by Dr. Marianne Reiff, PhD
Faculty of Education
Lesley University
Confronting the Power Paradox in Course Design:
There is a need to explicitly name and confront power issues that arise in designing courses in higher education. Adults come to learning with the power of their life experiences, skills, and attitudes intact; they don’t leave them at the door, and power is always part of the classroom dynamic (Hart, 2001; Briskin, 1997). Instructors have been hired from a power base of credentials and expertise. Instructors are confronted by a paradox–-how to balance negotiating student and instructor power while meeting contractual commitments to deliver specific course content. I suggest that the concept of Consultative and Deliberative Voice can be used to confront that dilemma. Three scenarios are presented to demonstrate the concepts in action.
The concept of Consultative and Deliberative Voice is taken from the work of Jane Vella (2000; 2002) around Dialogue Education. It is used here in relation to classroom course design.
Consultative Voice: Consultative voice makes suggestions and provides input. For example, the instructor gathers data from students by asking, observing, and/or researching. The information gathered from students is used to inform course design. Consultative voice input “informs” rather than “forms” course design, and decisions within the course.
Deliberative Voice: Deliberative voice makes decisions. The instructor designs course content and process using individual, participant and institutional input. The deliberative voice of the instructor determines the overarching course structure
A key factor to understanding the concept of voice is the realization that the roles can shift. It is the responsibility of the course instructor to facilitate understanding of this clarity and to plan for the shifts. Jane Vella (2002) reminds us that adult students are subjects of their own learning; at times they will make suggestions, at times they will make decisions. She reiterates the importance of being very clear about the difference. Making this distinction clear is not the sole responsibility of the instructor. Although used here as concepts to strengthen course designed, the concepts can serve as touchstones during all sorts of on-going classroom interactions once they are clearly defined and explicitly named.
THREE COURSE DESIGN DILEMMAS
ONE:
You have been hired to teach an Action Research graduate level course for teachers returning to school. The course is viewed as a centerpiece to an innovative program for adult educators. Teachers will bring differing levels of skill, knowledge and attitudes to the first night of class. You have been told this is the most dreaded course in the sequence. Time is limited and content is difficult. No pressure!
There seem to be three distinct power options here. As the instructor hired to teach this course, you could write your syllabus based on what you know and your own experience. You work only from the deliberative voice. From this stance you must be willing to enter class ready to tell people what to do and how to do it, without benefit of knowing their skill level, knowledge base or attitudes. A second alternative is to exchange your deliberative voice for a consultative voice; the adult learners could be surveyed about preferred course content and format. As consultant you would work to build a course to student specifications. There are ramifications for the learning exchange if you switch into consultative voice at this point. Students may not know what they want or need, and may provide conflicting expectations.
The third alternative is to retain the initial deliberative voice and seek consultation from adult learners. You may know a lot about your content, and even be experienced at teaching; but you don’t know this group. Dialogue Education, using the third alternative, provides a simple and effective tool for tapping into the consultative voice of the learners coming to this course. A Learning Needs and Resource Assessment (LNRA) sent out prior to the course is a way to consult with learners around what they know that they need, and how they feel. This information can be used to inform a relevant course design, create learning tasks, and plan for accountability. Using an LNRA will open dialogue as well. Instructors are clear that the LNRA data informs and does not form the course.
In addition, during the first class the LNRA data can be used as a bridge into action research. For example, one instructor asked students to rate confidence levels around a variety of research skills, then graphed the results using a basic Word graph. In addition, she reviewed teachers’ narrative responses, identified major concerns and formed categories as an example of using qualitative analysis to identify emergent themes. The instructor is able to explicitly indicate how her deliberative voice in formulating decisions about the course was informed by participant input. In addition, the instructor linked how the LNRA data was used for change – demonstrating one of the basic premises of good teacher action research. The process, outcome, and value of both naming and using a deliberative and a consultative voice was articulated.
Once dialogue is open, and the power roles have a name, both instructor and student can use them as touchstones for interaction in the classroom. When the instructor denies power to the students or when the instructor gives the power to design the course away to the students, dynamics of interaction become much more difficult.
TWO:
You find yourself in front of a writing group on the first night. The class is required for anyone on academic probation; you were unable to contact learners in advance. The energy in the room seems one part resentment and one part boredom. You realize that after initial introductions you will be expected to begin class and connect these disconnected students to writing. It feels like a nightmare with the worst yet to come.
