Donate Today! Help us help others.

Lynch Coaching

Translate

Friday, January 30, 2015

Knowledge


Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge lives."

-James Madison to W.T. Barry,
August 1822


“Nothing could be more irrational than to give the people power and to withhold from them information, without which power is abused. A people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both”
-James Madison

“Democracy can be an effective form of government only to the extent that the public (that rules in theory) is well-informed about national and international events and can think independently and critically about those events. If the vast majority of citizens do not recognize bias…if they cannot detect ideology, slant, and spin; if they cannot recognize propaganda…they cannot reasonably determine what messages have to be supplemented, counter balanced, or thrown out entirely. “
-       How to detect media bias and propaganda by Dr, Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder, Center for Critical Thinking (http://www.criticalthinking.org)

Do not believe short phases, e-mail slogans or even the ethos of those you look up to. It is best to always seek out opposing views, read opposing reports and ask yourself to keep an open mind on any issue that may impact yourself, your community, your nation or your world.
Too many decisions are made based on hear say or tightly held bias beliefs that may blind the citizen to the facts they need to uncover to make key decisions in any democracy.

Understand your own prejudice, bias and stereotypes, those of your audience and of whomever you are seeking for information. All sources have bias, regardless of how they may present themselves. The very process of selecting which information to show, say, write or present involves making decisions that involve bias, often unintended.

I encourage you to always seek out views that do not fit in with your own and give them a fair hearing. In the end your decision, your thoughts and your actions are still your own.
 

Photo from http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/jamesmadison 

First posted 11-16-2009

Critical Thinking Is Essential To Education


Dr. Linda Elder, Educational Psychologist,
President and Fellow of the Foundation for Critical Thinking


Is critical thinking being integrated into learning activities across the curriculum?  Are teachers taught to develop critical thinking skills in their students?

Dr. Linda Elder says critical thinking is essential for a successful education and can explain how and why.     Dr. Linda Elder can discuss this by answering the following questions:
   
●      Why is critical thinking important to education?
●      What is critical thinking and how is it relevant to a typical student?
●      How can teachers help develop critical thinking skills early in students?
●      What problems exist in student thinking when they do not learn critical thinking?
 
Meet Dr Linda Elder
●      President and Fellow of the Foundation for Critical Thinking
●      Executive Director of the Center for Critical Thinking
●      Educational Psychologist
●      Co-authored four books, including new release: Thirty Days to Better Thinking and Better Living Through Critical Thinking, Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life, Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life.  
   
For more information visit: http://www.criticalthinking.org

Bloom's Taxonomy: Understanding A Critical Thinking Framework


  •  Revised Blooms levels are listed below...APA revision 2001.
  • Remembering: Can we recall or remember information from long-term memory?
  • Understanding: Can we internalize, recall, and connect with other information?
  • Applying: Can we use the information in a new way?
  • Analyzing: Can we distinguish between the different parts, meaning the parts and subparts, how components work together?
  • Evaluating: Can we justify a stand or decision?
  • Creating: Can we create new product or point of view?


There are several critical thinking frameworks available for you to use, such as Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, Bloom’s Taxonomy, and the scientific model. All work and all apply to various aspects of critical and creative thinking

We will focus on Bloom’s Taxonomy as it is one of the most widely used frameworks for understanding and enhancing human thinking. By understanding major theoretical frameworks such as Bloom’s Taxonomy, you are in a better position to model and facilitate the growth of critical thinking.

In 1956, Benjamin Bloom and a group of educational psychologists developed a framework for understanding and teaching critical thinking. This framework, which developed into the widely known Bloom’s Taxonomy, provides a method of classification for thinking behaviors that are understood to be pivotal in the learning process. This taxonomy is comprised of three domains, as defined in the following:

  • Cognitive learning is composed of remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, creating and evaluating.
  • Affective learning relates to emotion, attitude, appreciation, and value.
  • Psychomotor learning relates to physical skills, including coordination, manual dexterity, strength, and speed (Harrow, 1972).
The critical thinking skills diagram, based on recent revisions to Bloom’s theory, provides a similar, but more updated version of this theoretical framework.



