Pros and cons of Rose's teaching method:


1) he discusses the students "coming out of their shells," but where does this put them academically, and how do we know how successful it is?

2) If we take away all grading standards, how do we judge?

3) They may be improving themselves as "beings," but are they improving as writers?

4) What happens to their future assignments? Are they just helped for the moment? Is he actually giving them tools, or are they going to continue needing extensive help from professors?

5) How does he have so much free time?


1) Wants teaching to be social.

2) Sees the students as people, with their own value as intelligent individuals, and tries to convince them that they are indeed intelligent.

What we decided:

Rose's teaching method is too narrow, and rests entirely on the students own terms. There is some vulnerability in the fact that while they may get this social interaction approach to learning in Rose's class, but it's not going to be what the rest of their college experience is like. Even within the college, Rose's system doesn't accurately represent the standard classroom experience.