jee. INNOVATION ABSTRACTS 632
(oy | we)

L J
2% C Published by the National Institute for Staff and Organizational Development
?n With support from the W. K. Kellogg Foundation and Sid W. Richardson Foundation

Ro

 

¥

 

 

 

IN SEARCH OF EXCELLENCE--FOR ORDINARY PEOPLE
PART 2

Author's Note: I have received so many kind words about my earlier article (Innovation Abstracts, Volume
VI, No. 22) that I wanted to give credit where credit is due. A much fuller and more elegant treatment of this
thesis appears in a speech by Pat Cross entitled “The Impact of the 1980s on Developmental Education”
(delivered at the Western College Reading and Learning Association Conference, April, 1984, and appearing in
the November issue of the Phi Delta Kappan). 1 borrowed liberally from her comments. I also wished to share
the conclusion of my longer speech from which the first article was taken.

Cognitive Dissonance in the Halls of Ivy .

Cognitive dissonance is a term used to describe the findings of what many social scientists acknowledge to be
the single most important experiment ever conducted in social psychology, the Fetsinger-Aronson experiment.
Discrepancy between what we do and what we believe in results in what is known as “cognitive dissonance.” The
critical implication of dissonance theory is that people will rationalize in an attempt to make their attitudes match
their behavior--after the fact. That our behavior determines our beliefs runs counter to what most of us firmly be-
lieve. I] think this phenomenon lies at the heart of many of the most vexing problems faced by community col-
lege educators.

Our behavior is at odds with much of what we have discovered about individual differences and learning
theory over the last fifty years. Cognitive dissonance has lulled us into believing our behavior is okay, even if
we may have an occasional twinge about the quality of learning taking place. Our rationalizations leave us with
little incentive to redirect our behavior into more productive channels. How is it that those of us in the Halls of
Ivy have allowed ourselves to get into such a predicament? And is there a way out?

The University as Role Model

There are, no doubt, many contributing factors in an issue as complex as this one; but I believe there is one
that has had more influence than all others combined--the use of the university as a role model for our instruc-
tional behavior. All of higher education tends to follow the lead of about a dozen “flagship” universities--
especially in curriculum development and instructional methodology. The Stanfords, Harvards, and Berkeleys
establish the norms from which the rest of higher education depart only with great difficulty. In my home state
of California, UC Berkeley played an important role in helping local junior colleges get established, in helping
them acquire legitimacy and status, in educating the faculty and administrators who operated them--and in
becoming our role model for curriculum and instructional methodology. None of this was ever forced on us; in
fact, we were very grateful. At the time, hardly anyone questioned this influence; questions about what we
were doing, or why, haven't been seriously addressed by many over the intervening years.

| am not critical of our responses to UC’s direction during our early developmental years because we were
dealing primarily with young high school graduates who were mostly BA-bound. Neither am I critical of UC’s
practices, then or now. The University, then and now, selects from among the best learners our high schools pro-
duce, those who have already proven their proficiency in group instruction methods. It makes sense to continue
with a method that works for that selected group of students. Of course, there have always been some student
casualties along the way (and there is room for improvement), but the University’s teaching methods do work
well enough for them.

Has it mattered that as we evolved from the junior college into the comprehensive community college that
we have continued to teach as we were taught, despite the profound changes occurring as our colleges matured?
Has it mattered that our curriculum has exploded from its lower division emphasis into a great diversity of techni-
cal education, developmental education, and community education? Has it mattered that our once small, neat
open door for student continuance toward a BA degree now more nearly resembles the huge hangar doors at
Moffett Airfield where virtually anyone can and does come in-not just because those doors are open but be-
cause public policy has targeted the “new student” for continuance? Has it mattered that the financing of our en-
terprise is rapidly moving, in most parts of the country, from a local decision to a much broader review by a
wide spectrum of state and federal interests?

 

op Community College Leadership Program, The University of Texas at Austin, EDB 348, Austin, Texas 78712