The Long Haul
1
The Long Haul:
Exploring a Variety of Academic Support Issues and Solutions
Jim Valkenburg
The Long Haul
2
Abstract
My early personal experiences in the realm of academic support and developmental education
lay the foundation for an exploration of the issues that have surrounded developmental education
for years. The current trend towards standardization is critically examined as are the issues
concerning the change in focus of education and the question of developing best practices as
capstone examples of excellence. Of primary concern for this inquiry is the suggestion that postsecondary and developmental educators should continuously search for dynamic means to meet
the challenge of truly educating students.
.
The Long Haul
3
The Long Haul:
Exploring a Variety of Academic Support Issues and Solutions
Thirty years is a long time to be stuck in one place, or to be riding on a string like a yoyo.
That has, however, been my experience with that troublesome little program called
developmental education. Given the opportunity to write a chapter in a book about education
dedicated to the memory of Martha Maxwell is an honor, and brings to mind just how difficult it
has been to advance the concept and implementation of developmental education. My travels
along this difficult path are not unique, and it is because of the continued and on-going efforts of
people like Martha Maxwell that developmental education has made it this far.
Over the years, my approach to teaching and tutoring has been somewhat iconoclastic,
and I must admit that until the mid-1990s, I knew little about what was going on in the world of
academic support or developmental education outside of my own experience. Perhaps those
people I worked with had done the research, but I relied on what I thought would serve students
best. The two programs described in this chapter, one successful, one not, reflect the state of
affairs facing developmental education 30 years ago. Some of the problems exemplified by the
first example have been resolved; some of the questions about academic support and
developmental education do not seem to have been fully explored or to have been satisfactorily
answered.
Beginnings
My first exposure to developmental education and tutoring came in 1979 when I applied
for and was granted a graduate assistantship as a “Master Tutor.” I use quotation marks here
because I was anything but a master tutor. I had no training, nor was training forthcoming. I
relied upon my instincts when working with students, and I am afraid I was not as good as I had
The Long Haul
4
hoped to be. I did, however, discover many things about learning that I tried to impart to the
students who came to me and that I have used since then to improve my own ability to learn and
use information both critically and creatively. I realize these terms, critically and creatively, are
usually bandied about by educators, but the truth seems to be that creativity and critical
evaluation are more often than not left out of the curriculum. Questions like “What is the impact
of technology on a student’s ability to learn?” or “What is the possible impact of globalization on
democratic principles?” or “Does the Declaration of Independence have relevance in today’s
world?” are very rarely asked. In their stead is a plethora of little bits of unrelated “information”
that require only regurgitation of a date or a definition on multiple choice tests to exemplify
“academic success.” Students know and comprehend in a limited fashion but do not apply,
analyze or synthesize.
What was most illuminating to me was that I found I learned more and could access the
information I had learned better if I connected everything I was working on with something
else—with something I already knew. My job as a tutor required that I work with students
across the curriculum 8 hours a day, 4 days a week. So my first session might have been in
psychology, the second history, the third writing, the fourth philosophy, and so on. Slowly, I
came to see the deeper relationships between the disciplines—that linking ideas across
disciplinary boundaries led to deeper comprehension, the ability to apply information in a variety
of contexts, and the ability to construct a broader synthesis of the materials in order to develop
critical and creative responses to any given set of questions.
My other area of responsibility as a graduate assistant was to work with a category of
students known as “Special Admits.” These students were essentially unprepared for college,
but were registered into classes because they had applied to the college and were admitted. They
The Long Haul
5
were probational students who were allowed to register for any class they wanted and were then
left to their own devices to succeed. There were no developmental education courses
available—no way for these students to be “remedial,” the term soon thereafter used to describe
developmental coursework. The students were afforded the right to fail; not, hopefully, because
the college did not care, but because the administration simply did not understand the difficulties
these students faced. The administration had, after all, provided a contact person to help these
students; me.
