct information (I just looked up “boon” to make sure I was using it correctly,) and his bane as it forces him to dissect his arguments more thoroughly, anticipating an audience capable of the same quick and easy access (I changed “mostly accurate” to “often accurate,” not wanting to tangle with Wikipedia’s shaky status as a source of correct information.)

(Actually, that latter one is probably also a boon. Thorough argument dissection should produce more accurate writing.)

Hyperlinks are another advantage of online writing. I haven’t used any at this point, but I can see that many students have introduced links to other websites within the text of their reflections. Again, this offers both b-words to the writer: his reader will have immediate access to information he deems pertinent to the writing, but he risks losing his reader altogether to another page before they have finished reading his work. In fact, I’d put distraction as the number one problem facing online writers.

The online nature of our classwork can be seen more as a “networking” situation: it facilitates sharing of reflections between the students of the class and allows for outside sources of information to be woven smoothly into our writing. To answer the “are we taking full advantage of our online capabilities,” I’d say yes. It’s true, we try more worldwide publicity, but what’s the point? I’d say these reflections of are the most use to our fellow classmates, and the only comments I care about are from people involved in the class. In this regard, putting our reflections in this small gulf off the main body of the internet ocean is completely beneficial to our course.

Two Ideals in Constructive Criticism

“Don’t take this the wrong way, but…”

I can’t think of a worse way to introduce criticism. Invariably, the receiver will be inclined to take the following comment personally. There’s something about the criticizer “sugar coating” the criticism that seems to make it that much more of a personal attack. I can honestly say that I would never recommend a person to open criticism in this way.

Criticism in itself, however, is an important part of progress. No one can make the claim to have never made a mistake, and it is often through the comments of others that these mistakes are recognized. It appears, then, that criticism exists in two forms: “good” and “bad”.

I’ll answer the easy question first. What is “bad” criticism?

When I was in sixth grade I had a teacher who I will rename Mrs. Blue. Mrs. Blue, I feel no remorse in saying, couldn’t have been suited worse for her job. She was quick to anger, a very unfortunate trait for a woman constantly surrounded by herd after herd of eleven-year-olds. What made it worse was that Mrs. Blue had seemingly resigned from trying to teach her students the wrongness of the actions that brought on her anger. Instead, she was willing only to express her violent emotions through, you guessed it, “bad” criticism.

I took some time deciding which of Mrs. Blue’s quotes I wanted to use as an example here; there are a lot of examples. Daily, she would take a student in “private” to reprimand them. Obviously, the availability of these quotes in my memory proves that her efforts for privacy were either completely half-hearted or intentional failures.

“I can’t believe you were screaming in the classroom!” I remember hearing her hiss at a classmate after they let out an outburst during a group activity. “You’re acting like a baby!” She sent the student back to his seat and grumpily continued class.

Mrs. Blue’s criticism is “bad” for apparent reasons: she insulted the student instead of pointing out the mistake and its negative effects. Criticism should not be designed to offend the receiver. Clearly, this works against the goal of the criticism, as the offended party is less likely to take into account the criticizer’s point of view. In Mrs. Blue’s case, I think she had been withstanding the same flaws of children for so long that she lost the energy required to continue being an effective teacher.

As I see it, “good” criticism has two main elements: it addresses a fixable problem and supports the comment with reasons why a change is necessary. Consider how differently the student would have felt if Mrs. Blue would have said, “You need to stop yelling, the other students can’t hear each other when you do.” The comment holds no less authority than her original wording, and has the added bonus of not being a blatant attack on the student.

Yes, I recognize that most criticisms between adults do not include the blatant offensiveness of Mrs. Blue. I’d argue that anything that doesn’t make a point of including the “good” criticism guidelines is a form of “bad” criticism. If the problem addressed is not fixable, the criticism can only work to hurt the relationship between the two parties without improving any performance. If no reason for necessity is understood, the criticized party may be inclined to believe the criticizer has no motivation to comment other than the desire to observe others’ flaws.

“Good” criticism will be an extremely important part of our class project. Tutors, by definition, will need to be critical of those they tutor. In this case, I think that sticking to my definition of “good” will be invaluable in keeping tutor/tutee relationships constructive. With luck, no one will end up taking anything “the wrong way”.

Liberal Education and the Dismay of GenEds

In her essay, Carol G. Schneider argues that the perceived importance of liberal education has steadily been declining in recent years. She cites the proliferation of “general education requirements” as one of the symptoms of the problem, and I couldn’t agree more.

In class, we briefly discussed our opinions on general education classes, and I think it was agreed that the main objective of GenEds is to give students of all disciplines the opportunity (and obligation) to have diversity in their education, to briefly study something they would otherwise miss. Schneider gives a list of these potentially missing things, mentioning “integrative learning” and “cross-cultural knowledge” among others (65). She argues that modern universities try to ‘fill in the blanks’ that a departmental major leaves with general education requirements.

In a previous reflection, I expressed my deep satisfaction with one of my general education classes, CLCV 115: “The Mythology of Greece and Rome”. While this class stood out as an exceptional intellectual experience for me, I must say that the majority of my general education classes were a pain to take, and I’d be wholly surprised if that sentiment wasn’t shared by at least a majority of students. It is no secret (in fact, it is often openly said) that most people take GenEds to get them “out of the way”. (Schneider even mentions this specifically, but I think I’ve heard it too much in the past four years to cite her with the idea.) The root of this sentiment is no secret: GenEds are purposely different from a student’s chosen path of study, often in subjects they have no interest in. Even with the broad choices available, it is unlikely to find classes filling each requirement without at least one you’re less than excited about.

