With apologies to Bob Dylan for stealing the title, that's exactly where my final thoughts reside. My kids went back to school yesterday (Wednesday, August 13). They attend a school which uses inquiry in everything it does. This literally brought everything we've been doing for the past 6 weeks back home for me. As the teachers were talking with parents at the welcome back event, I heard a lot of familiar language and concepts, and found myself thinking back over this course.
A couple of the teachers have become friends, and as I was chatting with them, they were very interested in what we've been doing in this course. They were also extremely interested in my own interest in redesigning schools, and immediately had some ideas and suggestions, which was incredibly rewarding.
As others have said, it's impossible to encapsulate absolutely every aspect of the incredible amount we've covered in such a short time. I honestly feel that I need a lot more time to think, reflect, and really absorb everything.
I was--to be perfectly frank--somewhat skeptical of the blogging piece of the course, but it has turned out to be perhaps the most valuable piece. Expressing my own thoughts and feelings gives me a fantastically valuable record to refer back to. Reading everyone else's blog reminded me how different responses to the same material can be. The various perspectives were fascinating and incredibly valuable. Responding to the thoughts of others pushed my own thinking further and in different directions. That's definitely one of my most important take-aways.
I think my other biggest take-away is around the area of authenticity. This may well be because it's also an extremely important concept in current approaches in ESL teaching and learning. Making learning "real"--authentic, relevant, meaningful, and connected to learner's lives beyond the classroom walls seems so incredibly important!
Thanks to all for a totally enjoyable experience. I've enjoyed learning with and from everybody in the group. I'm looking forward very much to "seeing" everyone in the future, continuing to share ideas, and working together to transform teaching and learning! All the best to everyone!
Thursday, August 14, 2014
Wednesday, August 6, 2014
Critical Thinking...about assessment.
The Significant Item:
"(W)e believe that thinking critically is a way of engaging in virtually any task that students undertake in school".
"(C)ritical thinking must be seen as a way of teaching the curriculum".
"(C)ritical thinking is a form of teaching, embedded in every aspect of life in the classroom". (Case, 2005(all)).
I found myself nodding in agreement with the Case article than anything else we've looked at over the course, with the possible exception of the Ken Robinson video last week. I'm thoroughly smitten with the idea of critical thinking as a form or method--a way of teaching, rather than a discrete and "often ignored or marginalized" or adjunct skill. I was particularly enamored with the example of the teacher who had her students create their own exam questions (Case, 2005)--everything about it is utterly brilliant!
The idea of critical thinking as a way/form/system of teaching and learning, completely embedded in every aspect of classroom life, obviously draws immediate comparison with inquiry. Obviously, I haven't had massive amounts of time or energy to explore the subject, but I'm truly wondering why critical thinking hasn't captured the collective imagination of the field as inquiry. Could it possibly be an equally (or even more) powerful paradigm for "transforming teaching and learning in a knowledge society"???
Obviously from my raving, I'm inclined to think and argue that it might well be. I have long argued that there are really only a couple of things I hope the educational system provides my children--those being critical thinking, a broad understanding of the world in which they live, and some civics. I'm blessed (and well aware that it is not typical) with two kids who are both "gifted" and voracious readers, so they can and do acquire "content" incredibly quickly and virtually effortlessly. But learning how to think rigorously--how to frame a question, research it, analyze/summarize/critique/synthesize the information they find, and then report/present/justify/defend (verbally, in writing, or in any other appropriate form of communication) their considered findings/conclusions--that takes considerable time to learn and do well, and excellent teaching to facilitate it.
I have tried to teach my children (and their friends, whenever I have the chance!) ever since they could understand the concept to question everything around them; to always ask why things are the way they are (and whether they could be different or better); to never simply accept the status quo; to challenge insufficient "explanations" such as "that's just the way it or" or "that's the way we've always done it". Obviously, this comes very much from who I am (and what I've done professionally--this is precisely how (good) journalists approach everything they encounter). It would be miraculous and utterly wonderful if the educational system did the same thing!