This was my first experience as an “advisor,” but each of the Special Admits was
scheduled to meet with me to discuss how he or she was doing, get advice about possible
solutions to any problems he or she was having and to register for classes for the coming
semester. Many of the students never showed up for their appointment. Most of those who did
were failing some or all of their courses because they did not have the reading or writing skills
needed to succeed. Most of them never made it to the second semester. But through my
conversations with these students, I found that they were not really disconnected from the society
in which they found themselves but were merely not college-ready. If properly placed into
classes that would allow them to develop their skills and prepare them for college-level classes,
they could succeed. I wrote reports and made suggestions recommending that there be a better
way of getting these students into courses that would match their skills levels, but nothing
happened.
Upon completion of my degree, I moved on to a community college where
developmental education had taken root. The faculty members were working to find the best
means possible to meet the challenge of helping students reach college-level skills. They worked
closely with the director of the tutorial program to develop a comprehensive and cohesive
The Long Haul
6
program to meet student needs at many different levels of instruction. Ury Krotinsky, then
Director of The Office of Testing and Tutoring and my first real mentor, was able to convince
faculty from the developmental English, reading and math programs to implement pre-/posttesting for all developmental students in order to verify placement and to validate success.
The program of pre-/post-testing worked nicely because it verified placement at the
beginning of each semester. If a student was misplaced, he or she would be able to advance to
the correct level of instruction based on scoring at proficiency levels established by the
discipline. The posttest validated the success of students but also made instructors accountable
when they wished to move a student to the next level if that student had not exhibited
proficiency. It tightened the instruction and helped faculty members to come to a relatively
common notion of competency in writing, reading and math. An added benefit was that
instructors were better able to determine exactly what levels of skills students should have at
each level of instruction. It helped in developing course sequencing through the developmental
levels and into the college level. What I found particularly gratifying was that with all of this
structure, the instructors could use the materials they wished in their individual classrooms and
still meet the established outcomes of the department. There was an isomorphic coherence
between form and function—academic freedom flourished and academic standards were
established and followed to help ensure quality education for students.
In addition to the testing aspect, the Office of Testing and Tutoring worked with faculty
to establish a system of supported tutoring based on the coursework being done each week. Each
instructor brought in required assignments that would support and reinforce the materials being
taught in class. Students would come to the tutoring center, take their assignment out of the files,
and complete the work, seeking tutorial support whenever necessary. The students got the
The Long Haul
7
supplemental assistance they needed, the reinforcement had a positive impact on student
learning, and faculty was assured that the work was being done by the student. An extra benefit
was that the students came to develop a positive rapport with the tutors and often came in on
their own if they had any difficulties.
At the same time, I began my teaching career in developmental writing. There was,
unfortunately a misperception about the ability of developmental level students to think clearly,
critically and creatively. The demographics of the city in which I worked included a wide ethnic,
religious and racial diversity. Students who were placed into developmental classes came from
all of the groups that comprised the population of the city; and many of them were what we now
call “nontraditional” students who were returning to college after years in the work force and for
a variety of other reasons. As I got my instructions about what and how to teach my first level
Developmental English class, I was told that the students should not be required to read a book
and that I should never talk about politics or religion. The students, I was told, were not astute
enough to understand or productively communicate in those areas. Although I only had 2 or 3
years experience as a tutor, I believed that developmental did not necessarily mean stupid. My
experience with those “Special Admit” students had persuaded me that while reading books
might be difficult for the students in my class, they would meet the challenge. However, since I
had not taken courses in teaching, I was not certain these admonitions were incorrect, so I went
along until the first day of my classes.
The first night of class, I walked into a room filled with 25 students of diverse
backgrounds and a wide spread in their ages. There were a few students just out of high school,
but most were older, returning students who had been out in school and working in the
community for many years. As we talked among ourselves to get a “feel” for who we all were, I
The Long Haul
8
discovered an important fact: these people may not have been book wise, but they were world
wise—street smart, whatever one wishes to call it. That night we talked about local politics, the
different religions in the area, racial tensions, and the job market—life in general. I threw out my
original syllabus and wrote a new one.
