https://caspercollege.cvlcollections.org/files/original/f91ba1d5111cd432493d93a0093e9d27.pdf d1f937ded4d3a92a3fee351deb0a4111 PDF Text Text COMMUNITY COLLEGE JOURNAL Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 27: 173-190, 2003 Copyright £; 2003 Taylor & Francis Taylor & Francis laytor LIreneb Cnup 1066-6926/03 $12.00 +.00 DOI: 10.1080/10668920390128834 OF RESEARCH AND PRACTICE_____________________________________ ____________________ .'^Ki'isoni/joiiilly by the Hiitber Fjliiailiuit Pngram timl the Bill/ PritsI Cnilurfijr CommunHy CtJlt'ge al u (.ia »«ift efNorth Tiau EDITOR-IN-CHIEF D. Barry Lumsden University of North Texas P.O. Box 311337, Denton, Texas 76203 Phone: 940-565-4074; Fax: 940-369-7177 Internet: Lumsden@unt.edu LEARNING RESOURCF-S EDITORS CONSULTING EDITORS Fred C. Kintzer, Professor Emeritus Frankie S. Laanan, book Knita Editor, University of L'nivcrsitv of California North Texas Stephen C. Katsinas, Director, Bill J. Priest Center Maurice G. Fonin for Community College Education, Univerity of Angelo State University North Texas Elaine Howell Ron Newsom, Coordinator, Higher Education ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges Program, University of North Texas James L. Wattenbarger, Professor Emeritus, University of Florida Ray Young, Professor Emeritus, Washington State University EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS Ronald K. Bass, Scholarly Writers Institute Ted Martinez, Grussmoni College Bob Brown, Dallas County Community College Michael T. Miller, San Jose State University District Claudia H. Moore, Genesee Community College Dale F. Campbell, University of Florida Ron D. Opp, University of Toledo Ben Carr, University of Kentucky Community John H. Payne, BP Exploration College System Brenda H. Rogers, North Carolina Community M. Jean Keller, University of North Tc.xas College System Charlotte J. Lee, Terra Community College Sanford Shugart, Valencia Community College Albert L. Lorenzo, Macomb Community College Barbara K. Townsend, University of MissouriColumbia .Kbstcacu-d and/or Indexed In: Higlier Educatiuii Abstracts and I luman Ktsource Ahsmcis; Contents Pages in Education; Current Index toJournals ill Education (CIJD; Ediicaiion Index; MiictiionitlAdmiidstraiion Alistraas; ERIC. Publishing, Aihertising, and Subscriptionsl)fflcc;Tadiir&Prands,325QusuiutSire«.Hilhdelphia, PA l9IO6.tel:215-625-8900, fcuc 115625-2940 Pniduciiun Editor Bixtu) Gurdiiicr Subscriptions: 215-269-0400. Subscription Infurmalluii Commuiiily Codugiijuumtd is published monthly (exce|)l In April aixl October) al Tudor & Pruncis Inc., 325 Chestnut Street, Ptiiludelphia, RA19106 NTu>)or and Francis lid., 1) Feller lane, laindon ECAPALE,OK. Annual Subscription. Volume 27,2OU3. hint ISSN l<Ki6-8926 Instiiuiiunal: OS SA71, UK £285. Persunul: OS $ 127. 0K£78jA subscription lo diepriiu editicMt includes Iree access for any number of concurrent iLseri across a ItKal area neworklo the unlineeditiun (ONL1NEISSNI521-OAI3). Instinitiunal subscribers nuy chixise a prim suhsertptiun, an online subscription, or both. Dollar rates apply to subscribers in all countries except the I K and the Kqrublic of Ireland where the sterling price applies. All subscriptions are payable in advance and all rates indude postage. SdscripOons are enieredooanaiuiuatba!As; i.e., January to December. Pawneni may he made by sterling check, dollar check, iniemaiional money order, National Giro, or credit card (.Aniex, Visa, MastercanVAccess). For mure information about online suscriptions. a complete guide to Tudor & Francis Group's journal and book puhlisliing programs, ontiiw subscriptions, and details on atherdsing in our juunuls, visit our wvbsiie: www.tayloraadfraiicis.com. Periodicals pustage paid at Jamaica NT 11 A31 US Posmi-xsier Send address changes loCunununit) College Journal, Publications Expe- THE PROMISE OF DEMOCRACY'S COLLEGE: TOWN HALL MEETING AS TEACHING METHOD Chad M. Hanson Casper College, Casper, Wyoming, USA This article examines the rale of the community college in American society. Numerous changes are mentioned with respect to the norms and values observed in two-year schools, particularly in the last 20 years as the “learning revolution" has shaped organizational beliefs and practices. The implications of the changing norms and values are discussed in terms of their impact on pedagogy in the twoyear college, and a specific teaching method, the town hall meeting, is offered as an alternative to technologically mediated and individualised modes of instruction. Results ofan evaluation survey are presented, and the article concludes with a call for future research on the social, cultural, and political roles served by the com­ munity college. As a beginning community college instructor, I spent much of my time searching for a teaching method that would help create an engaged and critical classroom environment. Three years ago I settled on a strategy that uses the New England town hall meeting as a model. In many ways, the New England town meeting represents an ideal forum for participatory democracy (Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Tipton & Swidler, 1985). It is a format well suited to the community college classroom, as two-year schools have long been considered “democracy’s college” (Cohen & Brawer, 1982; Diekhoff, 1950; Griffith & Connor, 1994; Hanson, 1996; Rhoades & Valadez, 1996). In theory, the American community college was an institution meant to democratize higher education. In this article I propose a bridge from theory to practice and offer both the rationale and procedures for creating a classroom environment that rewards participation and supports democracy. d)ting. Inc. 200 .Vieacham Avenue, Elnioiu, NY 11003. Orders originating in the following territories should be sent directly to: India: Universal Suhscriptiufl Agency Pvt. lad, 101-102 Gimmunity Centre, MaKiyaNagarE:^. Post Bag No. 8, Sakti.^New Delhi 1IU017. Japan: Kinokuniya Company Ltd. Journal Depannieni, PO Box 55, Chiiuse, Tokyo 156. USA, Canada, and Mexico: Taylor & Francis liK, 325 Chesuiul Street, Ptiiludelphia, PA, 19106. UK and all other territories: Tuylur& Francis Dd, Rankine Rd., Basingstoke, Hampshire RG2A8PR. Gipyriydii 6 2003 Taylor & Francis. All rights reserved. No pan of this publication may be reproduced, stored, iransniitled, or disseminuied in any form or by any means wittwui prior written permisattn from Taylor K Francis Inc. Taylor & Francis Inc grants authorization for individuals to photocopy cupyrighi material lor private research use on ihe sole basis dial requtsK ft< such use an* rtftrraJ dinulyio die requester's bol RepnxlucDuti Rqdiis Organization (RRO), such a.s the CupyTtght Clearance Cenier in die USA or the Cupyrighi Lk'ensing Agency in ihe UK. This authorization does nut extend lo any other kind of copying by any means, in any fomi. and fur any puryxise uther than priv-aie rocarch use. 