Mirror Sites:
CSUDH - Habermas - UWP

California State University, Dominguez Hills
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Soka University Japan, Transcend Art and Peace
Created: January 6, 2002
Latest Update: January 6, 2002
jeannecurran@habermas.org

Evaluating the Communication Network

Journal entry by jeanne

Copyright: Jeanne Curran, Susan Takata. January 2002.
"Fair use" encouraged.

One of the evaluation techniques Susan and I have been using informally is that of observing the network patterns that develop naturally, when central authority is willing to let them develop. Under many conditions of teaching, particularly teaching that involves peace education, traditional hierarchies are observed. We believe that counters the very substance of what we are trying to teach.

Things that make us less willing to accept the hierarchical communication pattern:

• The feeling of being trivialized when what we feel and think has no forum for serious attention.
• The feeling that we have no or very little say in the decision-making that governs our lifeworld.
• The feeling of frustration at having no outlet for meaningful expression of what we feel. Sample data: "Part of no longer being a victim . . ." Journal entry by Michelle Marshall.

Description of Process:

The traditional message process:

• Syllabus, hardcopy - which most of my students tend to lose.
  Syllabus, online - which those most in need of it tend not to remember how to access.

  Main problem with syllabus is that it assumes a fixed pattern of development. There are disadvantages to such a linear approach in peace education because the realities of interpersonal relationships is that they are ever changing, and that we can most effectively teach when those who are involved in the ongoing relationships develop awareness of the role of the relationships in the process and have decision-making power in the process. Now, I just stated that as a fact. No such thing, folks. We'll want to check Freire, McLaren, Blumer, Cornell West, and many others on the theory from which I drew that conclusion. But my perception is that what must be done in any serious peace negotiations, whether in our own classrooms or in Afghanistan, is that those involved in the actual situation of conflict must be empowered to see their own agency and that of the Other, and to make decisions about how to negotiate that interdependence. Recall that Freire says that the teacher who assumes that she knows what the students need to learn is no longer teacher, but a banker doling out "packaged" education.

  Because the objective here is to guide us towards evaluation of our own program, I'm leaving gaps in references. These gaps need to be filled by our review of literature. THIS IS A GAP. START FILLING IT.

• Classroom assignment - Requires presence of all class members, or good connection of students with each other. My experience is that many of our students do not have sufficient discretionary time to build such good connections. That's one problem of a commuter school in today's world.

  Another problem is the fairly typical:

  "What are we supposed to do?" "Uh, I don't know."

  The unstated assumption here is that every student present in the classroom hears every word the teacher says, processes the lecture correctly, and is thereafter capable of explaining what was said to others. Think back to the old "rumor" game. The assumption that learning is transferred in such a neat linear pattern is untenable on the face of it.

• Posting to an assignment site:

  This works to some extent. But those who are confused by the assignment rarely contact us for clarification. More of unstated assumptions, that if it's in writing wherever it's posted that it's rational, correct, and must mean something, even if the student doesn't have the slightest idea what that is. Again, on the face of it, it's an absurdity to have students reacting to what they don't understand. Only someone trained to accept authority unquestioningly would agree to that. (Hmmm. I'm not at all sure that "only" is defensible, but it felt right when I wrote it. THIS SUGGESTS A NEED FOR EDITING! SO EDIT!

• A Variety of Approaches to Communication:

  Our experience has led us to believe that students and faculty can most effectively create a communication network that is inclusive when a variety of approaches are used. One of our theoretical assumptions here is that the fast-paced commuter world that most of us are living today means that we're not going to pick up all the cues in our environment. So if we send out cues in several directions we should have a better chance of including everyone.

  That's what our first data set is trying to measure. We sent out a message about a Spring course to a listserv during Winter Break. If e-mail works, and folks are connected through the e-mail that should work. Within the message sent, I alerted them to alert each other in any way possible.

  In Data Set 1, measures of response to that first message, we have Maria Santiago's response. She's connected by the listserv, picking up e-mail. And then, we have Michael Briggs, who also responded within a day or so. But Michael's response came through Wesley Hall, who had personally alerted him to e-mail me. That gives us a measure of external interpersonal connections.

  Data Set 2 includes the first message as sent out. I'm making up the data sets as I go, so the number of the set has no special meaning. I'm also not sure how we want to categorize the different entries. All that will have to be adapted as we continue to measure the means of staying in touch, and other concerns as they emerge.

More soon . . . . jeanne. January 6, 2002.

---

---