That students read two books that semester: Animal Farm, by George Orwell (1968) and
Thinking Better, by David Lewis and James Greene (1983). The students read the former with
relish and could identify with the dogs and pigs and horses. They began to understand the
concepts of allegory and analogy. The latter book was much more difficult, but it offered a
series of suggestions for better understanding analytical relationships. No, the students did not
automatically become logicians and philosophers, but they began to establish a foundation for
future reference. Oh, and they learned to write better while developing their cognitive skills. I
do not believe they would have passed a Composition I class because they had so much work to
do on grammar, comprehension and organization. The developmental program design was a
determining factor in their long-term success.
There are a number of pedagogical obstacles developmental students and instructors have
to hurdle. Students have to start somewhere, but limitations that are artificially established will
have a negative impact on their future success; allowing students to commit academic suicide
seems short-sighted and cruel. The primary question I had to ask was: “If they don’t read a book
in this class, when will they start? When will they be ready?” I learned from teaching that first
class that students are hungry to be taught something of substance and that they will succeed if
given the opportunity. I learned that a good, coherent and productive developmental program
can be designed and implemented to meet the challenge of helping students become college
The Long Haul
9
ready. I also learned that it is important to ask questions critical to the purpose of education and
to creatively challenge accepted wisdom.
Encountering Objections to Developmental Education
Russ Hodges (2008) has consistently asked critical questions about our collective ability
to meet the challenge of developmental education. In his keynote presentation at the Association
for the Tutoring Profession (ATP) Conference in 2008, he detailed the expanding role of
developmental education for the coming decades. The demographic picture he compiled
suggested a bleak picture of the increasing need and the diminishing ability of the educational
system to meet that need for developmental education. The pressures to come up with ways to
meet the challenge to truly educate underprepared students have increased over the years, and the
same basic points of resistance remain. Even though there are more educators who now see the
dire need for developmental education, there are still objections to establishing quality
developmental programs.
The two primary objections to developmental education are the arguments concerning the
issue of gateway versus gatekeeper and the question of the validity of placement testing—any
standardized testing, actually.
The issue about whether developmental programs perform a gateway or gatekeeper
function has been the center of heated debate for many years. My experience during my
graduate years taught me that without an established base for entry into college-levelcourses,
students will face the nearly impossible task of gaining academic success. It does not matter that
there is financial aid; that disappears or is extremely difficult for students to receive after they
fail.
The Long Haul
10
During the many discussions and arguments I have had with people about setting up
placement criteria for enrollment and establishing a developmental program to accommodate
those students who are not college-ready, I was branded a “racist,” and “elitist,” and various
other epithets that are best left off the list. I was seen as the “gatekeeper” who would preserve
higher education for a certain group of people while leaving others out in the cold. At the same
time, however, these same critics did nothing to empower the same students to gain the level of
knowledge in reading, writing and math, which would allow them the opportunity to succeed.
We cannot have it both ways. Well designed, well supported, well validated placement
requirements with opportunities to advance whenever an error has been discovered are gateway
devices that will empower students to succeed; gateway, of course, meaning those portals a
student might use to advance.
An example might help. Many colleges are today seeking ways to speed up the
developmental process—accelerated classes, learning communities, tutorials before enrollment,
for example. These seem to be good ideas; they seem to work—as long as they are designed
with the cognitive abilities of the student in mind. If, for instance, a student with a sixth grade
reading level is put in a learning community that is comprised of a basic reading and writing
class, a basic math class and a first-level political science course that has a text book written at
the thirteenth grade level, that student will probably do well in two of the courses. However, the
distance between the students’ actual level of reading comprehension and the reading level
required to understand and fully process, cognitively, the materials from the political science
course may be too wide. Our solutions must reflect what we know about learning and offer well
designed and considered opportunities for success.
The Long Haul
11
Standardized Testing
The question about the validity of standardized testing is another topic of heated
argument. This question does not have a real answer, but asking “culturally loaded” questions
does have an adverse affect on the ability of the test-taker to succeed. One excellent example of
a culturally loaded test would be the “Chitling Test” (Dove, 1971) developed in the early 1970s
to show the affect of culturally loaded questions. Taking the chitling test, I believe, will cause
one to question if and when educators should critically examine whether standardized testing
should or should not be considered the final determining factor in the placement of a student into
developmental level courses. One answer to this difficulty might be to offer pre-/post-testing,
developed in-house by faculty of the respective departments or divisions, to ensure correct
placement and validate success because those tests would be course specific and reflect the
materials the student would have to master over the course of the semester. When a student
exhibits competence on a pretest, he or she should be moved to whatever level of course work
that competency pretest suggests. Although many states require standardized tests that they
consider pre and post tests, those tests do not necessarily reflect student ability to learn.