'Ihe publisher, ediiur, and sputburs assume no responsibility for any sbBcnwnis t^ba or opinion expressed in the published papers or adwnisemeiiis The piper in this pubJkatun mans lh« rtquitniimu olm ANSI Slindint Z3'M8-19IM ll’etfrune»K»<>U'jpcf) An earlier version of this article was presented at the annual meeting of the Pacific Sociological Association. April 21, 2002, Vancouver, B.C. Address correspondence to Chad M. Hanson, Department of Sociology, Casper College, 125 College Drive, Casper, WY 82601. E-mail: chanson@ca8percollege.edu �C. M. Hanson Town Hall Meeting as Teaching Method Throughout its history, the American community college has been a controversial institution (Dougherty, 1994; Frye, 1994). Even during the great period of growth and expansion, the 1960s and 1970s, community colleges were praised by some (Gleazer, 1981; Medsker, 1960) and criticized by others (Karabel, 1972; Zwerling, 1976). Some claimed community colleges act as social and economic elevators, lifting disadvantaged people up into desirable occupations (Cohen & Drawer, 1982). Others saw two-year schools as a way of providing false hope to a class of Americans that would maintain their positions in society, even despite open access to education (Clark, 1960, 1980; Pincus, 1980). Historically, scholars have been deeply divided on the issue of assessing the community college’s role in society. However, the two-year school is a less contentious institution today than it has been at any point in the past. Tbday there are few public or professional debates with respect to the institution’s purpose or mis­ sion. At present, it is rare to see or hear questions about the institu­ tion’s role in the social or political life of the nation. There are few debates of this nature in the literature on community colleges, and few among faculty or staff. Today the value of community colleges is generally agreed on—cultural and economic forces have coalesced to forge a cohesive vision of the community college—with little or no opposition (Levin, 2001). When it comes to our current understanding of the American two-year school, we tend to see the institution in practical, utilitarian terms. Despite early democratic ideals, we are increasingly apt to view and use the institution as a public, tax-sup­ ported means to train workers for the private sector (Brint & Karabel, 1989; Levin, 2002). been shown that the decade of the 1990s brought a decisive shift in the organizational beliefs and practices commonly seen in two-year schools. Despite the fact that Americans conceived the community college as a public institution along the same lines as churches, museums, or parks, in the decade of the 1990s two-year college pro­ fessionals began to see their institutions in a different light. In the minds of those shaping the organizational culture of the two-year school, “community college stakeholders and interest groups were no longer synonymous with the social community but rather with the business and industrial community” (Levin, 2002, p. 141). The shift in emphasis did not take place on its own, as part of a nat­ ural course. The change represents a victory for special interest groups like the League for Innovation in the Community College. Over the last ten years, the League has successfully launched a “revolution” in American two-year schools (O’Banion, 1998a). Beginning in the early 1990s, the League and its corporate partners including Apple, Micro­ soft, IBM, and Sun Micro Systems, launched a “learning revolution” designed to change the way two-year college education is both conceived and practiced (Barr & Tagg, 1995; O’Banion, 1998b). Through con­ ferences, monograms, and carefully placed publications learning advo­ cates significantly altered the cultural landscape of the two-year college. The learning revolution has been espoused as a universally positive movement. The tenor of the work that has fueled the revolution is pleasant to the point where it almost seems nonpartisan. But there can be no mistake, the changes prescribed in the learning college lit­ erature are designed to serve the interests of conservative business leaders. By the late 1990s, with the revolution in full swing, students, faculty, administrators, and legislators had all come to view commu­ nity colleges largely as corporate training sites. Taken together, the changes wrought by learning advocates pose a direct challenge to the nonmarket values which support the view that liberal education is a cornerstone of American democracy. 174 THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE IN AMERICAN LIFE In 1992, Clifford Adelman published a U.S. Department of Education report on two-year schools titled The Way We Are: The Community College as American Thermometer. In the report, Adelman suggests the two-year school may embody many of our most central values and beliefs. He used data from the National Longitudinal Survey (NLS) and over 10,000 college transcripts to develop a profile of those attending two-year schools. The analysis leads to a thorough description of course­ taking patterns, and also to key inferences about the mindset and attitudes of those Americans who enrolled in community colleges. In sum, Adelman suggests of the subjects in the research, “their experi­ ence may be emblematic of the ways in which we Americans use other normative institutions such as those of religion and the arts” (Adelman, 1992, p. 1). But in the years that followed Adelman’s analysis, it has also 176 With the concept of a learning college emerging as a beacon of change, the purpose of the institution decidedly moved from individual and community betterment to economic ends: development sites for work­ force preparation. (Levin, 2001, p. 170) Institutional rationales paralleled the view of education and training as a commodity, students as customers, and business and industry as cli­ ents—all reinforcing market ideology. (Levin, 2001, p. 17) Those currently shaping the culture of community colleges— admimstrators, legislators, trustees, and business leaders—all expect �C. M. Hanson Town Hall Meeting as Teaching Method twoyear schools to produce competent and dutiful employees for the new global economy. Those are admirable goals, at least at some level, but they are goals that stand in stark contrast to the broad social agenda that drove the institution’s expansion in the 1960s and 1970s. The changes have obvious political and economic overtones, but equally important are the curricular and pedagogical implications of the changes taking place as