The Cognitive Domain 
The cognitive learning domain emphasizes intellectual abilities and outcomes. Bloom’s cognitive learning domain describes a hierarchical progression of learning. The levels include the following:

  • Remembering: Can we recall or remember information from long-term memory?
  • Understanding: Can we internalize, recall, and connect with other information?
  • Applying: Can we use the information in a new way?
  • Analyzing: Can we distinguish between the different parts, meaning the parts and subparts, how components work together?
  • Evaluating: Can we justify a stand or decision?
  • Creating: Can we create new product or point of view?
Each level reflects a level of cognitive complexity achieved in the learning progression, with the prior levels being requisite for advancing to the next level. In other words, a person functioning at the analyzing level has also mastered the material at the remembering, understanding, and applying levels.

Additionally, the revised version of Bloom’s taxonomy provides an expanded two-dimensional perspective on learning that also considers the type of knowledge being learned. The types of knowledge are divided into four main categories: factual knowledge, conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge. The Critical Thinking Framework matrix can be referenced for a more complex understanding of how the type of knowledge interplays with the stages of Bloom’s learning progression.

The more deeply a perso synthesizes information, the more critically he or she considers a topic. Not understanding a subject deeply enough may be a barrier to critical thinking.

The work of Bloom, originally relating to education, is easily transferable to most fields. The taxonomy emphasizes more of what we do with knowledge than examining the quality or nature of what we know.

The Affective Domain 
Bloom’s taxonomy, focusing on educational objectives, also examines how the affective domain of the learner is critical to the quality of the learning experience. “Cognitive objectives are satisfied when we obtain an appropriate level of knowledge, and affective objectives are satisfied when we obtain an appropriate level of internalization or value for the content” (Bolin, Khramtsova, & Saarnio, 2005, p. 154). The critical thinking process considers the five affective levels and addresses learner emotions toward learning experiences. Similar to the cognitive learning domain, affective levels are progressive, meaning one is learned before moving on to the next category:

  • Receiving is the starting point, which engages a willingness or ability to listen. The learner acknowledges, listens, and replies.

  • Responding involves actively participating in the learning process. A person contributes, questions, reacts, and gains satisfaction from active involvement.

  • Valuing is the process in which learners assign worth to specific activities. A person chooses, joins, shares, and commits to the learning experience.

  • Organizing allows us to develop an internal value system that organizes values in an order of priority. We adapt, modify, explain, and synthesize as we integrate complementary and disparate values; conflict may occur when integrating current values with new and divergent ones.

  • Internalizing values controls behaviors. A person advocates, encourages, exemplifies, influences, and discloses. Once they internalize values related to critical thinking, they have a predictable response to situations.
To become a critical thinker, you must understand the barriers that interfere in your ability to think critically about specific issues. At times, they may experience cognitive barriers, such as limited subject knowledge. At other times, they may not have the proper affective disposition to critically consider a topic because of bias or experience. Understanding barriers that limit student skills is the first step toward improving those skills.


Remember
Retrieve relevant information from long-term memory.
Understand
Construct meaning from oral, written, or graphic messages.
Apply
Carry out or use a procedure.
Analyze
Divide material into constituent parts and determine how they relate to one another and to overall structure.
Evaluate
Make judgments based on criteria and standards.
Create
Reorganize or put together elements to form a new structure or pattern.
Factual Knowledge
Basic elements needed to be acquainted with a discipline
Define, Identify, Label, Name, Order, Outline, Recall, Recognize Classify, Identify, Indicate, Recognize, Restate, Select, Summarize Complete, Fill out, Translate Organize, Arrange Rank, Grade Combine, Join, Merge
Conceptual Knowledge
Relationships among basic elements that enable them to function together
Describe, Recite Clarify, Compare, Contrast, Differentiate, Explain, Generalize, Infer, Map, Match Apply, Choose, Complete, Determine, Interpret, Modify Debate, Determine, Discriminate, Distinguish, Integrate, Interpret Assess, Detect, Rate Arrange, Assemble, Compile, Devise, Hypothesize, Plan, Predict
Procedural Knowledge
Use of methods, skills, techniques, and algorithms
Order, Recite Conclude, Demonstrate, Exemplify Calculate, Compute, Employ, Formulate, Illustrate, Implement, Perform, Produce, Use Structure, Revise Coordinate, Estimate, Measure, Score, Test Compose, Conclude, Construct, Design, Generate, Modify, Reconstruct
Metacognitive Knowledge
Knowledge and awareness of one’s own thinking
Identify, Outline, Order Compare, Differentiate, Conclude Determine, Interpret, Illustrate Organize, Discriminate, Revise Rank, Assess, Estimate Combine, Compile, Hypothesize, Predict, Modify
Examples