Additional solutions to the question include developing accelerated classes that have
extended academic support in the classroom (as in using a Structured Learning Assistance
Program like that developed at Ferris State University which required study sessions for students
who fall below a particular grade, for instance), small group structured academic support (as in
study groups—facilitated or unfacilitated) outside of the classroom, directed supplemental
assignments that mirror and reinforce classroom materials to be completed in a tutorial center or
writing lab or math lab.
The Long Haul
12
As tutors, as educators, we might wish to be creative in designing and promoting
academic support programs that will empower students to succeed. At the same time, we have to
ensure that we reflect on what we do know about cognitive development, how people learn and
which programs that have succeeded in the past. These reflections are not invitations to be rigid,
but are suggestions that will allow creativity in designing programs to help students move
through the system and still learn what they need to reach the college level.
A Different Focus for Education
When I was a young man, the focus of education seemed to be for the individual to get an
education—that is, to learn a variety of ideas and topics that could be applied to life. That view
was reinforced when I later read Herman Hesse’s (1964)Siddhartha and found that the ideal for
the protagonist in that story (Buddha) was to think and to wait. I do remember that I was
frequently bored in grade school classes because while I had gotten the gist of the instruction, the
teachers seemed to return to the same thing over and over again ad nauseam. I acted out in class,
frequently sat in the vice principal’s office and even had to attend summer school in 7th grade to
repeat math and again in 9th grade to repeat English. Many of my teachers did, however, go out
of their way to ensure that I could use what I had been taught and even devised ways for me to
complete additional assignments that would keep me engaged. I have tried to incorporate the
methods of my favorite teachers from those years: Mr. Emrich who showed me that politics is
not only about parties and ideologies but about investigating all aspects of a given situation and
going beyond ideological boundaries, Mr. Bloom who enlightened me about Omphaloskepsis
and the practical applications of going beyond what we can see, Mr. Foy who helped me to find
my own answers to my own questions by allowing me to develop my own reading list for his
The Long Haul
13
class, and Mr. Rosenberg who introduced me to the concept that “history is the lies a country
makes up about itself.”
The education these gentlemen, and others, offered me laid a foundation for the future
investigation of ideas and principles. I was given the freedom to inquire and to search for a
“truth” that was not scripted or set in stone. They were eclectic in their approach and sought to
find ways to engage a troubled youngster—to educate, to teach the art of thinking independently
and purposefully. Yet, when I entered college in 1968, many years later, something had
changed. Most of the students were there to earn a degree in a particular field that would get
them a job. Still operating under the illusion that education was the goal of education, I went
through my 4 years as though I had all of the time in the world to learn of Plato and Kant and the
Existentialists, the meaning of democracy, Locke, Jefferson and Thoreau. And even though I
have been able to work in the field of education despite my reluctance to sit through “formal”
education courses, many others have been cubby-holed, channeled, into specialized areas that
focus on that one specialized degree. The change was real.
John Taylor Gatto (2006), in his important book The Underground History of American
Education, has set the date for the demise of “real” education in America many years before
those turbulent days of the late 1960s. He suggested that there have been forces at work in the
American educational system that advocated the dumbing down of the “average” citizen, that
worked to eliminate reading from the curriculum and that manipulated the system to the point
where creative and critical thinking skills had been eliminated from the curriculum for a hundred
years before my time. Citing the analysis of the results of the 1993 National Adult Literacy
Survey conducted by the Educational Testing Service, Gatto stated that only “3.5 percent [of the
sample taken] demonstrated literacy skills adequate to do traditional college study;” down from
The Long Haul
14
30 percent in the 1940s. He concluded his summary, “ninety-six percent of the American
population is mediocre to illiterate where deciphering print is concerned” (pp 61-62). This
inability to read and to understand has a dramatic impact on people and their ability to think and
to govern themselves. Decisions are made by educational “specialists.” Those decisions are not
and cannot be critically evaluated by the populace precisely because they cannot fully
comprehend what is being done. Gatto suggested that the educational system is not about
education.