Of course, some might (and have) accuse me of raising "shit disturbers"--but these are the people who make change in the world. I hate to pick yet again on poor old Connect Charter School--as a family we do truly love so much of what it stands for and does--but I will yet again, to illustrate with an example. The school plays the national anthem at the beginning of every day. In a dinner conversation (initiated, I swear, by my child and not me!), my kids and I started thinking critically about the anthem. They quickly had concerns about the invocation of God, the militaristic tone, "what about people for whom it's not their 'home and native land'"?, gender ("all thy sons command"), and so on. They started to wonder about (unquestioning) "patriotism", and whether it's always a good thing. Then they started wondering why the anthem is played in various contexts. Some (government functions, military ceremonies, and so on) made eminent sense to them. But others such as sporting events made less sense. Inevitably, they turned to school. Playing the anthem was not daily practice at their previous school, and they started to become slightly skeptical or dubious about the practice of doing so at Connect Charter.
I suggested, as innocuously as possible, that they might want to ask teachers and administrators at the school about the practice. Perhaps, I suggested, it might be something they could discuss or explore within the school community. Suffice it to say this particular avenue of critical thinking was not warmly welcomed. They were complimented for their thoughtful inquiries, but any meaningful exploration of the matter was, shall we say, discouraged. They learned an important lesson about social/institutional control and conformity--about which they were able to think critically.
Implications: I will redouble my own efforts to incorporate critical thinking as a way or form of teaching, and strive to embed it as deeply as possible, in my own (adult ESL) practice. I may even try to think of ways to "steal" the idea of having students create their own assessment materials!
Questions/reflection: I will definitely seek out other literature on this fascinating avenue of exploration. Are there schools (or teachers) out there in the big wide world that embed critical thinking or use it as the way they teach the curriculum?
I can't resist one quick comment on the Binkley, et al white paper. I applaud the rigorous, thoughtful, and (overwhelmingly!) comprehensiveness of the 10 skills the authors identify and the extensive "KSAVE" criteria they enumerate within each skill (Binkley, et al, 2010). But I found myself having profound reservations about some of the assessment tools/techniques they explored. I was particularly uncomfortable with the discussion about assessment around collaboration and teamwork. They attempted to draw parallels with the professional world (although I think they had a rather narrow concept of the nature of work) and seemed to endorse tools such as OPQ (Binkley, et al, 2010). It made me extremely uncomfortable to contemplate using such "corporate", "human resources", and "Big Brother-esque" tools to try to assess schoolchildren. It seems, somehow, like a profound invasion of privacy to try to quantify all of these "personality characteristics". It made me envision the most dystopian worlds of science fiction literature and film and is something against which I would fight with all my might if attempts were to be made to introduce it into my own childrens' lives!
CITATIONS:
"(W)e believe that thinking critically is a way of engaging in virtually any task that students undertake in school".
"(C)ritical thinking must be seen as a way of teaching the curriculum".
"(C)ritical thinking is a form of teaching, embedded in every aspect of life in the classroom". (Case, 2005(all)).
I found myself nodding in agreement with the Case article than anything else we've looked at over the course, with the possible exception of the Ken Robinson video last week. I'm thoroughly smitten with the idea of critical thinking as a form or method--a way of teaching, rather than a discrete and "often ignored or marginalized" or adjunct skill. I was particularly enamored with the example of the teacher who had her students create their own exam questions (Case, 2005)--everything about it is utterly brilliant!
The idea of critical thinking as a way/form/system of teaching and learning, completely embedded in every aspect of classroom life, obviously draws immediate comparison with inquiry. Obviously, I haven't had massive amounts of time or energy to explore the subject, but I'm truly wondering why critical thinking hasn't captured the collective imagination of the field as inquiry. Could it possibly be an equally (or even more) powerful paradigm for "transforming teaching and learning in a knowledge society"???
Obviously from my raving, I'm inclined to think and argue that it might well be. I have long argued that there are really only a couple of things I hope the educational system provides my children--those being critical thinking, a broad understanding of the world in which they live, and some civics. I'm blessed (and well aware that it is not typical) with two kids who are both "gifted" and voracious readers, so they can and do acquire "content" incredibly quickly and virtually effortlessly. But learning how to think rigorously--how to frame a question, research it, analyze/summarize/critique/synthesize the information they find, and then report/present/justify/defend (verbally, in writing, or in any other appropriate form of communication) their considered findings/conclusions--that takes considerable time to learn and do well, and excellent teaching to facilitate it.