Remember
Retrieve relevant information from long-term memory.
Understand
Construct meaning from oral, written, or graphic messages.
Apply
Carry out or use a procedure.
Analyze
Divide material into constituent parts and determine how they relate to one another and to overall structure.
Evaluate
Make judgments based on criteria and standards.
Create
Reorganize or put together elements to form a new structure or pattern.
Factual Knowledge
Basic elements needed to be acquainted with a discipline
List the five stages in Tuckman's theory of group development. Summarize the five stages of Tuckman's theory of group development. Translate the principles of Tuckman's theory to the act of group formation. Analyze the five stages of Tuckman's theory. Evaluate Tuckman's theory based on past group experiences. Create a plan to implement learning teams using Tuckman's theory.
Conceptual Knowledge
Relationships among basic elements that enable them to function together
List challenges to online teamwork. Explain challenges to online teamwork. Determine how to overcome challenges to online teamwork. Analyze the challenges of a past online team. Evaluate the effectiveness of solutions to online team challenges. Predict the effect of solutions to online team challenges.
Procedural Knowledge
Use of methods, skills, techniques, and algorithms
List each step of the SQ3R reading technique. Explain the steps of the SQ3R method. Determine the most appropriate type of reading material for the SQ3R technique. Distinguish the steps of the SQ3R method. Assess the overall effectiveness of the SQ3R technique. Design a learning plan for a student using the SQ3R technique.
Metacognitive Knowledge
Knowledge and awareness of one’s own thinking
List personal strengths and weaknesses related to your writing process. Describe personal strengths and weaknesses related to your writing process. Compare the personal usefulness of various writing strategies. Revise your current writing process to increase its effectiveness. Assess the impact of new strategies on your writing process. Predict the effect of new strategies on personal strengths and weaknesses.


Wrap-Up 
Having a critical thinking model helps you understand your students’ current functioning and assist in improving their critical thinking skills to reach higher levels of cognitive and affective learning.

References 
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of educational objectives (Complete ed.). New York, NY: Longman.


Bolin, A. U., Khramstova, I., & Saarnio, D. (2005). Using student journals to stimulate authentic learning: Balancing Bloom’s cognitive and affective domains. Teaching of Psychology 32(3), 154–159.


Harrow, A. J. (1972). A taxonomy of the psychomotor domain. New York, NY: David McKay. 

Free speech is so last century.


Something I have witnessed first hand on college campuses and in everyday conversation. We gave it up of our own choice...and now students see it as an attack on them...This is from Spectrum...
-Art Lynch




 
Today’s students want the ‘right to be comfortable’
Student unions’ ‘no platform’ policy is expanding to cover pretty much anyone whose views don’t fit prevailing groupthink

Brendan O'Neill
Spectrun

Have you met the Stepford students? They’re everywhere. On campuses across the land. Sitting stony-eyed in lecture halls or surreptitiously policing beer-fuelled banter in the uni bar. They look like students, dress like students, smell like students. But their student brains have been replaced by brains bereft of critical faculties and programmed to conform. To the untrained eye, they seem like your average book-devouring, ideas-discussing, H&M-adorned youth, but anyone who’s spent more than five minutes in their company will know that these students are far more interested in shutting debate down than opening it up.