Currently, there is an on-going debate in Texas about making significant changes in U.S.
history books. Some people advocate the elimination of Thomas Jefferson, for instance, from
those books in an effort to devise a history that is less threatening (to whom is the question) and
that somehow is supposed to help students learn about the “true” nature of America. This debate
offers an excellent example of how far afield the “educational system” has come from offering
an education worthy of being called education. I have offered the links to three online articles
about this question (Foner (2010), McKinley, Jr (2010). and Shackleford (2010)) because it is
important to see the same facts being represented along ideological lines. By looking at three
different views of the same topic, one begins the critical inquiry about the difference of the
ideological banter that our students will be exposed to. It is these type inquiries that play a key
role in helping students develop the literacy needed to make critical decisions at all times.
Literacy plays a key role in helping students become better creative and critical thinkers.
In today’s social climate, “education” is designed to teach students how to do certain kinds of
tasks that will allow them to get a certain type of job. The employers name the curriculum and
what, if any, general education courses might be necessary to gain that certain certification. But
today’s job market changes so rapidly, the flux of change in which jobs are needed and in which
The Long Haul
15
jobs become passé is so fast, that we might well consider teaching our students how to adapt to
the rapid pace of change by developing critical and creative thinking skills that can allow them to
refocus and develop additional skills sets that will enhance their prospects for new jobs.
The change in focus, the distillation of the curriculum to meet political ends and the
disheartening information about literacy in our country all play a significant role in development
and delivery of developmental education. To ensure that developmental education is the
gateway to success, developmental programs might consider focusing on a system that will help
students become critical and creative thinkers, that will help to develop the cognitive thinking
skills the students will need to ask relevant questions and to seek out responsible answers.
Developmental educators should seek an open academic environment where the ability of
students to ask any question and research any idea is promoted. The more censorship, direct or
indirect, the more the curriculum is dumbed down, the more standards are obliterated to
accommodate lower cognitive and academic skills of students entering the colleges and
universities, the greater danger we face in terms of stimulating real economic development or
maintaining the democratic foundations of our society. Education to just get a job, without
establishing a broad foundation that spans the disciplines, is contrary to good education.
Learning just enough to get by is really just enough to barely get by in the “information” society.
It does not matter how much information is out there if a person does not know what to look for,
how to synthesize it when he or she does find it, or is unable to analyze or evaluate the value or
importance of the scattered bits of “information” that are discovered. One source for the
discussion of educational values is the National Council of Teachers of English (NTCE) (2009).
The Long Haul
16
Changing Norms
Literacy is an important aspect of the educational process. Recent changes in literacy
guidelines by NCTE (2009) in their Standards for the English Language Arts offer a series of
standards that they claim are “interrelated and should be considered as a whole, not as distinct
and separable.” (Guiding Vision) The ideal that students should be able to research, identify
quality sources, be open to diversity, and be able to “communicate effectively with a variety of
audiences and for different purposes” (Standard #4) is a noble one.
But, as one reads through these standards, one might ask a series of questions about how
they will be implemented. A few that come to mind include, what method of teaching writing is
implied—whole language, process, both? Is there a need to have preschoolers use technology
while they are learning language? And if so, why? How can schools and educational pedagogy
be structured to ensure an open and engaging educational environment? And, as a tutor, how
does one ensure that the student finds ways to independently use these literacy guidelines in his
or her own learning experience?
This last question, in particular, brings us to another question: that concerning leading
students to independence. There are many academic support programs that advocate helping the
student become an independent, lifelong learner. This can be accomplished by using many
formats—individual tutoring, small group support programs such as Supplemental Instruction,
Structured Learning Assistance, Study Groups. An important aspect of guiding a student to
independence is using ongoing dialogue to guide a student along the path of inquiry; that is,
asking probing questions, breaking down jargon into simpler terms and then elevating the
discussion back to content specific vocabulary.