two-year schools continue to transform themselves into “learning colleges.” The changes have been promoted aggressively by college administrators and the institution’s economic stakeholders, but the consequences have been seen and felt in every comer of the community college, including the classroom. the larger process of becoming educated. Learning takes place nearly everywhere, almost all of the time, but that cannot be said of educa­ tion. What it means to be an educated person is something to be debated. But in any definition it must be said that education is a social process. Education is a social institution, just like the family, sports, religion, or the law. Like all major institutions, education is complex and multi-faceted. The facilitation of lefiming or cognitive develop­ ment is an important part of the process, but education is also a moral, cultural, political, and economic enterprise. Recent technological innovations, often promoted in the learning college literature as a means to improve access to education, provide educators with new and exciting ways to promote student develop­ ment. But an Internet based curriculum in the community college is something worth careful consideration, with an eye toward the social and cultural consequences. In particular, when technology breaks the bond between citizens and public institutions, we have reason to question our efforts at reform. In situations where electronic teaching methods sever the relationship between students and colleges, we have occasion to pause and consider the costs of our quest to transform public institutions into service providers for industries and indivi­ duals. In a strong democracy, public institutions do more than merely serve private interests. According to Robert Bellah and associates (1991), public institutions like community colleges “are the substantial forms through which we understand our own identity and the identity of others as we seek to achieve a decent society” (Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Tipton & Swidler, 1991, p, 16). There is a growing body of research demonstrating that students learn effectively, even when isolated from their teachers and peers (Merisotis & Phipps, 1999). But the process of becoming an educated person is complicated. However it is defined, the process entails more than the acquisition of knowledge or skills. To be credentialed as an educated person means more than mere learning in the cognitive sense, it includes the development of purpose, integrity, and the fos­ tering of an identity as an active member of a free republic (Chickering, 1969). Ideally, public higher education has a decidedly public and social purpose. Unfortunately, in the rush to reduce education to its most basic utilitarian role, the learning revolution has undermined the proud and lofty public purpose of the American community college. The problem becomes more apparent when you consider social institutions outside education in the same light currently used to view the two-year school. If one considers institutions like religion, or even something as central to the American way of life as the neighborhood barbecue in the terms currently used to describe the community 176 THE LEARNING REVOLUTION IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE In a 1997 publication titled A Learning College for the Twenty-First Century, Terry O’Banion established the basic tenets of the revolution in organizational culture that has Literally swept through two-year schools. The major thesis in the work is that teachers, campuses, and classrooms all impose unnecessary restrictions on the process of learning. According to O’Banion, learning has been time-bound, place­ bound, and teacher-bound in traditional institutions (1997). The efforts of learning advocates are aimed at overthrowing the time-honored physical and annual structure of education. The main objective is to free students from what they perceive to be undue constraints. Therefore, one of the primary goals of the learning college movement is to make college courses convenient—available any time, anywhere, even in the comfort of home. In large part, the emphasis on providing education any time, any­ where has meant a move to establish courses and degree programs on the Internet (Levin, 2002). The move to distance education and elec­ tronic delivery came as good news to the software corporations that support interest groups like the League; the learning college concept fits neatly with the technologically driven corporate training model favored in the private sector. American industries discovered long ago that employees can be trained on-line, alone, without an instructor or a public institution to host the endeavor. However, as two-year schools moved to aid industries with employee preparation in the 1990s, the new narrow focus on learning grew at odds with the broader and higher purpose of the two-year college—education (Brint & Karabel, 1989; Dougherty, 1994; Hanson, 1998). In the rhetoric of the current revolution, education is reduced to learning, the institution’s most utilitarian purpose. But at its very base, the logic of the revolution rests on a conflation of learning with 177 �179 C. M. Hanson Thuin Hall Meeting as Teaching Method college, the results are illuminating. For example, church services suffer some of the same drawbacks as college classes. They are bound by time, place, even particular pastors or priests. And of course, it is possible to worship in the convenience of home, any time of the day or week. Therefore, one might ask, should Americans continue to take time out of their busy schedules to commune with others while they worship? Should we launch a revolution to dissuade the American people from attending churches? The easy answer is no, and the simple reason is that there is a lot more to being a member of a church than worship alone; like education, religion is a complex social insti­ tution. Churches create a community where social bonds are estab­ lished, roles are enacted, norms are observed, and values are shared. The backyard barbecue serves as a similar example. Reduced to its most practical function, the purpose of a barbecue is to eat. As we know, the process of eating is not bound by time, place, or a specific chef. Should Americans continue to gather in backyards all over the country for the purpose of sharing meals, when everyone knows they can eat any time, on their own, and in private? The obvious answer is yes. Americans should continue to gather for neighborhood barbecues because they are meaningful social and cultural occurrences. There can be no doubt that Americans attend outdoor barbecues in part to consume calories, but the institution is much