I was attacked by a swarm of Stepford students this week. On Tuesday, I was supposed to take part in a debate about abortion at Christ Church, Oxford. I was invited by the Oxford Students for Life to put the pro-choice argument against the journalist Timothy Stanley, who is pro-life. But apparently it is forbidden for men to talk about abortion. A mob of furious feministic Oxford students, all robotically uttering the same stuff about feeling offended, set up a Facebook page littered with expletives and demands for the debate to be called off. They said it was outrageous that two human beings ‘who do not have uteruses’ should get to hold forth on abortion — identity politics at its most basely biological — and claimed the debate would threaten the ‘mental safety’ of Oxford students. Three hundred promised to turn up to the debate with ‘instruments’ — heaven knows what — that would allow them to disrupt proceedings.

Incredibly, Christ Church capitulated, the college’s censors living up to the modern meaning of their name by announcing that they would refuse to host the debate on the basis that it now raised ‘security and welfare issues’. So at one of the highest seats of learning on Earth, the democratic principle of free and open debate, of allowing differing opinions to slog it out in full view of discerning citizens, has been violated, and students have been rebranded as fragile creatures, overgrown children who need to be guarded against any idea that might prick their souls or challenge their prejudices. One of the censorious students actually boasted about her role in shutting down the debate, wearing her intolerance like a badge of honour in an Independent article in which she argued that, ‘The idea that in a free society absolutely everything should be open to debate has a detrimental effect on marginalised groups.’

This isn’t the first time I’ve encountered the Stepford students. Last month, at Britain’s other famously prestigious university, Cambridge, I was circled by Stepfords after taking part in a debate on faith schools. It wasn’t my defence of parents’ rights to send their children to religious schools they wanted to harangue me for — much as they loathed that liberal position — it was my suggestion, made in this magazine and elsewhere, that ‘lad culture’ doesn’t turn men into rapists. Their mechanical minds seemed incapable of computing that someone would say such a thing.

Their eyes glazed with moral certainty, they explained to me at length that culture warps minds and shapes behaviour and that is why it is right for students to strive to keep such wicked, misogynistic stuff as the Sun newspaper and sexist pop music off campus. ‘We have the right to feel comfortable,’ they all said, like a mantra. One — a bloke — said that the compulsory sexual consent classes recently introduced for freshers at Cambridge, to teach what is and what isn’t rape, were a great idea because they might weed out ‘pre-rapists’: men who haven’t raped anyone but might. The others nodded. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. Pre-rapists! Had any of them read Philip K. Dick’s dystopian novella about a wicked world that hunts down and punishes pre-criminals, I asked? None had.

Inline sub2

When I told them that at the fag-end of the last millennium I had spent my student days arguing against the very ideas they were now spouting — against the claim that gangsta rap turned black men into murderers or that Tarantino flicks made teens go wild and criminal — not so much as a flicker of reflection crossed their faces. ‘Back then, the people who were making those censorious, misanthropic arguments about culture determining behaviour weren’t youngsters like you,’ I said. ‘They were older, more conservative people, with blue rinses.’ A moment’s silence. Then one of the Stepfords piped up. ‘Maybe those people were right,’ he said. My mind filled with a vision of Mary Whitehouse cackling to herself in some corner of the cosmos.

If your go-to image of a student is someone who’s free-spirited and open-minded, who loves having a pop at orthodoxies, then you urgently need to update your mind’s picture bank. Students are now pretty much the opposite of that. It’s hard to think of any other section of society that has undergone as epic a transformation as students have. From freewheelin’ to ban-happy, from askers of awkward questions to suppressors of offensive speech, in the space of a generation. My showdown with the debate-banning Stepfords at Oxford and the pre-crime promoters at Cambridge echoed other recent run-ins I’ve had with the intolerant students of the 21st century. I’ve been jeered at by students at the University of Cork for criticising gay marriage; cornered and branded a ‘denier’ by students at University College London for suggesting industrial development in Africa should take precedence over combating climate change; lambasted by students at Cambridge (again) for saying it’s bad to boycott Israeli goods. In each case, it wasn’t the fact the students disagreed with me that I found alarming — disagreement is great! — it was that they were so plainly shocked that I could have uttered such things, that I had failed to conform to what they assume to be right, that I had sought to contaminate their campuses and their fragile grey matter with offensive ideas.