The Long Haul
17
In “Scaffolding and Tutoring Mathematics,” (2010) I focus on the questions of
methodology while tutoring a student and suggest that scaffolding be used when tutoring
students. This scaffolding seems to contradict the expectations and established norms of the
student/tutor relationship where the tutor is expected to sit on the sidelines and urge students to
find proper solutions.
Scaffolding is based on finding the level of understanding for a given student and then
putting one’s pencil on the paper while maintaining a continuous dialogue, using appropriate
terminology, to explain how the correct formula is used to reach a correct solution. The
paradigm can be exhibited in the following model described by Wilhelm, Baker and Dube
(2010): “I do, you watch. I do, you help. You do, I help. You do, I watch.” I have used this
model when teaching math and English classes. I train tutors to use this method. It seems
iconoclastic, and runs contrary to the way it is “supposed to be done,” but it does work; and it
does help a student become independent.
The point of the preceding example is that we have to be prepared for change, but to
change in a manner that is conducive to a good learning process and in accordance with our
understanding of how the brain works and how students process and use information. Not all
learning is individualistic, but not all students respond well to working in a collaborative
environment. We, the tutors, the educators, have to be flexible enough to determine the needs of
the individual students with whom we work. We, especially, have to understand the needs of the
developmental student and use methods and language that will empower rather than enable the
student. The way it has always been done is not a valid excuse for stagnation. I do not advocate
change for the sake of change, but with the tremendous increase in the need for quality academic
support programs, staffed by creative individuals who hope to help students become better
The Long Haul
18
learners, change seems inevitable. It seems being prepared to address the crucial problems we
face with dynamic and flexible approaches to improving student success is the better way to go.
Technology and Learning
One very important question about change that seems to have gone unasked relates to the
use of technology in all aspects of the educational experience. Advocates of online technology
and presentation technology have painted a picture of the glorious advantages the technology
brings to the educational environment. But at what expense? Developmental-level courses are
being offered online. And if Gatto’s (2006) contention that we have dumbed down the
curriculum to the point where it is difficult for many students to think creatively or critically,
then the impact of further removing the developmental-level student from his or her peers and
from direct contact with instructors or academic support personnel may epitomize the alarm
sounded by Mark Slouka (1995). Slouka pointed out that while technology has brought
numerous advantages and benefits, it also brings troublesome issues:
In my hour of uncertainty, a new breed of bold and unapologetic digerati -- bearing a new
and more revealing metaphor -- came to my aid. Straightforward and direct, uninterested
in pacifying anybody with the old lies about self-expression and freedom, they quickly
and efficiently laid all my doubts to rest. Forget all that stuff about the open road, they
said. Forget all that talk about individualism and empowerment on the I-way, about
mom-and-pop stores on virtual Main Street and cozy communities off the Infobon.
Forget about the Lone Ranger on the new frontier. In a New Age, even the myths of
individualism will die, and the only community will be the community of the hive.
(p. 95)
The Long Haul
19
The question of the impact of technology along with the issues of changing what has
been considered to be historically valuable perspectives has to be investigated from all aspects.
Where, exactly, is the educational system taking us? How do developmental level students
function in a rapidly advancing technological environment that isolates students from other
students and takes the discovery and understanding of information out of a classroom and into a
chat room? Developmental students are developmental because they have missed considerable
amounts of foundational material—they are relatively illiterate and/or unable to calculate
mathematical problems. Perhaps additional study on the impact of the isolation of the
developmental student in an online class is needed before following a path that may be
detrimental to our values and goals as developmental educators.
Of Standardization and Specialization
It is apparent from what has preceded that I have serious reservations about the prevailing
educational environment of the country. The current trend toward a more stringent
standardization of educational approaches and the molding of individuals to fit into “precise”
disciplinary specializations is troublesome—a double-edged sword if you will.
At fast-food chain restaurants, standardization is the expected norm. All burgers, fries,
drinks are supposed to meet the same standards and be made in precisely the same way.
Deviation from that standard is unacceptable. Consumers have come to expect this
standardization so that a meal at a fast-food restaurant in New Jersey will taste exactly like the
same meal in Utah. That is fine for fast-food restaurants, but human beings seem to require a
different approach.
