Student clones reading textbook clones writing essay clones to turn into instructor clones.
I'm gripped by the desire to declutter my classes, to remove all SUPERtexts--all things extraneous to students engaging ideas and then writing. An intellectually honest proposal to students: We will read and write and talk and then we will help each other to see what we don't yet know and then we will work hard to learn something more. That's it.
But...I know there would be problems. I know there does not exist some idealized learning situation where all SUPERtexts are removed. I, the teacher, the prof, the one who knows and grades, will always and forever be the SUPERtext, the one who must be relied on even if she knows nothing and wants nothing to do with anything SUPER.
Still I dream, dream of time where professors and students can engage language and idea without a METAplan of action, without a proscribed set of outcomes which mean nothing in practice, without glazed stares from students only wanting a pass. Why pander to the middle, to the lower middle, in order to pretend we are all learning something in an organized and outcomy kind of way? Why create structure and detailed, self-important plans at the expense of meaning?
Because we must. Because even in the best case scenario of educational contexts, there would be failures and confusion and frustration. And if we must have failure, confusion, and frustration it must, the SUPERtext tells us, be orderly failure. Because orderly failure can masquerade as success, can be rejiggered and then sent out in the President's email to the college to prove our on-going success as THE PREMIER community college of America. Because orderly failure can be reduced to a system which needs tinkering with, which needs a few more outcome goals, a little more hard work, a bit more commitment from students.
Orderly microchange is the answer! Go forth and teach: mark papers, prepare syllabi, crack textbooks, shift the curriculum, form committees. At least this way we won't lose any students in any untoward upheaval and confusion. Certainly some students will fail and class, at times, may feel dull, but at least we have a big official book and a PLAN.
4 comments:
I would like to talk about this more.
Sometimes I think the book is, or could be, the resource that allows the student to not always rely on the big T textbook that is the teacher.
BUT. The big fat book is a kind of tyranny.
Also, I am currently a big fan of design--so, like I said, I would love to talk about this further.
I think that as long as we teach, or try to teach, students how to plug into or adapt to the system, the SUPERtext will always be with us, as you suggest. But I, like you it seems, would LOVE to think of education as a purely collaborative and non-hierarchical experience. My time with the theater group showed me just how powerful and creative that kind of learning environment can be. But if we actually did implement such an educational praxis, we wouldn't have any need for the educational institutions that exist--and you and I would have to find other jobs, jobs outside of the system. In the meantime, I'll just do what I can to act as saboteur, I guess.
This is awesome, btw:
"And if we must have failure, confusion, and frustration it must, the SUPERtext tells us, be orderly failure. Because orderly failure can masquerade as success, can be rejiggered and then sent out in the President's email to the college to prove our on-going success as THE PREMIER community college of America. Because orderly failure can be reduced to a system which needs tinkering with, which needs a few more outcome goals, a little more hard work, a bit more commitment from students.
Orderly microchange is the answer! Go forth and teach: mark papers, prepare syllabi, crack textbooks, shift the curriculum, form committees."
I've struggled with this from a student's perspective and now as a parent of students, at least in the early phases of education which I think it a critical stage as it sets their attitudes about learning and themselves and their ability to navigate through knowledge. I worry that the model of education that seems to focus on covering all the bases (via supertext) isn't allowing my kids to go deeply enough into what they learning, not allowing them to engage with the subject, not allowing them to learn how to think critically about it. I've tried a chapter school with an alternative approach (and I'm considering it again for my oldest next year) but there are also problems with a heavy emphasis on inquiry based instruction. At least there were problems for my kid, who actually needs a fair amount of structure and sameness. Wish I had an extra 20K a year to pay a private school. Then again, whose to say it will be any different or better.
I like that you are thinking this way and asking these questions CI. Wish my own teachers did this more both in grade school and college. These kind of thoughts lead you to be a better teacher regardless.
This reminds of a conversation from our first study that I think of often: we were in some classroom in AD discussing the hell bent on collision thing and talked about how STUDENT TEXTS BECOME THE CENTRAL TEXTS in a composition classroom. It seems to me that the best learning occurs when students are digging around in the dirt of their own texts, or of each other's texts.
Post a Comment