Where once students might have allowed their eyes and ears to be bombarded by everything from risqué political propaganda to raunchy rock, now they insulate themselves from anything that might dent their self-esteem and, crime of crimes, make them feel ‘uncomfortable’. Student groups insist that online articles should have ‘trigger warnings’ in case their subject matter might cause offence.

The ‘no platform’ policy of various student unions is forever being expanded to keep off campus pretty much anyone whose views don’t chime perfectly with the prevailing groupthink. Where once it was only far-right rabble-rousers who were no-platformed, now everyone from Zionists to feminists who hold the wrong opinions on transgender issues to ‘rape deniers’ (anyone who questions the idea that modern Britain is in the grip of a ‘rape culture’) has found themselves shunned from the uni-sphere. My Oxford experience suggests pro-life societies could be next. In September the students’ union at Dundee banned the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children from the freshers’ fair on the basis that its campaign material is ‘highly offensive’.

Barely a week goes by without reports of something ‘offensive’ being banned by students. Robin Thicke’s rude pop ditty ‘Blurred Lines’ has been banned in more than 20 universities. Student officials at Balliol College, Oxford, justified their ban as a means of ‘prioritising the wellbeing of our students’. Apparently a three-minute pop song can harm students’ health. More than 30 student unions have banned the Sun, on the basis that Page Three could turn all those pre-rapists into actual rapists. Radical feminist students once burned their bras — now they insist that models put bras on. The union at UCL banned the Nietzsche Society on the grounds that its existence threatened ‘the safety of the UCL student body’.

Stepford concerns are over-amplified on social media. No sooner is a contentious subject raised than a university ‘campaign’ group appears on Facebook, or a hashtag on Twitter, demanding that the debate is shut down. Technology means that it has never been easier to whip up a false sense of mass outrage — and target that synthetic anger at those in charge. The authorities on the receiving end feel so besieged that they succumb to the demands and threats.

Heaven help any student who doesn’t bow before the Stepford mentality. The students’ union at Edinburgh recently passed a motion to ‘End lad banter’ on campus. Laddish students are being forced to recant their bantering ways. Last month, the rugby club at the London School of Economics was disbanded for a year after its members handed out leaflets advising rugby lads to avoid ‘mingers’ (ugly girls) and ‘homosexual debauchery’. Under pressure from LSE bigwigs, the club publicly recanted its ‘inexcusably offensive’ behaviour and declared that its members have ‘a lot to learn about the pernicious effects of banter’. They’re being made to take part in equality and diversity training. At British unis in 2014, you don’t just get education — you also get re-education, Soviet style.

The censoriousness has reached its nadir in the rise of the ‘safe space’ policy. Loads of student unions have colonised vast swaths of their campuses and declared them ‘safe spaces’ — that is, places where no student should ever be made to feel threatened, unwelcome or belittled, whether by banter, bad thinking or ‘Blurred Lines’. Safety from physical assault is one thing — but safety from words, ideas, Zionists, lads, pop music, Nietzsche? We seem to have nurtured a new generation that believes its self-esteem is more important than everyone else’s liberty.

This is what those censorious Cambridgers meant when they kept saying they have the ‘right to be comfortable’. They weren’t talking about the freedom to lay down on a chaise longue — they meant the right never to be challenged by disturbing ideas or mind-battered by offensiveness. At precisely the time they should be leaping brain-first into the rough and tumble of grown-up, testy discussion, students are cushioning themselves from anything that has the whiff of controversy. We’re witnessing the victory of political correctness by stealth. As the annoying ‘PC gone mad!’ brigade banged on and on about extreme instances of PC — schools banning ‘Baa Baa, Black Sheep’, etc. — nobody seems to have noticed that the key tenets of PC, from the desire to destroy offensive lingo to the urge to re-educate apparently corrupted minds, have been swallowed whole by a new generation. This is a disaster, for it means our universities are becoming breeding grounds of dogmatism. As John Stuart Mill said, if we don’t allow our opinion to be ‘fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed’, then that opinion will be ‘held as a dead dogma, not a living truth’.