While academic support programs require structures that will ensure that a certain type of
service will be offered to students, each student is unique and comes to academic support
The Long Haul
20
sessions with differing experiences and abilities. We might suggest that each student be asked a
number of questions and that dialogue is the standard for each session. But scripting the
dialogue seems an impossible task because of the diversity of the students who are served. So
there may be a generic standard that tutors or facilitators communicate in some sort of dialogue
with students during sessions, but a specific set of verbiage does not seem conducive to helping
the student become an independent learner with good creative or critical thinking skills. We
might think about being eclectic in our approach and flexible in our application.
Is there a standard for creative thinking? Valkenburg and Dzubak (2009) suggested that
creative thinking is an activity: “… which results in the generation of original ideas or solutions.
One lets go of preconceptions and predetermined strategies, allowing for the flow of unique
thoughts and solutions.” (p. 94)
One must ask, then, how creativity can be standardized. If the attempt is made, does that
change the nature of creativity, and will that require a new definition? But creativity seems to
function best without unusual restraints. It often allows the individual to go beyond the accepted
norms to bring new ideas and synthesis to the fore. I cannot even begin to imagine a Leonardo
or a Dali fitting his ideas into a template that had been established by someone else so his work
could be published on a web site. It is their unrestricted ideas and depictions of reality that have
caused them to be recognized as artistic geniuses.
And what about critical thinking? We (Valkenburg & Dzubak, 2009) have suggested that
critical thinking encompasses a broad range of abilities that when applied to a given problem or
set of problems enhances the process of evaluating, analyzing and synthesizing information.
One must wonder how that process could be standardized. Because the nature of critical
thinking stems from the range and depth of a variety of environmental and, perhaps, academic
The Long Haul
21
prompts that one is faced with, having one specific standard for thinking critically seems out of
line by the very definition of critical thinking. It seems counterproductive to try to put a
cognitive response into a box when each response may be provoked by a different set of
circumstances or pieces of information or the synthesis of a divergent set of ideas.
In the face of the pressure to fit into standardized norms, and to enhance the chances for
students to become creative and critical thinkers, developmental educators and tutors/facilitators
might consider developing an eclectic understanding of the courses and content with which they
find themselves engaged. Intellectual flexibility and adaptability in creating analogies and
examples, in offering suggestions for improving a student’s understanding by suggesting
additional resources, in helping a student to actively engage in his or her own learning are keys
to the eventual success of the student.
The crux of the issue seems to be the equivocation of the concepts of standards and
standardization. Standardization, while having evident benefits in the realm of manufacture and
business, may be counterproductive in the arena of educational practices. Standards, on the other
hand, are measures by which certain actions, policies and programs may be evaluated. The first
is “the” way to do it; the second it a way to assess potential or success. It is the latter term and
definition that I believe Frank Christ had in mind in a private conversation in 2010 when he
suggested that members of the academic support profession develop best practice standards.
Best Practices
Best practices are best practices only as long as there is nothing better ; they might best
be considered as dynamic and changing procedures that work to enhance productivity in some
cases or student success in others. For instance, today’s methods of offering tutorial support are
quite different from what they were only 20 years ago. Then, there was no great call for online
The Long Haul
22
tutoring; now, online tutoring is de rigueur, an almost absolute requirement for any tutorial
program. Those programs that do not create their own online program have the option to
purchase the service from any one of a number of commercial online tutorial ventures. The
practice of how a tutor could elicit responses or communicate via dialogue with a student has
drastically changed. While attempting to maintain the ethical standards for communication
between tutor or facilitator and the student, the change in proximity has changed, the interaction
has changed, the idea of the best way to support the student has changed.
Best practices seen as the epitome of any given activity may create an inflexible system
that acts more as a barrier than a gateway. I am not saying we should not try to identify current
best practice but that we should always understand there is the possibility that there is some
innovation or modification that will improve and enhance the policy or procedure; to find a
better fit for other unique circumstances that were not originally intended or that were not
immediately recognized. We should try to be open and flexible enough to see that a program or
process developed for one particular group may have applications to another with even more
benefit. We might also consider that some changes may not be conducive to the improvement of
educational pedagogy and engage in detailed study before hurriedly following what might be an
ill-advised strategy.
