It's hard to hone in on exactly what aspect of The Master Switch that stood out to me. At first, I thought I wanted to write about the first amendment and how the right of speech might be limited or enhanced by the new media revolution. Then, I thought I might like to spend more time focused on how education may be in for its own "disruptive" innovation revolution. Now, I think what is standing out too, though, is the idea that if that disruptive revolution comes, it will come from a direction that is unexpected. We've walled off many of the likely sources with disdain and disregard, actively hating and discounting those possible technologies that could have a legitimate shift for the concept of education in America.
Here's the thing: the 19th century model that our schools are patterned after sees students as customers. This is why we stand at the front of a room and dispense knowledge which then the students pattern responses after. Practice makes perfect. I think - not to go too deep - that the concept of the student as a human being with equal value and dignity is a much more recent and not deeply rooted idea in education. When you are in a factory-esque school system that needs to fill you with the knowledge and skills necessary to be a "good" citizen, you have no value beyond what we can turn you into. You are being manipulated. Maybe for good, maybe for ill, but the person who holds the reigns to say that these are the skills and bits of knowledge that make you a good citizen does a censor's job.
The current media era is antithetical to that idea. Everyone is and should be a creator, the open internet seems to say. The open internet era seems to be thriving (until net neutrality is destroyed) on the idea that the more people who have access and ability to create, the better. There will be chaos, but innovation has to come out of chaos. It can't be planned, according to Wu.
So then, what implications does this have for curriculum? What are we asking students to do? When my students check out or disrupt - from a discussion, an assignment, a bit of writing - I ask myself why. In the 19th century model the answer is simple: they're defective. If I have the skills and information it takes to be successful that I can give to them, and they are turning their noses up at it, they must be unreachable, rotten, and/or lost. But of course, I am disregarding the possibility that they, like me, are thinking individuals. That I haven't sold them the product, and that - though at their age and development level they may not have the ability to express their disagreement with any kind of academic eloquence - their opinion is valid.
Once I realized that my students are valid, often unconscious critics of my teaching, school, and curriculum, I changed. What I realized is that there were discussions and poems and stories that could get even the kid who hadn't spoken since the first day of school to dig into what was on the menu, and that those must be the right kind of lessons and ideas. If I ask a kid what we should do today, often the answer is "nothing". We had an interesting discussion one day in class about the fact that the cliched behavior of the average high schooler is a rundown of the symptoms of depression. We depress them.
I'm not an edu-tainer. Never have been. There's a school of thought that says that singing songs, drawing pictures, and playing games are the ways to hook kids in. In the end, though, those mask the real problem. Students will engage fully when they are treated as fully human. The 20th century has seen the populace evolve in the area of identity. We are slowly evolving towards being fully self-aware human beings. Cultivating image and managing relationships have always been a part of the human experience. Modern Americans are simply more deliberate and aware of it. In the end, the changes we see in our students are the symptoms of that evolution. And I think they're quickly evolving past our methods of education. They question the authority of the teacher in ways large and small. Picking up my phone to check facebook or texting the person in the next class over is my tacit argument that what you, teacher, have got us doing here is irrelevant. It's not that Facebook is more important - I don't see it as a judgment.
So back to curriculum. What am I asking them to do? I've seen an enormous value in using methods of inquiry and projects combined with argumentation to get kids engaged. But then I realized that what I'm saying there is I'm asking kids to speak. To think. To construct a message. Whatever the medium or the scenario, when it allows students to engage as a human beings in a meaningful way with fundamentally engaging questions, the responses are excellent.
Jim Heiman told me that the latin root of education is "educare" - meaning "to bring out, or to lead forth". Maybe the disruptive innovation that will change the face of education will be the realization that what's really necessary from the teacher is to see each student, each objective, each lesson as a way of bringing out what is already in the students. The ability to read is built-in to the human animal. It's not put there by the teacher. So is math. So is understanding and analyzing narrative. So is argumentation. So is morality and judgement. the teacher's role in the "old" media paradigm was and is to put the knowledge in the student. Maybe the next role for the teacher is to help to "lead forth" those aspects of each student that are already in them.
The inherent problem of many writing classes is the business model that confines most of our schools: students come to buy what we are selling. Some come and buy others walk away not seeing the need of the writing craft. I like your comments about changing the background so that our students are creators instead of consumers.
ReplyDeleteYour comments about depressing students is interesting and in reflection, I think I agree. Students often feel like that they are in my class just to jump through another hoop, to learn something long enough to test and then forget it forever. When students see that writing is powerful and a means of agency it can change the way they look at class.
I present writing like this. Where and when do you want to have a voice? If you want to have a voice you have to have the skills, or ethos, to speak. The listening, thinking, and yes, writing skills needed give you the authority to speak and become an agent of change. This really appeals to most of my students.
Response to Jeff: I agree with your take on students that they are thinking valuable beings and as such I am against the edu-tainer concept and am not surprised you are too. Students are smarter than that. We can approach critical thinking without a cutesy cartoon or song and dance to draw them in. it seems students have not been asked to think or construct a message nearly enough. They don’t know what they think or how to put their ideas out there in appropriate ways, therefore this must be done OFTEN. I absolutely agree with your statement: “Whatever the medium or the scenario, when it allows students to engage as a human beings in a meaningful way with fundamentally engaging questions, the responses are excellent.” When this happens, those are the best days of teaching. I love your statement/quote “that the Latin root of education is ‘educare’ - meaning ‘to bring out, or to lead forth’. Maybe the disruptive innovation that will change the face of education will be the realization that what's really necessary from the teacher is to see each student, each objective, each lesson as a way of bringing out what is already in the students.” My personal teaching mantra is “Empowering Students’ Knowledge & Imagination” which seems to go hand in hand with your idea. Thank you for your post, Djana.
Delete