more complicated than an analysis of its most practical purpose could ever suggest. With examples like these it is easy to see if we launched a revolution to reduce other institutions to their most basic utilitarian functions, and labeled them as such—“worshiping churches” or “eating barbe­ cues” for example—Americans would think it absurd. But in the community college there have been few questions raised in opposition to the “learning college” revolution. Over the course of the last two decades, faculty and staff have made Herculean efforts to ensure that community college education is convenient for students and amenable to industry. But convenience and vocational applicability have been won without reflection on what the changes mean for local commu­ nities, let alone American society. The establishment and maintenance of community, roles, norms, and values are rarely ever printed on official church service schedules, seldom seen on agendas for neighborhood barbecues, and almost never spelled out on college course syllabi. Even so, these are the very pur­ poses the institutions serve. In fact, the purposes are so central to the maintenance of society they are woven into the fabric of daily life, invisible to all but the most thoughtful observers. It takes a reflective practitioner to uncover and give words to the processes most of us take part in each day, but take for granted. Dennis McGrath and Martin Spear are two such practitioners. In a description of the processes at work in their own classrooms they suggest: 178 Within... classrooms faculty and students encounter and try to under­ stand one another. They negotiate social norms, create forms of knowl­ edge, modify their identities; they make meaning together. (McGrath & Spear, 1991, p. 5) Even though these processes cannot be easily reduced to measurable learning outcomes, they are keys to the process of becoming educated. They are not described in college mission statements, and they do not appear on the lists of curricular objectives academic departments produce to satisfy accrediting agencies. Instead, they are part of every college’s “hidden curriculum,” the unspoken and often unrecognized processes that make education a rich, meaningful, contentious, and rewarding institution (Jackson, 1968; Margolis, 2001). IT'S NOT WHAT YOU TEACH—IT'S HOW YOU TEACH IT When I began teaching in the community college I was still a graduate student finishing coursework of my own. For me the period was one of great transition. As I made the move from my role as a student to my new role as a teacher, I was faced with a number of questions. How would I structure my Introduction to Sociology course? What kind of assignments would I require? What could I do to shape the tenor of the discussions I planned to hold in class? As I prepared to meet my first group of students, questions like these stretched out before me like a row of hurdles. In my search for answers to the questions I faced as a new teacher, I discovered the educational philosophy of John Dewey (1916,1956). For Dewey, the development of a model teaching practice begins with an educator’s image of an ideal society. For instance, if we wish to live in a society where people sit quietly and listen, schools requiring stillness and silence may be the shortest route to that end. On a similar note, if we wish to live in a society where people stay home and watch tele­ vision, schools that use television as a vehicle for instruction should provide a direct avenue to that future. But if we wish to live in a society where citizens come together in public places to have mean­ ingful conversations about the most compelling issues of the day, then schools must provide an environment where people can practice the art of citizenship, in a forum reminiscent of our most democratic institutions. �181 C. M. Hanson 7bwn Hall Meeting as Teaching Method Years before the phrase had been coined, Dewey was attuned to the concept of the hidden curriculum (Dewey, 1916; Jackson, 1968). In short, he suggested the power of education lies as much in the social process of the classroom as it does in the subject matter outlined in a text or a set of class notes. As a graduate student, that was easy for me to believe. In one seminar after another I could see and feel myself taking part in what were essentially exercises in socialization. Although I was expected to develop a working body of knowledge, I was also learning how to think and how to present ideas to others. I was developing a command of my subject, but I was also coming to know the protocol of public discourse. I found the exchanges in my graduate seminars exciting, and as a beginning teacher I was eager to bring that same level of excitement to the classes I was now responsible for teaching. In my first Introduction to Sociology class 1 asked students to research a topic appropriate to the course, and I required them to present a summary and analysis in class. I gave them a detailed set of instructions: I asked them to dis­ cuss their author’s central argument, the appropriateness of the research methods, and I also asked them to talk about the theoretical underpinnings of the work they chose to review. But despite careful planning on my part, the assignment was a flop. On the rare occasion when a student took all of the steps prescribed in the project, I observed that it nearly always incited eye rolling and even an occasional snicker from the class. When students used the terms of academic sociology, terms like “func­ tionalist,” or “symbolic interaction,” it was evidently a sign of caving in to authority or “sucking up” to me the teacher. At one point, I actually watched a student mouth the words ‘l5rown-noser” to a classmate under his breath as a fellow student described an author’s ideological leanings. That particular incident was enough to prompt me to explore the literature on teaching and culture in the community college. I had to know if other two-year college instructors met with similar resistance to the language and concepts of academia. The research on teaching in the community college confirmed that my experience was part of a broad pattern. Similar classroom dynamics are documented in the work of authors like Howard London (1978), Ira Shor (1980), and Dennis McGrath and Martin Spear (1991). McGrath and Spear suggest, in the community college: In an ethnographic account of life in an urban two-year school, Howard London (1977) describes how tension can develop between teachers and students. He explains, “by stressing the value of intel­ lectual activity... teachers became, in effect, another reminder of what... students thought to be their own shortcomings” (1977, p. 67). It is likely for this reason Shor (1980) observes that “students are suspicious of intellectuals” (p. 29). Clearly, my attempts to draw stu­ dents into a thoughtful academic exchange incited resistance. But for Shor, the solution to the question of how to overcome the suspicion and misgivings students bring to the classroom lies in the careful use of language. In his words, “the ... question is one of linguistic compat­ ibility between teacher and students” (1980, p. 29). Subject matter aside, teachers and students are immersed in a ritual of culture—the college class. Terms of engagement are negotiated as part of the ritual, and social relations in a class unfold according to the norms and roles mutually established by teachers and students. The norms and roles established in a course form the foundation on which the learning of a subject takes place. They are central to the success of the entire enterprise, but they are hidden in the sense that they are not typically discussed. In my own practice I was experimenting, or fumbling as it were, with the hidden curriculum. In addition to passing on sociology, I was working to create an environment that would allow students to observe and take part in a forum where public discourse was the norm; but I was struggling. The terms and values I brought with me from the university were a barrier to my success and the success of my stu­ dents. Ethnographic accounts of the community college classroom confirmed my own professional observations—the language and con­ cepts of the academy were stumbling blocks in my new environment. Consequently, I started looking for a way to remove the jargon of academic social science from my conversations with students. Still faced with the question of how to structure my classes, I began experimenting with various activities. I called them everything from “collective reviews” to “collegial discussions,” but I met with very little success. It was clear I needed a more colloquial title and a more prosaic format for the classroom environment I was trying to create. Ironically, in this case, as a teacher, I was the one being socialized. The classroom ritual exerts a powerful force on both students and teachers—shaping and molding attitudes and actions. 1 was looking for a way to create an environment that would foster student beha­ viors that matched my expectations for rigor and participation, but ultimately my methods had to be delivered on their terms. Finally, I settled on the format of the New England town hall meeting. What 180 Students and teachers appear to disagree about the most basic, most mundane features of the classroom, as well as the larger vision of the nature and purpose of education. (McGrath & Spear, 1991, p. 5) �183 C. M. Hanson Tbwn Hall Meeting as Teaching Method could be more American? What method could be better suited to an institution considered democracy’s college? I ask them to think about the data presented and whether it is reliable or valid, and I also ask them to reflect on their reading and prepara­ tion. I make a point to ask students about their original positions; I ask them to talk about whether their research either confirmed or challenged their prior convictions. In addition to completing the form I provide, students are required to prepare a set of talking points. Ground rules for the discussion require students to prepare a detailed set of notes for their part on the city council, but the rules also specify their part cannot be so detailed that it reads like a script. I show students 3-4 examples of talking points in class, prepared on a range of subjects. From there, students are free to use the format that suits their interests and their articles. As for the meetings themselves, I ask the city council members to sit as part of a panel in the front of the classroom. We determine an order or progression prior to the start with a logical beginning, middle, and end. Once the council begins sharing their information, the remaining students are free to ask questions or make comments. In fact, students are required to participate in the meetings. They earn a point per meeting by either making a comment or raising a question. In the past, I asked students to mark their participation by placing Post-it notes on their desks (Hanson, 2000). Today I allow students to keep track of their own participation on the honor system; they fill out a checklist I provide them at the beginning of the semester. Over the course of the last year I have had considerable success with this method and very little incidence of fraud. With very few exceptions, students have been forthright when keeping a record of their own participation. 182 TOWN HALL MEETING AS TEACHING METHOD As of this writing, I have been conducting town hall meetings in lower division sociology courses for six semesters. Tb start, I provide stu­ dents with a general overview of the assignment, complete with a brief description of each stage involved (see Appendix A). In the first phase of the activity, students determine the 5—8 topics to be discussed in class. I allow them 15-20 minutes to brainstorm a list of potential topics on Post-it notes, in groups of 4-5. When students have had ample time to generate ideas, I circulate among the groups, announce each topic to the class, and ask the others to remove duplicated topics from their lists. When through, we have one set of Post-it notes, with one distinct topic written on each note. Next, we assemble the notes on a table near the front of the room and I distribute three small adhesive dots to every student in class. I explain each dot is a vote, and during the next stage of the activity every person casts three votes. Students vote by placing dots on the Post-it note(8) and topic(s) of their choice. In the end, I tally the number of dots per subject, and the top vote-winning issues are the ones we discuss. After topics are determined, typically the following class period, we hold a drawing to decide which city council each student will serve on and, in effect, which subjects they will study. The city councils are made up of 4—5 students, so I fill out 4—5 slips of paper for each topic. On each slip of paper there is an issue and a date. Once I assemble enough slips of paper for each topic, they all go into a hat (I keep a tengallon cowboy hat in my office for this purpose). I bring the hat to class, and from it students choose their topics and the date of the meeting where they serve on the city council. This element of seren­ dipity gives students incentive to take the selection of topics seriously; they know in advance they may be required to research any one of the top vote-winning issues. When we have a city council committed to each subject, I provide students with a form on which