I have tried to teach my children (and their friends, whenever I have the chance!) ever since they could understand the concept to question everything around them; to always ask why things are the way they are (and whether they could be different or better); to never simply accept the status quo; to challenge insufficient "explanations" such as "that's just the way it or" or "that's the way we've always done it". Obviously, this comes very much from who I am (and what I've done professionally--this is precisely how (good) journalists approach everything they encounter). It would be miraculous and utterly wonderful if the educational system did the same thing!
Of course, some might (and have) accuse me of raising "shit disturbers"--but these are the people who make change in the world. I hate to pick yet again on poor old Connect Charter School--as a family we do truly love so much of what it stands for and does--but I will yet again, to illustrate with an example. The school plays the national anthem at the beginning of every day. In a dinner conversation (initiated, I swear, by my child and not me!), my kids and I started thinking critically about the anthem. They quickly had concerns about the invocation of God, the militaristic tone, "what about people for whom it's not their 'home and native land'"?, gender ("all thy sons command"), and so on. They started to wonder about (unquestioning) "patriotism", and whether it's always a good thing. Then they started wondering why the anthem is played in various contexts. Some (government functions, military ceremonies, and so on) made eminent sense to them. But others such as sporting events made less sense. Inevitably, they turned to school. Playing the anthem was not daily practice at their previous school, and they started to become slightly skeptical or dubious about the practice of doing so at Connect Charter.
I suggested, as innocuously as possible, that they might want to ask teachers and administrators at the school about the practice. Perhaps, I suggested, it might be something they could discuss or explore within the school community. Suffice it to say this particular avenue of critical thinking was not warmly welcomed. They were complimented for their thoughtful inquiries, but any meaningful exploration of the matter was, shall we say, discouraged. They learned an important lesson about social/institutional control and conformity--about which they were able to think critically.
Implications: I will redouble my own efforts to incorporate critical thinking as a way or form of teaching, and strive to embed it as deeply as possible, in my own (adult ESL) practice. I may even try to think of ways to "steal" the idea of having students create their own assessment materials!
Questions/reflection: I will definitely seek out other literature on this fascinating avenue of exploration. Are there schools (or teachers) out there in the big wide world that embed critical thinking or use it as the way they teach the curriculum?
I can't resist one quick comment on the Binkley, et al white paper. I applaud the rigorous, thoughtful, and (overwhelmingly!) comprehensiveness of the 10 skills the authors identify and the extensive "KSAVE" criteria they enumerate within each skill (Binkley, et al, 2010). But I found myself having profound reservations about some of the assessment tools/techniques they explored. I was particularly uncomfortable with the discussion about assessment around collaboration and teamwork. They attempted to draw parallels with the professional world (although I think they had a rather narrow concept of the nature of work) and seemed to endorse tools such as OPQ (Binkley, et al, 2010). It made me extremely uncomfortable to contemplate using such "corporate", "human resources", and "Big Brother-esque" tools to try to assess schoolchildren. It seems, somehow, like a profound invasion of privacy to try to quantify all of these "personality characteristics". It made me envision the most dystopian worlds of science fiction literature and film and is something against which I would fight with all my might if attempts were to be made to introduce it into my own childrens' lives!
CITATIONS:
- Case, R. (2005). Bringing Critical Thinking to the Main Stage. Education Canada, (45)2, pp. 45-49. Retrieved 2014-08-06 from http://tc2.ca/pdf/profresources/Mainstage.pdf
- Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Hereman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., & Rumble, M. (2010). Draft White Paper 1: Defining 21st Century Skills. Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills. Retrieved 2014-08-06 from http://atc21s.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/1-Defining-21st-Century-Skills.pdf
Sunday, August 3, 2014
Week 5: "Aha" Moments and Dropping Pennies
I've said it before, but I'll say it again: I'm a person who is inexorably drawn to the theoretical/abstract plane. I can't help it--it's just who I am. I am a Myers-Briggs "INTP" through and through. I've done the full, official version of the test several times--and each time the administrators say they've never seen such a "classic" INTP result in their careers.