One day, these Stepford students, with their lust to ban, their war on offensive lingo, and their terrifying talk of pre-crime, will be running the country. And then it won’t only be those of us who occasionally have cause to visit a campus who have to suffer their dead dogmas.

This article first appeared in the print edition of The Spectator magazine, dated 22 November 2014

Are we educating consumer or informed voters?


Stanley Aronowitz (2008) has suggested that increasing commercialism is a threat to original American values of education and its relationship to community, public good and democracy. Aronoiwtz wrote that the trend of standardization, vocationalism, and privatization might result in a weakened democracy, because a democracy requires citizens who are actively involved and informed. In his view, education is no longer viewed as a social, public good, but a private, individual endeavor. In other words the democratic ideals of education are transformed in favor of the pragmatic interests of capitalists. This tension is an example of education’s reflection of overall cultural and political trends, and perhaps a reflection of America’s ongoing conflict between idealism and pragmatism. There is concern that a focus on discrete set of vocational skills overlooks the importance of critical thinking skills in a fast changing world. 
Our democracy may be at peril, if each new generation has less depth of education, less knowledge and practice in participative democracy, less faith in the process and an increased focus on what they are sold or in their own personal advancement, over the advancement of community and society as a whole.

-From my dissertation..Art Lynch 2012

Socratic Backfire?



Students who want to be spoon-fed the "facts" do not understand education, and as consumers may be pushing out those systems that lead to critical thinking and self exploration. The ability to ask questions, explore options and formulate courses of action may be lost to future generations as a result.


Some students didn't take well to Steven Maranville’s teaching style at Utah Valley University. They complained that in the professor’s “capstone” business course, he asked them questions in class even when they didn't raise their hands. They also didn't like it when he made them work in teams.

Those complaints against him led the university denying him tenure – a decision amounting to firing, according to a lawsuit  Maranville filed against the university this month. Maranville, his lawyer and the university aren't talking about the case, although the suit details the dispute.

Maranville and his attorney did not return phone calls, but the allegations in the lawsuit raises questions that have been raised and debated about the value of student evaluations and opinions, how negative evaluations play into the career trajectory of affected professors and whether students today will accept teaching approaches such as the Socratic method.

A twist in Maranville's case is that he gave up tenure at the University of Houston to come to Utah Valley, with the expectation that he would be awarded tenure there after a year. He is now an associate professor at Westminster College, in Salt Lake City, and his suit says that he earns considerably less than he did in his previous position.

The Socratic Method and Today's Students
Maranville followed the Socratic teaching style and described his way of teaching as "engaged learning," according to court documents. Those records describe teaching approaches designed to go beyond lectures. He would ask questions to stimulate discussion. He divided his students into teams and gave them assignments outside class.

The Socratic style of teaching that Maranville used is hardly novel. But experts say that while it remains popular in law schools, there are reasons many faculty members have never used it extensively with the current generation of students.

"When done well, you simply do not impose the teacher's idea, and try to come up with a solution through dialogue," said Michael Apple, a professor of curriculum and instruction at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. "In general, it is a guided dialogue."

Supporters of the method see it as "a process by which you try to make the best logical argument and you focus on process as much as content,” Apple said. But he added that not that many faculty members use it these days. "The reason for its unpopularity sometimes is because we are in a test-based education system. Students can be increasingly impatient where the answer is not clear and when the professor is not giving it to them immediately."

A lot also depends, Apple said, on who the students are. "It is controversial to some people, for example, students who are deeply concerned that they have to learn a certain amount of content and then take a test at the end," he said. Students may also think that they are being treated as if they were not very smart.

Walter Parker, a professor of education at the University of Washington, said he teaches using the “Socratic seminar” method. He cautioned against stereotypes of the Socratic method, namely the depiction in the 1973 movie “The Paper Chase," which shows a professor giving harsh evaluations to a student, leaving the students embarrassed.

"That is not the Socratic method," he said.

"It is an interpretive discussion of a piece of text during which the professor says very little,” Parker said. “The professor chooses a rich piece of text and plans an interpretive question as he opens the discussion."