to keep a record of their research activities (see Appendix B). Students are required to bring a minimum of two sources to the table when it comes time for them to share their knowledge with the class. The worksheet contains space for biblio­ graphic information on each source, along with three questions I expect students to answer during the meetings. I ask them to think about their authors and whether there is any bias from the source. ASSESSMENT As evidenced in an evaluation survey I conducted for three consecutive semesters, students appear to be comfortable with the town hall for­ mat; it seems the meetings afford them an opportunity to think and grow (see Table 1). From an educational standpoint, students affirm that in-class town meetings challenge them to think critically and creatively. Students also claim the activity helps build their capacity to analyze research; in large part I suspect that is true because the assignment requires them to study a subject in depth. In addition, from a social and political standpoint, the meetings provide a com­ fortable forum for students to practice participation in a public sphere, both as speakers and listeners. One shortcoming of the evaluation research I have conducted to date is that it is based on an attitudinal survey as opposed to a direct �184 C. M. HaA»on Tbwn Hall Meeting as Teaching Method TABLE 1 Student Perceptions of Tbwn Hall Meetings, Fall 2000-FalI 2001 meetings stand to make good on the promise of democracy’s college. The format mirrors the structure and social relations found in our most democratic institutions. lbwn hall meetings Mean Percent “agree” or “strongly agree” Were a good way for me to participate in class discussions. Helped me learn how to analyze research. Were a chance to listen to a wide range of views. Were a good opportunity to practice public speaking in a comfortable setting. Allowed me to see the political side of social problems. Encouraged me to think creatively about current events. Encouraged me to think critically about current events. Were a good way to study a subject in depth. 4.40 04.00 124 4.07 4.48 84.00 95.00 124 125 4.28 90.40 125 4.16 90.40 125 4.24 90.40 125 4.27 91.13 124 4.23 87.90 124 AT of evaluation ATote: Perceptions range from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. measure of student performance. From the data I collected I am comfortable concluding that students epjoy town hall meetings, and I am also confident their reports of having learned were given in earnest. But further research is necessary in order to draw broader conclusions about the social, political, or educational value of the town hall meeting as a teaching method. This is an area where a perfor­ mance-based measure of creativity, critical thinking, or problem­ solving skills could be applied. More important, future research has to focus on the long-term effects of taking part in a series of town hall meetings. Currently, questions remain—are students more likely to attend city or county functions after taking part in classroom-based town meetings? Are they more likely to vote? Do the meetings inspire a life-long interest in political affairs? A program of longitudinal research is the only means by which questions such as these can be addressed. Still, from data collected both formally and informally, I can say with confidence the town hall format is a desirable way to structure the community college classroom. In my own discipline, sociology, the town hall forum lends itself to the subject matter. But the format could easily be adapted for use in other fields: nursing, biology, English, accounting, or even math. Anywhere they are practiced, town 185 CONCLUSION The learning revolution and learning college culture have made it difficult for teachers to challenge the conceit that education is a business, learning is a product, and measurable outcomes are more valuable than the quality of the process by which students are edu­ cated. The debates over the social role of two-year schools and the best means to embody the spirit of democracy’s college seem over, at least for the time being. But in retrospect, the historic debate over the role and mission of the community college never had much to do with democracy. Critics of the community college were concerned that twoyear schools lacked the potential to create upward economic mobility for the American working class (Zwerling, 1976). Generally speaking, advocates of the two-year school acknowledged the colleges could not ensure class mobility, but they maintained the schools provide ave­ nues for individual success (Cohen & Brawer, 1982). Even in the age when scholars had the courage to question the role of two-year schools, the debate was focused solely on the question of whether or not the community college could help create a more egalitarian society. Despite all of the rhetoric about the democratization of higher edu­ cation, and even despite the title—democracy’s college—scholars have yet to considered the role of the community college in the creation and maintenance of a strong democracy. In the classic. How College Affects Students, Ernest Pascarella and Patrick Terenzini (1991) reviewed more than 2,600 research projects aimed at understanding the social, economic, political, moral, and psychological impact of attending a college. They only uncovered one study of political engagement and social responsibility among twoyear college students, and it was unpublished (Marks, 1990). The study suggested “two-year college attendance is negatively related to changes in social responsibility” (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, p. 300). Apart from research aimed specifically at community colleges, the most comprehensive source of data on undergraduate student atti­ tudes and values is the annual Freshman National Norms survey conducted by the staff of the Higher Education Research Institute (HERD at the University of California, Los Angeles. Reporting on the 2001 survey for the Chronicle of Higher Education, Alex Kellog notes, “political engagement among college freshmen has reached an all-time low... only 28 percent of entering college students reported an �C. M. Hanson 7bu/n Hall Meeting as Teaching Method interest in keeping up to date with political affairs, the lowest level since the survey was established in 1966” (2001, p. A47). Unfortu­ nately, two-year college freshmen were not included as part of the sample in either the 2000 or 2001 surveys. According to \^vian Deluna, HERI staff member, “The number of two-year colleges parti­ cipating ... dropped gradually since the late 19808 with an increasing turnover in the two-year colleges that participate” (Vivian Delna, personal communication, October 