LETTER: Reading days don’t suit HASS faculty
Editor,
We are writing in regard to the current proposal to add reading days to the academic calendar. Our concern is that there is a misperception of why faculty members have misgivings about reading days.
Before clarifying our reservations, the HASS Faculty Senate Caucus would like to express appreciation of the hard work that students put into this proposal and the courage student leaders demonstrated coming before faculty senate to present their proposal.
The goal of the faculty is the same as that of President Hall and students: We are deeply committed to helping students achieve their learning goals and to foster an environment that enables this.
Our reservations about the reading days proposal are two-fold: pedagogical and pragmatic.
On pedagogical grounds, a lot hinges on what we want to accomplish with these “reading days.” If we want to increase grades, it is likely that adding two days to cram at the end of each semester may accomplish this to a small extent, assuming that students actually use the time to study.
However, if our goal is to increase learning, then it is likely to be minimally effective and has the added drawback of communicating to students that the best way to learn something is to simply do it all at once.
We base our assertion on widely researched and consistently replicated research findings in cognitive psychology – that learning best occurs in a step-by-step process (e.g. Anderson, 2000). Massed practice (i.e. cramming) involves creating a lot of intense memories in a brief time.
This may create short-lived memories, but does little to produce a durable, integrated memory set. Strong memories are built by repetitions over a long period of time. Thus, our concern is that, while reading days may boost performance slightly, it is unlikely to result in lasting learning, which is much more critical for long-term success.
There are other ways of increasing retention of information: by integrating knowledge with experience, by organizing information and by using the information to accomplish tasks.
However, these methods cannot be applied in a two-day period at the end of the semester in which students cram for tests.
On pragmatic grounds, we are concerned that adding instructional days will interfere with the ability of students to earn sufficient income for their education. In the new scheme, for example, instruction in the fall could start on a Thursday and Friday, which means students may need to quit jobs one week early in order to come back to school.
While, at first glance, a week’s worth of wages may not seem like much, it might be enough to cover book costs.
Faculty misgivings are not based on such issues as adding time to faculty teaching schedule. (We are already on contract before school starts and stay on contract until after graduation.) But the misgivings are based on a concern over what best achieves learning goals in the long run.
We also feel it unfortunate that we have not had the opportunity to engage in a longer constructive dialogue with students, rather than in one faculty senate meeting where many issues have to be covered in a brief amount of time.
A possible idea for creating an ongoing dialogue is to allot time during every faculty senate meeting for students to raise policy issues and hear faculty concerns. After all, it is faculty and students who share the learning journey. For faculty, this relationship is an honor and one of the most meaningful in our lives.
Derek Mason HASS Faculty Senate Caucus