This kind of teaching is more common in the humanities and social sciences, he said.

The advantage of this kind of teaching is that students learn how to think on their feet, said Patricia King, a professor of education at the University of Michigan.

“But it requires hard intellectual work,” she said.

In Maranville’s case, students did not see the value of his approach, the court records suggest. "Some students were quite vocal in their demands that he change his teaching style, which style had already been observed and approved by his peer faculty and administrative superiors,” according to the lawsuit. Students did not want to work in teams and did not want Maranville to ask questions. “They wanted him to lecture.” They also complained, according to the suit, that he did not know how to teach because he is blind.

The department chair – Scott Hammond, who is named in the lawsuit – apparently agreed with how Maranville taught his courses and called him a “master teacher,” according to court documents. Hammond visited his class, and so did an associate dean.

But a few months later, during the spring semester, Maranville received a letter from university president saying that his classroom behavior was not suited to his being granted tenure.
When contacted, the Utah Attorney General’s Office, the agency defending the university in the lawsuit, declined to talk about the allegations. "We defend state schools and agencies and that is our job. They made a decision and we will be in court defending that decision," said Scott Troxel, deputy communications director at the attorney general’s office.

Maranville’s lawsuit alleges breach of contract, breach of good faith, failure to provide a pre-termination notice and due process violation under the Utah constitution.

John Curtis, director of research and public policy for the American Association of University Professors, who was not specifically speaking about the Maranville

This trend might be more noticeable when it comes to contingent faculty, he said. "These kind of situations might become a real threat to academic freedom. We have heard from professors who are afraid to be tough with their students because of the possibility of negative evaluations leading to them being let go," Curtis said.

As a result, he said, it might be tempting for a faculty member to make classes easy just to garner positive evaluations.

Student opinions are just one perspective, he said. Also important are peer evaluations from other faculty members who could look into how a teacher is developing the discipline and incorporating new teaching techniques.

In some ways, Maranville’s allegations about student complaints are reminiscent of the case of Dominique G. Homberger, a biology professor at Louisiana State University at Baton Rouge who was removed from teaching an introductory class in 2010 because most of her students were getting failing grades. The AAUP later found that Homberger’s was not accorded her due process rights and her ability to teach the way she wanted to.

In another instance, a professor at Norfolk State University said he was denied tenure because he failed too many students. Steven D. Aird, who maintains a website about the dispute, told Inside Higher Ed in 2008 that lowering the bar did not help anyone.

While some view these cases as evidence of the overuse of student evaluations, Elizabeth Hitch, associate commissioner for academic affairs in the office of the commissioner for higher education in Utah, said student input was a key factor -- appropriately -- in reviewing professors.

"I think it is very important to find out what the student experience has been. They are sitting there every day listening to the professors,” Hitch said. “But student ratings are not the only thing. It is one element in a much more inclusive system."

Agree to Dissagree..Agree to listen..Agree to understand...Do no harm.

1. Agree to disagree. Do not take the opinions of others personally. Realize they have a vested interests in believing what they believe. Do try to get into productive discourse and to educate, but be open to learning as you do so.
2. Agree to listen. Listening is the most important communication and critical thinking skill, yet is it rapidly becoming he weakest. You need to really listen, not just sit and hear someone go on and on and repeat memorized or internalized tracts. Listen for what is underneath what they are saying. Look for the value, truths and lessons in what they say. Also listen to understand the views of others as you prepare persuasive discourse yourself.
3. Agree to understand. This includes understanding time restraints (for a teacher class time and number of speakers, amount that must be covered in a term and so on), physical limitations, the full demographics and psychographics of other individuals or groups, possible painful personal beliefs or experience behind their beliefs, that if you look underneath the surface you may find you agree more than you think, that everyone has different life expediences and above all (for students) that this is only a class.
4. Do no harm. Never intentionally harm another person with your words or actions. There is no faster way to shut down communication and progress than causing harm or the threat of harm. The word intentional is important, as we should not let a fear of offense or harm keep us from advancing legitimate arguments or exploring the envelope in the name of growth and understanding.