17, 2001) start taking the risks Cohen and Brawer cautioned us against. By the early 1990s, capitalism had demonstrated itself to be global in its scope and influence. But at the same time, it is also argued that democracy stands “on trial” (Elshtain, 1993). The free enterprise system gains new devotees every day around the globe, while Amer­ ican democracy withers on the vine, strangled by low voter turnout and campaign finance largesse. It is time for those who call democracy’s college their professional home to start taking democracy seriously. As public servants, com­ munity college teachers have an obligation to address the shifting mission of the two-year school toward serving global economic inter­ ests, at the expense of the institution’s role in local affairs. As edu­ cators, two-year college teachers have a responsibility to counter the trend toward political disengagement among students. As a teaching method, town hall meetings hold the potential to address both con­ cerns. Future research on the social and political role of the two-year school may uncover still better means to ensure the community college is equal to the task of supporting and advancing American democracy. 186 The combination of these factors has resulted in ever-larger cell weights being applied to the two-year college data and increased the possibility of non-random variation in the overall national norms. (Sax, Astin, Kom, & Mahoney, 2000, p. 113) The absence of two-year college students from the Freshman National Norms survey is an unfortunate development. But prior data suggests, had two-year college students been included, their level of interest in politics would have fallen short of the national average. In 1999, the last year community college students were included in the study, 20.7% of two-year college freshmen considered keeping up to date with political affairs important or very important; hardly a glowing endorsement for an institution described as democracy’s col­ lege (Sax, Astin, Hom, & Mahoney, 1999). To address the alarming level of political apathy on two-year college campuses, educators are going to have to take a more direct approach to fostering the quality of mind that makes effective citizens. As a teaching method, town hall meetings are a start. They are a means to reassert the community college’s social and political roles; roles that have been under attack for more than two decades. The current learning revolution not withstanding, even in the early eighties there were signs that community colleges were being transformed into taxsupported training sites for multi-national corporations. In a prescient history of two-year schools, Cohen and Brawer (1982) offered an early eulogy for the community college’s broader role in society and a pre­ view of the current emphasis on what they consider the college’s main purpose—workforce development: Each time the colleges act as social welfare agencies or modem Chautauquas, they run the risk of reducing the support they must have if they are to pursue their main purpose. (Cohen & Brawer, 1982, p. 282) The data I collected as part of my search for a promising classroom structure suggest it is time for community college professionals to 187 REFERENCES Adelman, C. (1992). The way we are: The community college as American thermometer. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning—a new paradigm for tinder­ graduate education. Change, 6, 12-25. Bellah, R. et al. (1985). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Bellah, R. et al. (1991). The good society. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Brint, S., & Karabel, J. (1989). The diverted dream: Community colleges and the promise of educational opportunity in America, 1900-1985. New York: Oxford University Press. Chickering, A. (1969). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Clark, B. (1960). The cooling out function in higher education. American Journal of Sociology, 6, 569—576. Clark, B. (1980). The cooling out function revisited. New Directions for Community Colleges. 4, 15-32. Cohen, A., & Brawer, F. (1982). The American community college. San Francisco: JosaeyBass. Dewey, J. (1916). Education and democracy. New York: Macmillan. Dewey, J. (1956). Philosophy of education. Ames, lA: Littlefield, Adams, and Co. Diekhoff, J. (1950). Democracy’s college: Higher education in the local community. New York: Harper and Brothers. Dougherty, K. (1994). The contradictory college: The conflicting origins, impacts, and futures of the community college. Albany: State University of New York Press. Elshtain, J. (1993). Democracy on trial. New York: Basic Books. �186 C. M. Hanson Frye, J. (1994). Educational paradigms in the professional literature on community colleges. In J. Smart (Ed) The Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research. Vol. X. pp. 181-224. NY: Agathon. Gleazer, E. (1981). The community college: values, vision , vitality. Washington, DC: American Association of Community and Junior (Colleges. Griffith, M., & Connor, A. (1994). Democracy's open door: The community college in America's future. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton-Cook Publishers. Hanson, C. (1996). Democracy’s college: A case study of social processes in an urban community college. Dissertation Abstracts International (University Microfilms No. 9720619). Hanson, C. (1998). From teaching to learning: Are we still educating students? The Teaching Professor, 8, 1. Hanson, C. (2000). Silence and structure in the classroom: From seminar to town meeting via Post-its. The National Teaching and Learning Forum, 6, 1-4. Jackson, P. (1968). Life in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston. Karabel, J. (1972). (Community colleges and social stratification. Harvard Educational Review, 4, 521-561. Kellog, A. (2001). Looking inward, freshman care less about politics and more about money. Chronicle of Higher Education, 3, A47. Levin, J. (2001). Globalising the community college: Strategies for change in the twenty^ first century. New York: Palgrave. Levin, J. (2002). Global culture and the community college. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 26, 121-145. London, H. 1978. The Culture of a Community College. New York: Praeger. Margolis, E. editor. 2001. The Hidden Curriculum in Higher Education. New York: Routledge. Marks, H. (1990). The college experience: Differential gender effects on the development of social responsibility. Paper Presented at the American Educational Research Asso­ ciation. Boston, MA. Medsker, L. (1960). The junior college: Progress and prospect. New York: McGraw-Hill. Merisotis, J., & Phipps, R. (1999). What’s the difference? Change, 3, 12-17. McGrath, D., & Spear, M. (1991). The academic crisis of the community college. Albany: State University of New York Press. O’Banion, T. (1997). A learning college for the 21st century. Phoenix: Oryx Press. O*Banion, T. (1998a). The learning revolution: Perched at the millennium. Community College Week, 12, 12-15. O’Banion, T. (1998b). The center of the learning revolution. Community College WeeA, 4, 24-26. Pascarella, E., & 'Ibrenzini, P. