Civic Engagement and Education: An Empirical Test of the Sorting Model, Campbell discusses the effect that education has on the individual. However, Kam and Palmer take a different approach, and discuss the role of the individual in higher education. These two articles lead us to the big question: Does education really have a role in political participation, or is there something innate about students who attend higher education that makes them more likely to be politically active? Although both articles made excellent points, I am more inclined to agree with Kam and Palmer.
However, my critique of both Campbell and Kam and Plamer is that higher education is more complicated than the articles suggest. It is too diverse to be viewed in terms of "college attendees" and "no college". Colleges range from ivy league schools, to schools with very low selectivity. The level of learning and academic rigor is not equal at all higher education institutions. If Kam and Palmer are correct, then they should be able to take two students at very different types of colleges, control for race, SES, gender, background, etc., and find that the students have similar levels of political participation. However, if the students levels of participation differs significantly, then it can be inferred that there is something about the institution that shapes the individual.
I also find it slightly problematic that both articles lump everyone into the same group with out looking at the effect of things like SES, race, and major. As Kam and Plamer briefly mention in the their conclusion, higher education is extremely heterogenous. I would be interested in looking at specific groups within higher education, and comparing educational attainment to political participation. For example, for Latino's, attending college may have a different effect than it does for blacks, Asians, or white Americans.
Citizen Competence in American Democracy
Group Work and Promoting Collective Identity and Action
ReplyDeleteAs briefly discussed in class, I think Kiara makes a very strong comment on the outcomes asserted by Kam and Palmer. There is a huge variance between different institutions of higher education and I think there can be very little doubt that the type of institution strongly affects the values promoted and exemplified by the students of any given college. For example, some of the students I know from Liberty University are the most civically minded and community oriented individuals. In comparison to UVA students, I would say they are much more inclined to volunteer (willingly) or lend a helping hand (even to strangers). As opposed to UVA college life, Liberty students that live on grounds have mandatory weekly meetings. Although I think there are fines involved with missing meetings, I believe this innately impacts the students’ understanding of one another and the greater community around them. Despite the negative consequences associated with failing to attend a meeting, this activity seems to influence students in meaningful and noticeable ways (I realize that there may be other factors that affect their attitudes and actions).
Additionally while discussing Lipman’s article in class today, an important question was posed- what can teachers do, if anything, to challenge the surveillance state of education? Additionally, we must ask what can teachers do to challenge their students to think more civically? Are there pedagogical changes that can successfully affect the ways in which teachers engage their students and impact their futures as participatory democratic citizens? Are there ways to challenge the individualism that has developed in the American public education system? One potential solution that was suggested was the increased use of group work. Either Kate or Anna said that group work promotes the notion that we “rise and fall together.” However, I am not convinced that an increased amount of group work is the answer to fostering a stronger sense of community at the primary, secondary, and collegiate levels of education.
Whenever grades are attached to a policy/teaching strategy, I think we must call into question the validity of the benefits produced. Ultimately, a student will/may do his or her own work because their self-interest is inherently connected to the completion of a project. However, group work does not encourage a voluntary, benevolent attitude toward the community. Rather, it encourages adversarial relationships, particularly if the members of the group miss meetings or fail to complete their assignments. Increasingly, group work has become competitive particularly when teachers solicit feedback on the members of the group. The looming threat of a negative report by one or more of the group members may induce students to complete their work. But we must ask- what is really the value of this kind of work and the attitudes created? I think there are a lot more negative attitudes toward group work than positive sentiments. In my opinion, group work can taint a student’s opinion of the community, as a whole. Similarly, it can isolate an individual from a collective identity and decrease their willingness to act with a group. Most students I know strongly oppose the use of group work. Group work requires dependence on another individual, where at the collegiate level, one most likely has very little knowledge of their capabilities and/or work ethic. Until teachers can untangle the use of group work from positive and negative incentives (namely grades), group work will hardly be the answer to promoting civic participation in the classroom and emphasizing the importance of the collective whole in the education system.