In this scenario, although you retain the official deliberative voice, the power is not with you– it is with the learners. Facing such power, instructors can’t be blamed for switching into the survival mode of consultative voice. It may seem quite reasonable to become a friend, work the room, tell stories, and cajole participation. Opening things up for a general discussion may get lively – but will it get to any learning about writing skills? The deliberative voice decides the outcomes, sometimes in consultation. If the outcome you want is to clear the air, perhaps a general discussion will aid that. Certainly beginning by “telling” is doomed to failure. They have already been “told” to attend; and two “told you tos” don’t make learning. With a blink, learners can turn off the learning exchange. They may be there in body, but they are not there for the learning. Consider deliberative action to connect to the consultative voice of participants and move toward a learning-centered evening. Start with the worst thing that can happen.
Use your deliberative voice to construct a way to acknowledge what the group has to say, tap their energy, and guide the energy toward an objective – to connect learners to the structure of the writing course and course expectations. Post the three domains of learning – thinking, feeling, and doing. Set a learning task in which small groups list The Worst Thing That Can Happen in this writing course. Once they have a list, ask them to decide if their “worst” relates to thinking skills, feelings, or what they will do in the course. Use sticky notes to list and post under the three domains – the worst thing that can happen. Provide a clear time-frame. Students are using their deliberative voice to describe and analyze, to decide the areas where their concerns best fit.
Once completed the postings provide a clear visual for all to see. What are the areas of concern? What are the areas under control? From this point, the course structure on writing skills can be launched and immediately connected to the learners.
THREE:
Students have been asked to work in small groups to complete a complex learning task. They will report on their findings. You move from group to group, monitoring and providing comment. Although all parts of the task were verbally set and provided in writing, students ask you for clarification and reassurance that they are on the right track. Reports are adequate, but you leave class feeling something was missing. You wonder if small group work is really the way to go.
When creating a full learning cycle of tasks, the instructor’s deliberative voice sets the learning task and then turns it over to the learner. The learners now have the deliberative voice – the shift is made. Instructors are called over on a consultative basis only. Instructors are not naturally comfortable with that shift. Most of us have been trained to hover over students. Perhaps we are not sure students are really safe messing around with that much power; they might hurt themselves and it would be our fault. The concept of Consultative and Deliberative voice can be evoked to remind instructors not to steal the learning from students by doing the learning task for them. If you have used your deliberative voice appropriately to set the task and provide resources needed to accomplish the task, then trust the students. Stay in your consultant role. Sit on your lips. Respond to their specific questions and exit.
The Bottom Line:
Perhaps a key point in the issue of power in the classroom is the need for clarity around who has it, when. I suggest that a lot of energy is wasted on “power, power, who’s got the power?” leading to misconceptions, wasted resources, and missed opportunities. The common understanding of issues of power is that if one person has it, another doesn’t – and it quickly becomes an issue of safety and survival. If students don’t feel safe and respected in a learning environment, they will not stay in that environment. They will either drop out of the program or check out mentally; either way learning will cease.
When power in the classroom is discussed in the literature, the common call to create a safe classroom for learning emerges (Illeris, 2003; Vella, 2002; Cross, 1992; Knox, 1986). Although there is divergence around sub issues, creating a safe environment is uniformly embraced by adult educators. The use of both Consultative and Deliberative Voice is one way to bring structure to the dialogue around power dynamics in higher education. Best stated as an axiom of Dialogue Education, the naming and use of both Consultative and Deliberative Voicein the classroom is critical to creating a learning community in which students are “safe enough to meet the challenge of learning” Vella, 2002 p. 229).
<<back
Dr. Marianne Reiff is a Professor of Education and Management at
Lesley University in Boston, Massachussets.
She is also a GLP Certified Teacher.
References:
Briskin, L. (1997). Negotiating Power in the Classroom: The Example of Group Work. Canadian Women Studies, 17(4),. 23-28. Retrieved September 29, 2005 from Expanded Academic ASAP. Thomson Gale.
Cross, P. (1992). Adults as Learners: Increasing Participation and Facilitating Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Higher Education Series.
Hart, M. (2001). Transforming Boundaries of Power in the Classroom. In R.M. Cervero & A.L. Wilson and Associates (Ed.). Power in Practice: Adult Education and the Struggle for Knowledge and Power in Society (pp 164 – 183). San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
Illeris, K. (2003, Jan/Feb). Adult Education as Experienced by the Learners. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 22(1), 13-23.
Knox, A. (1986). How Adults Learn. A Guide to Planning, Implementing and Conducting Programs. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Vella, J. (2000). Taking Learning to Task: Creative Strategies for Teaching Adults. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Vella, J. (2002). Learning to Listen, Learning to Teach: The Power of Dialogue in Educating Adults (Rev.Ed.). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