So why is this relevant? First because I had the biggest "Aha!" moment of the course doing this week's readings. Herrington et al make a passing reference to "constructivist philosophy" in the abstract of their article (Herrington et al, 2003). Woo et al make several references to "social constructivist learning theories", "the theoretical principles of social constructivism" and so on (Woo et al, 2007). Never having heard of these before, I looked them up. Lo and behold, there is a huge volume of information to be assimilated! I've barely begun to scratch the surface, but finally I can see the forest and not just the trees. Finally I have a sense of the epistemological theory/philosophy behind inquiry-based learning--the penny finally dropped! As always, I wish we had started there--but that's just the INTP in me. I can't help who/what I am. I'm just the "oddball" who needs to start with the theoretical before making my into the practical. Suffice it to say I now have a whole lot of additional reading to do!
But I think this also raises some legitimate questions about "inquiry" and "authenticity". We INTPs (and I have every reason to believe my elder son is one as well) are notorious for preferring to work alone rather than as members of a team. We are extreme introverts (being careful to make the distinction between "introversion" and "shyness"--they are NOT the same) who exist "in our own little worlds". We're often (unjustly!) accused of being not only "absent-minded" or "unaware" of people around us but even "arrogant" or "antisocial". (Several US Presidents, including Abe Lincoln, have been categorized as INTPs. So have Charles Darwin, Carl Jung, Rene Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Carl Sagan, Glenn Gould, Marie Curie, and many others. In terms of fictional characters, think of Sherlock Holmes, Greg House MD, Doctor Who, Linus (Peanuts), or Luna Lovegood (Harry Potter).)
I would propose that many on that (very partial) list are people who lived and breathed "inquiry". But INTPs simply do not function well in group/team settings (notice that I have chosen to write an individual paper for this course, rather than work on a team!). Yet while "constructivist learning theory" is supposedly/theoretically acutely aware of the importance of the background, culture, learning styles, and other characteristics of the learner, "inquiry" and "authenticity" are nonetheless relentless in their insistence that "learning" must be social/interactive/collaborative--to the point of running roughshod over that supposed sensitivity to individual qualities/characteristics. Perhaps "social constructivism" is not as respectful/inclusive as it purports to be???
As I've also mentioned previously, my children attend Connect Charter School (CCS) here in Calgary. The school has very close ties with the Galileo Educational Network. CCS is an inquiry-based school. It uses the Galileo rubric. For the most part, I'm delighted with the education my kids are getting at CCS. But I also have some issues. That elder child of mine who I'm sure is also an INTP is sometimes upset about the emphasis on "collaborative learning". One of the few "areas to work on" in his "progress reports" is consistently language around collaboration, social interaction, support for peers, and general "extroversion". He can get quite upset about this when we talk about it, lamenting that it's not fair, they don't understand who he is, and so on. It's like there is a complete blind spot to who he is, in the name and service of a (rigid) deployment of "authentic", "inquiry-based" learning. Perhaps some acknowledgement of different personality types and learning styles could be made? (Apparently not.) (Of course, Susan Cain has spoken and written extensively about the general blindess extroverts have toward introverts and the social pressures on introverts (and INTPs) to "come out of their shells", "participate more fully" and so on--all of which can be incredibly frustrating and infuriating to us introverts! It makes us feel bad, like there's something "wrong" with us, and generally stigmatized, even though we're as legitimate as all the extroverts.)
(Another issue I have is that my kids--who are both classified as "gifted"--don't know their multiplication tables and can't identify all of the provinces and territories of Canada on an unlabelled map. Some things you just have to memorize, it seems to me!)
