I was really intrigued by Michael Wesch's idea of anti-teaching especially in this new virtual teaching world I feel I am stuck in for a while. The idea that traditional ways of teaching can be a hinderance makes sense to me in a world where students appreciate autonomy and independence and have the ability to seek and share information in traditional ways. So much informal learning happens outside the classroom whether students (and teachers) want to admit it or not. The idea that the best learning comes in the absence of a teacher made me stop and consider how I set up my own classroom for individualized learning and asynchronous time. It also reminds me of the flipped classroom and how successful that has been in my experiences.
Wesch's idea of focusing less on the quality of teaching and more on the quality of learning inspired me to re-examine the classes I teach from my students perspective to see how I can turn over more control and keep them engaged in the learning. I agree with Wesch that students need to find significance and meaning to the learning and not just do busy work. Explaining the connection to real world relevance is important as the question "why do we need to know this" is often considered.
The idea that I need to be at the center of the room teaching or talking at students in a row goes against my values of engaging and empowering learning. It is not about me as the instructor but rather the focus should be on the learner and how we can individualize and make the experience work for the student to be most productive. I have heard some adults say that a particular student is not cut out for learning but yet those same students go on to be super successful in other areas outside the classroom. I think providing a variety of opportunities to learn is important. When we think about all of the various multiple intelligences that students have, it makes sense to mix up the techniques used to teach.
When Michael Wesch discusses the significance and meaning in education it really resonated with me because I want my classrooms to be more than just me sharing what I know and conveying good information. As Wesch points out, it's more important to ask good questions and inspire students, and have them leave thinking about more questions. In the learning experiences I found most helpful, I left with questions like how can I implement this, or I wonder what would happen if I tried this.
I could also relate to Wesch's desire to be asked more meaningful questions by his students and find myself similarly frustrated responding to administrative questions about how long something needs to be or what font it should be in.
I have also experienced situations with students who are non- traditional learners and who don't learn by lecture style say things like "I hate school" or "I am not good at __". Some give up because they have failed to find the meaning of why they needed to know the information and they have no way of making up the failing grade. Without the ability to change the grade- they leave feeing like a failure and without the learning they need to move forward. In many RI schools you can still pass the grade with F's. We call it "socially promoting" students. The problem with it is that if students don't learn the concepts and still get promoted, they end up falling further behind, and often get overwhelmed and then want to give up. The students also start to feel like they got away with something because they failed and still passed. It sends the wrong message. Instead, we need to work with students to make sure they are understanding the ideas and not falling behind or getting frustrated with learning and teaching them how to overcome challenges so they can persevere. Similarly, there are often students who are not challenged enough. Pairing students who are struggling with students who understand can be a great use of peer education for learning and I believe we need to see more of it.
Sherry Turkle said it best when she said technology allows us to customize and edit everything. It got me wondering what education would look like if students could customize and edit it. What if an F wasn't an F for forever but rather something they could go back and fix. If they could master the learning they failed? Wouldn't we be teaching them about life- about picking yourself up and trying again until you get it and succeed? We need to expose young people to the reality that life is complicated and as Sherry Turkle says- we can't clean it up and retouch it to make it look perfect in reality- life is messy and we need to teach kids how to cope with the messy.
I think that Sherry Turkle and Michael Wesch are allies in the sense that they both understand the importance of human connection and communication skills and both would agree that traditional styles of lecturing aren't working and that we need more personal experiences to connect to the learning and each other. Turkle, a psychologist, realizes devices not only change what we do but who we are. We need to consider different ways we can use tech for the positive and balance it with connecting to students in a real authentic way. I loved Wesch's example of going to lunch and asking students intentional questions, not just having small talk. Turkle also talks about the importance of vulnerability and feeling like someone is listening. Both Turkle and Wesch talk about relationships and community and how to create spaces where conversations can happen. Both recognize that young people need authentic real connection and an individualized opportunity to express their understanding of learning to be successful.
No comments:
Post a Comment