The immediate solution comes to mind: eliminate general education requirements. If there is such general distaste for forcing these classes on people, it seems logical to fix the problem at the root. This, of course, is counterproductive to the big-picture-goal. These classes are distasteful because they are so foreign to a student’s chosen curriculum. The solution isn’t to eliminate the foreign element, but to integrate it more effectively.

Schneider argues for an increase in all of the “core liberal education requirements” in every possible major. While her plan may be effective in eliminating the need for general education classes, I don’t think it addresses the larger problem of full integration. It’s true that any discipline could be skewed to include at least a basic understanding of all of the basic liberal education goals. What’s missing, it seems to me, is the diversity of class topics that made CLCV 115 so alluring to me.

My idea, instead of eliminating GenEd requirements, is to move the requirement to a higher level: something like an obligatory minor. In addition to the classes that make up a student’s major, a core of classes would be required that must be significantly different enough to represent all of the “blanks” left by the main concentration. The subject of these classes is up to the student; the only requirement is that the “minor” classes represent a core of liberal education goals different than that of the major.

I recognize a major opposition to my plan: a forced minor would increase the amount of courses required to graduate. I see this as the price of insuring a “complete” liberal education for a student, and one that they can absolutely be interested in. If the goal is increasing the importance of core liberal education, I see this as an option in reaching that goal. Schneider writes that we are on the forefront of “an era characterized by greater expectations in every sphere of life” (76). Our response to this challenge should come from our commitment to improve the effectiveness of our education, instead of letting it decline.

A Common "Enemy"

(An off-topic note to the professor regarding reflection titling: I’ve always had an aversion to titling my writing. Something feels confining about naming the entire piece, and I usually feel inclined to let the body of the text be the only area where the reader might get an idea of how to classify the work. I have a feeling this is what you were thinking when you asked us to title the pieces; without a title, I can be lazy in my adherence to a topic. In the effort of learning, I’ll try titling from now on and see how it changes my reflections.)

Last year, I was given the opportunity to teach a zero-hour, seven-week course to a class of incoming freshman in my department. The class, essentially an “Introduction To Basic University Skills” course, was basically a joke, academically. Without any credit hours, “grades” weren’t really a concern. I could assign homework and require its completion, but in the end I was just giving them a pass/fail grade (with no GPA weight.) There was little reason for these students to put any work or attention into the class.

The true reason for the class, besides the few useful skills presented (compass usage, résumé designing, job interview tips,) was to have these freshmen meet other freshmen in the class and develop contacts early on. They would, after all, be most likely to find at least one of their fellow NPRE students in each major-related class they took for the next four years. My real job was to foster these relationships. Get the students working together.

Previous teachers of this course all gave similar advice: the deplorable ceremony of “ice-breakers”. I hate ice-breakers. I consider ice-breakers the least creative (perhaps laziest) way to get conversation moving. I was determined not to fall on the crutch of “go around the circle and tell the class your favorite movie” or “line up in order of birth date in five minutes”.

Without any other reason than it amused me, I had each student on the first day tell me their favorite animal. Then I told them if I forgot their name, and forget their name I surely would, I would be calling them by their “spirit animal”. The class seemed initially confused and probably thought I was lying. Only fifteen minutes had passed, however, before I couldn’t remember a spiky-haired kid’s name in the back row, and referred to him as “The Antelope”. (As a teaching note: for reasons I can’t explain, it was and is easier to remember a person by their favorite animal than by their given name. There is a chance, of course, that this is a behavior unique to my brain, and other teachers have no problem learning human names.)

The antics continued. I made it a regular routine in my class to do something for (to?) the students that they wouldn’t expect and would generally weird them out. The second day I made them enter a vote in the decision of which is better, Dinosaurs or Free T-Shirts. The losing team (Free T-shirts, by only one vote,) had to sit at the very front of the class, the winning team got the (apparently more desirable) seats in the back. During another class period, told them we were going to end class by taking a short exam on the quad. After seating them in a big circle out on the grass, I initiated a giant game of Duck Duck Goose.

Besides chronicling the fun I had confusing a class of twenty-five freshmen, this essay should convey the lesson I learned in getting the class working together. Because they always had something to talk about (namely, their possibly insane instructor,) the students became talkative right away. I quickly observed the root of my solution: no one felt awkward talking to each other, because I had already given them a much more awkward class hour.

I think this principle could be translated to a managerial concept. The individuals, with a common “enemy”, act with added cooperation among each other. I was actually pretty surprised that this idea didn’t come up in the Drucker discussion we had on management earlier this week. While we covered the idea of a manager keeping cordiality with his or her workers, we didn’t rate the effectiveness of an “enemy” manager, someone who the workers can mutually aim their cooperation.

I anticipate the counterpoint: an “enemy” manager would only work to decrease productivity. They would alienate the workers, make them less likely to do their best work. I’m not saying it’s the best solution, but I think deliberately giving the workers something in common could prove to be a step towards good alignment.