Another area where the theory and practice of "social constructivist education" (which I think is now my preferred term, rather than "inquiry-based learning") seem to collide is around the issue of cultural sensitivity. In their article on patterns of engagement, Herrington et al discuss the willingness or lack thereof of students to "suspend disbelief" (Herrington et al, 2003). As someone who has studied film and literature, I was quite intrigued by the notion. Yet I found myself thinking about students from different cultural backgrounds as I read their section on "delayed engagement" or the reluctance/discomfort on the part of some students to do this. Their position seemed extremely culturally specific and shockingly culturally insensitive. As someone just starting out as an ESL instructor, working primarily with (young, international) adult learners, the cultural backgrounds and concepts of teaching and learning among my students is something of which I must be acutely aware. The theory of "social constructivist education" seems to suggest that different cultural concepts and expectations need to be respected, but the article seemed to suggest that any reluctance to embrace "the willing suspension of disbelief" was somehow the learners' "fault" (they "have difficulty in changing dependent learning habits", they're "not self-motivated", they're "unhappy when...directed support is withdrawn", they "resist authentic approaches", they're "too exam-oriented", and so on and so on). (Herrington et al, 2003).
Forgive me, but please explain to me again how this is learner-centered and learner-driven?! This kind of shaming/blaming of learners for what may well be culturally-driven and entirely legitimate "discomfort" seems both shocking and shameful to me!
My last observation is, I promise, a brief one. Newmann and Wehlage propose that they want to ascertain "how authentic instruction and student achievement are facilitated or impeded by" several factors. (Newmann & Wehlage, 1993). Granted, they were writing more than 20 years ago, but I found it quite telling/revealing that they didn't mention what to me is a very obvious factor--the physical environment. Sir Ken Robinson's video this week is only the latest instance when we've been reminded that the notion of "school" as a "mechanistic process" or an "industrial production"--what it may have been during the 19th and 20th centuries--is no longer appropriate, if it ever was. But schools are still built to resemble factories! Newmann and Wehlage are entirely typical in being entirely blind to the role the physical environment plays in education; how the physical separation and isolation of schools creates literal as well as metaphorical "barriers" or "walls" between school and the community. One of the participants in the "What is Authentic Education" video even talks explicitly about the need to "break down the walls between the school and the community"--but only means it in the metaphorical sense. The idea of breaking down the actual walls is outside of his frame of reference--his ideology.
When I studied film, we talked about "ideology"--in the Marxist cultural criticism and semiotic senses. "Ideology" is a cultural construct which is so widely and deeply held that it becomes "naturalized". To those within an ideology, that which exists within it seems so entirely natural that it becomes invisible. It's not "just the way it is", it simply is--as if it always has been and always must be. This is how it seems to me that people (don't) "see" schools. They "are" the way they are because "that's how schools are". People glance at something and "see" a "school". The signifiers are so completely naturalized within the ideology in which those people exist that they are utterly transparent and they immediately "see" a "school". But they never stop to actually "look" at the thing and think about why it is the way it is and how it might be different.
Please try it as an exercise--actually look at schools you see, and wonder if they could be architecturally/physically different. How could they be more integrated with the community? How could they be designed and built differently so they're not mechanistic industrial factories, but places for 21st century teaching and learning? (One of the great failings of architects, planners, and policy/decision makers over the years has been their reluctance to listen to the people who actually use the urban environments, buildings, and facilities they design/build/operate. They've gotten better at it in recent years, but still need a push now and then--and as Sir Ken says (quoting Ben Franklin), there are immovable people, movable people, and people who move!)
CITATIONS:
So why is this relevant? First because I had the biggest "Aha!" moment of the course doing this week's readings. Herrington et al make a passing reference to "constructivist philosophy" in the abstract of their article (Herrington et al, 2003). Woo et al make several references to "social constructivist learning theories", "the theoretical principles of social constructivism" and so on (Woo et al, 2007). Never having heard of these before, I looked them up. Lo and behold, there is a huge volume of information to be assimilated! I've barely begun to scratch the surface, but finally I can see the forest and not just the trees. Finally I have a sense of the epistemological theory/philosophy behind inquiry-based learning--the penny finally dropped! As always, I wish we had started there--but that's just the INTP in me. I can't help who/what I am. I'm just the "oddball" who needs to start with the theoretical before making my into the practical. Suffice it to say I now have a whole lot of additional reading to do!
