|
Articles Conference Reviews |
C.38 Teaching Composition Online in the Private, For-Profit UniversityC.38 Has Capitalism Corrupted Your Writing Course? Experiences with Teaching Composition Online in the Private, For-Profit University The rise of the for-profit institution has been, as described in a 2009 Chronicle article, “meteoric.” The incredible growth of these nearly 3,000 private companies, at a time when many non-profit universities are in financial crisis, is remarkable. Many within academia dismiss the for-profit university as nothing more than a diploma mill, lacking challenge and engagement with learning. However, the for-profit online institution is not necessarily as product-focused as the media (in particular last year’s PBS Frontline documentary, College Inc.) makes it out to be. In this session, panelists explored the various experiences of teachers and students participating in the for-profit online university. This panel, chaired by Melissa Hussain, sought to open up dialogues about the often-isolating experience of teaching online for this type of institution by looking at the strengths and weaknesses of for-profit colleges and presenting different perspectives on the issue. Hussain’s presentation, “Composition, Capitalism and Corporatization: A Critique of the Growing For-Profit Trend of Online Education,” analyzes the student population enrolling in this type of institution, and explains what strengths lie in online education, and what we can do to improve our own pedagogies both online and face-to-face. Hussain, identifying herself as an adjunct instructor for one of the major for-profits, makes an argument in favor of learning from the pedagogies employed in the for-profit online classroom as a way to engage students in traditional non-profit university composition courses. Hussain’s argument is founded on Belenky et. al.’s 1973 work Women’s Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice, and Mind, which explores what the authors describe as women’s unique way of making knowledge. The authors use these methods to propose changes to classroom pedagogy. In her talk, Hussain takes up Belenky et. al.’s concept of “teaching as midwife” as a way to describe the online format of the for-profit university. She argues that this is especially relevant to the for-profit online course, observing that women make up the majority of students at the for-profit institution. Hussain describes “teaching as midwife” as a more student-centered pedagogy, a pedagogy which focuses on working with the knowledge students already possess and encourages those students to build on their skills. In fact, instructors at the University of Phoenix are called “facilitators” to better describe their role in the classroom as a guide, not as a source of knowledge. While Hussain acknowledges the many problems talked about in regards to the online, for-profit institution, Hussain does point out one strength of its online classroom. She argues that the online, for-profit institution demonstrates this concept of “teaching as midwife”. While admitting that research in the pedagogy of the for-profit, online institution is behind the curve, Hussain suggests several methods that instructors in non-profit universities could use to benefit their own teaching. Because most of the women taking these online for-profit courses are “third-shifting,” or taking courses while at the same time taking care of a family and working a full-time job, Hussain recommends changes to our pedagogy, which includes more flexible deadlines for assignments, or offering the same courses in several different lengths. Hussain did acknowledge the institutional flaws in some for-profit institutions, such as the widely varying discrepancies in assignment requirements among for-profit universities, and the increasing course caps and workload asked of instructors. However, Hussain makes a convincing case regarding the potential in for-profit institutions. Colette Morrow’s paper, “Sweatshopping Composition: Assembly Line Service Courses,” takes a highly critical perspective of the for-profit institution. Noting that her motivation for this research came from the complaints of her graduate students, who were adjuncts at several major for-profits, Morrow argues decisively against the effectiveness of for-profit pedagogy. Discouraged by the prevalence of current-traditional pedagogy in the for-profit online courses, she notes that these courses are merely reinforcing the status quo. She instead asks students to be critical of the information they learn in the course. Citing several statistics to describe the population of students in these for-profit courses, Morrow notes that seventy eight percent of students are female, and seventy two percent of students are African-American. Thirty percent work at least 50 hours each week, not including their online schooling. Forty percent of all student loan defaults come from former students of for-profit institutions. In recent months, Congress has explored this serious problem, questioning the feasibility of blocking federal financial aid to students of for-profits. Finally, the most shocking statistic is that, of all students who enroll in for-profit, online institutions, only six percent graduate. Morrow continued her investigation into for-profit universities by actually enrolling as a student in multiple courses, and reported on her own experiences at an unnamed for-profit. She discussed the product-focused courses, the “cookie-cutter” assignments, and the rigid structure of the courses. Morrow described the instructor’s role as being reduced to “checkers and timekeepers.” From her experience in two online composition courses, she found that the more formulaic her writing, the higher the scores she received. She was also encouraged to engage in strict regurgitation of the content in her assignments. Not surprisingly, the divergent perspectives in these two papers produced quite a bit of discussion at the end of the session. Many of the audience members admitted personal experiences teaching at several of these for-profit institutions, at different levels from adjunct to full-time instructor. Another question asked about the use of textbooks and their impact on the rigid, formulaic structure of the course; however, it was determined that many textbooks used at the online for-profits are also used in traditional FYC courses. Other comments were more critical of Morrow’s argument, explaining that not all for-profit online instructors feel like they are “checkers and timekeepers,” referencing experiences that demonstrated how personal and interactive these online spaces can become. A comment was also made that not all for-profits are the same: academics at non-profit institutions should not stereotype all for-profits as formulaic and product-focused. Others contributed their own experiences, agreeing that they felt a distinct lack of community, feeling isolated as online instructors. However, other audience members shared their experiences from other for-profits that show the opposite. In all, this session was useful in starting a conversation about the much-maligned for-profit institution, going deeper than our previous stereotypes and asking us to take a second look at the potential benefits and pitfalls of this type of educational institution. Bibliography Belenky, Mary, Blythe Clinchy, Nancy Goldberger, and Jill Tarule. Women’s Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice, and Mind. NY: Basic Books, 1973. College, Inc. PBS Frontline. 2010. Wilson, Robin. “For-Profit Colleges Change Higher Education’s Landscape.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. 7 Feb. 2010. 25 April 2011. Web. |