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pincus, F. (1980). The false promise of community colleges: Class conflict and vocational education. Harvard Educational Review, 3, 332-361. Rhoads, R., & Valadez, J. (1996). Democracy, multiculturalism and the community col­ lege. New York: Garland. Sex, L., Astin, A., Kom, W., & Mahoney, K. (1999). The American freshman: National norms for Fall 1999. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA. Sax, L. (2000). The American freshman: National norms for Fall 2000. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA. Shor, I. (1980). Critical teaching and everyday life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Zwerling, S. (1976). Second best: The crisis of the community college. New York: McGraw-Hill. Tbwn Hall Meeting as Teaching Method 189 APPENDIX A Town Hall Meetings Differences of opinion lead to inquiry and inquiry to truth. Thomas Jefferson Objective The objective of the Town Hall assignment is to explore how issues in criminology are understood from different standpoints. Steps 1. Research the issue/Find the debate: Each person needs to find two articles that approach the issue from different perspectives. Hint—it is best to review a few different articles so that you can be sure you get two good ones. You can certainly use more than two. 2. Organize your information: Complete the discussion work­ sheet. 3. Create a list of “talking points:** You should have a list of the main ideas you want to convey along with questions you’d like to raise. 4. Prepare your thoughts: Practice the discussion with your partner/s. 5. Present and support your ideas/Listen to the views of others (In class). 6. Make a decision: As a class we summarize the best arguments from the different points of view. Then, we decide which position is more just, ethical, accurate, or appropriate. 7. Turn in your written work Helpful Tips 1. Avoid thinking of a discussion as a win-lose proposition. Focus on coming to the best decision possible, not necessarily on winning. 2. Confirm other’s competence while you disagree with them or challenge their points. 3. Criticize ideas and not people. 4. Separate your identity from criticism of your ideas. 5. Listen to everyone, even if you do not agree with their ideas. �190 C. M. Hanson Community College Journal of Research and Pnctice, 27: 191-201. 2003 t i cc Copyright © 2003 Taylor & Frands 1066-8926/03 112.00 +.00 APPENDIX B DOI: 10.1080/10668920390128843 Town Hail Meeting Worksheet Topic : Article 1: Author : Source: Date: Article 2 : Author : Source: Date: The author’s background: The author’s background: Is there any bias from the source or author? Is there any bias from the source or author? Was the information valid and reliable—or—were the research meth­ ods appropriate? Did the article change your view or support the one you already had? TALKING POINTS (use your own paper & turn in with this page as a cover sheet) CAREER CONCERNS OF DISPLACED WORKERS IN VOCATIONAL TRAINING T. Ross Owen Trey J. Fitch Morehead State University, Morehead, Kentucky, USA The purpose of this study was to identify the career concerns of displaced workers in vocational training. Participants completed the Vocational Identity Scale of My Vocational Situation. There were 83 completed questionnaires for a response rate of 100%. Descriptive data and chi-square tests were calculated. Results indicate that students were most concerned about identifying potential career possibilities. Career counseling implications and recommendations are discussed. The 1990s in America were characterized by rising corporate profits and falling unemployment rates (Rocha, 2001). Americans were prospering economically. “But there was a large segment of the labor force plagued by declining and stagnant wages, involuntary and parttime employment, and decreasing job security” (Rocha, 2001, p. 53). Due to an increase in companies which shifted all or part of their production offshore to lower wage countries, American manufacturing companies lost more than 2 million jobs (Mishel, Bernstein, & Schmitt, 1997). “Dislocated workers may face higher stresses than other unemployed workers because of lost earning potential but also because of the lost career identity and the higher emotional investment they may have had in their former positions” (Mallinckrodt & Bennett, 1992, p. 482). This shift in the American manufacturing sector has presented community colleges with important new challenges regarding the career concerns of displaced workers. The displaced worker is defined as a “person on layoff with a stable employment history who has little Address correspondence to T. Ross Owen, Assistant Professor of Adult & Higher Education, Morehead State University, 503 Ginger Hall, Morehead, KY 40361. E-mail: r.owen@morehead8tate.edu 191 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Print Journal Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The Promise of Democracy's College: Town Hall Meeting as Teaching Method Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <div id="dublin-core-rights" class="element"> <div class="element-text five columns omega"> <div id="dublin-core-rights" class="element"> <div class="element-text five columns omega"> <div class="element-text five columns omega"> <div class="element-text"> <div class="element-text"> <div class="element-text"> <div class="element-text five columns omega"> <div class="element-text five columns omega"> <div class="element-text five columns omega"> <div class="element-text"><a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/">http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/</a></div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> Date Created Date of creation of the resource. 2003 Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Chad Hanson Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Chad Hanson Journal Publications, CCA 04.ii.e.2025.01 WyCaC US. Casper College Archives and Special Collections. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CCA 04.ii.e.2025.01_ChadHansonPapers_05 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Searchable PDF Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available <em>Community College Journal of Research and Practice</em> is published by Taylor &amp; Francis Group, LLC