But I think this also raises some legitimate questions about "inquiry" and "authenticity". We INTPs (and I have every reason to believe my elder son is one as well) are notorious for preferring to work alone rather than as members of a team. We are extreme introverts (being careful to make the distinction between "introversion" and "shyness"--they are NOT the same) who exist "in our own little worlds". We're often (unjustly!) accused of being not only "absent-minded" or "unaware" of people around us but even "arrogant" or "antisocial". (Several US Presidents, including Abe Lincoln, have been categorized as INTPs. So have Charles Darwin, Carl Jung, Rene Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Carl Sagan, Glenn Gould, Marie Curie, and many others. In terms of fictional characters, think of Sherlock Holmes, Greg House MD, Doctor Who, Linus (Peanuts), or Luna Lovegood (Harry Potter).)
I would propose that many on that (very partial) list are people who lived and breathed "inquiry". But INTPs simply do not function well in group/team settings (notice that I have chosen to write an individual paper for this course, rather than work on a team!). Yet while "constructivist learning theory" is supposedly/theoretically acutely aware of the importance of the background, culture, learning styles, and other characteristics of the learner, "inquiry" and "authenticity" are nonetheless relentless in their insistence that "learning" must be social/interactive/collaborative--to the point of running roughshod over that supposed sensitivity to individual qualities/characteristics. Perhaps "social constructivism" is not as respectful/inclusive as it purports to be???
As I've also mentioned previously, my children attend Connect Charter School (CCS) here in Calgary. The school has very close ties with the Galileo Educational Network. CCS is an inquiry-based school. It uses the Galileo rubric. For the most part, I'm delighted with the education my kids are getting at CCS. But I also have some issues. That elder child of mine who I'm sure is also an INTP is sometimes upset about the emphasis on "collaborative learning". One of the few "areas to work on" in his "progress reports" is consistently language around collaboration, social interaction, support for peers, and general "extroversion". He can get quite upset about this when we talk about it, lamenting that it's not fair, they don't understand who he is, and so on. It's like there is a complete blind spot to who he is, in the name and service of a (rigid) deployment of "authentic", "inquiry-based" learning. Perhaps some acknowledgement of different personality types and learning styles could be made? (Apparently not.) (Of course, Susan Cain has spoken and written extensively about the general blindess extroverts have toward introverts and the social pressures on introverts (and INTPs) to "come out of their shells", "participate more fully" and so on--all of which can be incredibly frustrating and infuriating to us introverts! It makes us feel bad, like there's something "wrong" with us, and generally stigmatized, even though we're as legitimate as all the extroverts.)
(Another issue I have is that my kids--who are both classified as "gifted"--don't know their multiplication tables and can't identify all of the provinces and territories of Canada on an unlabelled map. Some things you just have to memorize, it seems to me!)
Another area where the theory and practice of "social constructivist education" (which I think is now my preferred term, rather than "inquiry-based learning") seem to collide is around the issue of cultural sensitivity. In their article on patterns of engagement, Herrington et al discuss the willingness or lack thereof of students to "suspend disbelief" (Herrington et al, 2003). As someone who has studied film and literature, I was quite intrigued by the notion. Yet I found myself thinking about students from different cultural backgrounds as I read their section on "delayed engagement" or the reluctance/discomfort on the part of some students to do this. Their position seemed extremely culturally specific and shockingly culturally insensitive. As someone just starting out as an ESL instructor, working primarily with (young, international) adult learners, the cultural backgrounds and concepts of teaching and learning among my students is something of which I must be acutely aware. The theory of "social constructivist education" seems to suggest that different cultural concepts and expectations need to be respected, but the article seemed to suggest that any reluctance to embrace "the willing suspension of disbelief" was somehow the learners' "fault" (they "have difficulty in changing dependent learning habits", they're "not self-motivated", they're "unhappy when...directed support is withdrawn", they "resist authentic approaches", they're "too exam-oriented", and so on and so on). (Herrington et al, 2003).
Forgive me, but please explain to me again how this is learner-centered and learner-driven?! This kind of shaming/blaming of learners for what may well be culturally-driven and entirely legitimate "discomfort" seems both shocking and shameful to me!