So if we want to talk about best practices in communication during a tutorial session, for
instance, we should talk about all of the possibilities and not limit the discussion to only those
practices we, personally, advocate. We have to investigate alternatives to be sure the way we are
doing things is the “best” way to do it. Our investigation should be multifaceted and as objective
as possible. To me, the isolation of the developmental student in an online developmental class
completes a full circle to the place at the beginning of my career where students were allowed to
The Long Haul
23
take courses but were essentially on their own after that. I am, however, hoping that on-going,
in-depth investigation will prove me wrong.
Conclusion
We are, as a nation, at a crossroads where we face the problems of growing illiteracy and
seeming limitations on how we can meet the challenge of helping students to gain the skills and
abilities that will encourage them to actively engage, critically and creatively in finding solutions
to the problems of the future. Should we fail in our endeavor, we face a steady decline in our
collective ability to keep up with the pace of a technologically oriented world.
The challenge for all educators is to find better ways to use brain function to help
students learn. I am always astounded to find that students have never been told about Bloom’s
(1956) Taxonomy with regard to how they might learn and what they might do with all of that
knowledge; and although the taxonomy is not a study of brain function, the model it provides,
although somewhat rigid, might be a start. Although some educational systems ask students to
find their primary learning style, the teachers do not show those students how to use that style as
part of a multisensory approach that will allow them to use whole-brain learning strategies that
will provide broader access to the information they have in their brains. Our knowledge of brain
plasticity has expanded over the past 20 years, but educators have not begun to use that
knowledge when teaching to help students purposefully link ideas together and create the neural
pathways and neural communities that will increase the students’ ability to use what they learn.
As developmental educators—as educators, period—we have to be innovative in our
approach to teaching and find ways to engage students who have not been stimulated by an
educational system that feeds off of its own failures. We have to challenge ourselves and our
students to make an effort to become better educators and better educated. That is, educated in
The Long Haul
24
the classical sense of the word. We should be willing go beyond arbitrary constraints of
discipline or job descriptions, and to be open and creative enough to make modifications to
existing programs to not only make them fit the particular circumstances and conditions of our
individual institutions, but to make them fit the learning needs of our students.
.
The Long Haul
25
Resources
Bloom, Benjamin, et al. (1956). Blooms Taxonomy. Retrieved from
http://www.bloomstaxonomy.org/
Dove, Adrian. (1971). The Chitling Test. Psychological and educational testings. Aiken, L. Jr.
ED. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Retrieved from
http://wilderdom.com/personality/intelligenceChitlingTestShort.html
Foner, E. (2010). The nation: Twisting Texas history. Retrieved from
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124861233
Gatto, J. (2006). The underground history of American education. New York: The Oxford
Village Press.
…..
(2005). Dumbing us down. British Columbia, Canada: New Society Publishers.
Hesse, H. Siddhartha. (1964) Siddhartha. New York: New Directions.
Hodges, R. (2008) Changing demographics of college students: Implications for our field.
Retrieved from http://tutoringfoundation.com.
Lewis, D. & Greene, J. (1983). Thinking Better. New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.
McKinley, Jr., J. (2010). Texas conservatives win curriculum change. New York Times.
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html.
NCTE/IRA Standards for the English language arts. http://www.ncte.org/standards
Orwell, George. (1968). 1984. New York: Signet Publishers.
Shackelford, K. (2010). Why the Texas textbook wars matter to every American.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/03/11/kelly-shackelford-texas-textbook-socialstudies-standards-american-history/
The Long Haul
26
Slouka, M. (1995.) War of the worlds: Cyberspace and the high-tech assault on reality. New
York, Basic Books.
Valkenburg, J. (2009). A systematic approach to training. The atps of tutor training. M.
Zenanko ED. Birmingham, AL: American Printing Company.
Valkenburg, J. (2010). Scaffolding and tutoring mathematics. The Learning Assistance Review,
15 (2) .
Valkenburg, J. & Dzubak, C. (2009). The engaged mind. Charleston, S.C.: CreateSpace.
Wilhelm, J., Baker, T. & Dube, J. Scaffolding learning. Retrieved from
http://www.myread.org/scaffolding.htm.