My last observation is, I promise, a brief one. Newmann and Wehlage propose that they want to ascertain "how authentic instruction and student achievement are facilitated or impeded by" several factors. (Newmann & Wehlage, 1993). Granted, they were writing more than 20 years ago, but I found it quite telling/revealing that they didn't mention what to me is a very obvious factor--the physical environment. Sir Ken Robinson's video this week is only the latest instance when we've been reminded that the notion of "school" as a "mechanistic process" or an "industrial production"--what it may have been during the 19th and 20th centuries--is no longer appropriate, if it ever was. But schools are still built to resemble factories! Newmann and Wehlage are entirely typical in being entirely blind to the role the physical environment plays in education; how the physical separation and isolation of schools creates literal as well as metaphorical "barriers" or "walls" between school and the community. One of the participants in the "What is Authentic Education" video even talks explicitly about the need to "break down the walls between the school and the community"--but only means it in the metaphorical sense. The idea of breaking down the actual walls is outside of his frame of reference--his ideology.
When I studied film, we talked about "ideology"--in the Marxist cultural criticism and semiotic senses. "Ideology" is a cultural construct which is so widely and deeply held that it becomes "naturalized". To those within an ideology, that which exists within it seems so entirely natural that it becomes invisible. It's not "just the way it is", it simply is--as if it always has been and always must be. This is how it seems to me that people (don't) "see" schools. They "are" the way they are because "that's how schools are". People glance at something and "see" a "school". The signifiers are so completely naturalized within the ideology in which those people exist that they are utterly transparent and they immediately "see" a "school". But they never stop to actually "look" at the thing and think about why it is the way it is and how it might be different.
Please try it as an exercise--actually look at schools you see, and wonder if they could be architecturally/physically different. How could they be more integrated with the community? How could they be designed and built differently so they're not mechanistic industrial factories, but places for 21st century teaching and learning? (One of the great failings of architects, planners, and policy/decision makers over the years has been their reluctance to listen to the people who actually use the urban environments, buildings, and facilities they design/build/operate. They've gotten better at it in recent years, but still need a push now and then--and as Sir Ken says (quoting Ben Franklin), there are immovable people, movable people, and people who move!)
CITATIONS:
- INTP. (n.d.). Retrieved 2014-08-03 from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INTP.
- INTP Personality. (n.d.). Retrieved 2014-08-03 from http://www.16personalities.com/intp-personality.
- Herrington, J., Oliver, R., & Reeves, T.C. (2003). Patterns of engagement in authentic learning environments. Australian Journal of Educational Technology. 19(1), 59-71. Retrieved 2014-08-02 from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet19/herrington.html.
- Woo, Y., Herrington, J., Agostinho, S., & Reeves, T.C. (2007). Implementing Authentic Tasks in Web-Based Learning Environments. Endcause Quarterly. #3, 2007. Retrieved 2014-08-02 from http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/implementing-authentic-tasks-web-based-learning-environments.
- Constructivism (Philosophy of Education). (n.d.). Retrieved 2014-08-03 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(philosophy_of_education).
- Introduction to Inquiry-Based Learning. (n.d.). Retrieved 2014-08-03 from http://calgaryscienceschool.blogspot.ca/2011/11/introduction-to-inquiry-based-learning.html.
- Designing Inquiry-Based Learning. (n.d.). Retrieved 2014-08-03 from http://calgaryscienceschool.blogspot.ca/2009/09/designing-inquiry-based-learning.html
- Susan Cain: The Power of Introverts. (n.d.). Retrieved 2014-08-03 from http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_cain_the_power_of_introverts
- Newmann, F.M. & Wehlage, G.G. (1993). Five Standards of Authentic Instruction. Educational Leadership. 50(7), 8-12. Retrieved 2014-08-02 from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/apr93/vol50/num07/Five-Standards-of-Authentic-Instruction.aspx
- Ken Robinson: How to escape education's death valley [video file, published 2013-05-10]. Retrieved 2014-08-02 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX78iKhInsc.
- What is Authentic Learning? [video file, published 2013-09-06]. Retrieved 2014-08-02 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNP7hv0d0Rk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)