I took the Bleeker text downstairs with me between my moodle making tasks at work the other day, to read while I ordered a coffee…. I found myself sitting down with it and letting my coffee go cold… damn. I had to reheat it in a microwave when I eventually got back upstairs, and I left it in too long it splattered everywhere, so then I had to clean up the coffee mess…. don’t you just love the way solving simple problems in daily life turns them into bigger ones?
anyway, the point is I was so interested in the Bleeker text I read it straight through and forgot where I was and what I was meant to be doing…. all I do is think about blogjects now.. all day long.. and wishing all these bright young folks had the maturity and humanity to think of intelligent applications that help solve genuine problems….
but anyway, I also really enjoyed the Campbell lecture this past week… something resonated strongly when he was taking the piss out of that kind of ‘grading rubric’ we all know and love so well.. the one that specifies to the nth degree what the student is to do… and then icing on the stodge, orders them to ‘be creative’… yes, that is scary control freakish stuff alright… all of the creative goodness squeezed right out and all the while pretending that this is ‘helping’ students learn….
not what teachers want, yet what we all somehow end up doing a lot of the time… a double bind, Bateson said – two conflicting demands, have to choose but can’t… meeting one, means not meeting the other…. extreme anxiety and contradictory behaviour – in us and our students… golly, suddenly I don’t feel I quite want to be in education!
I found the thought worth throwing around inside my empty head a while though, that double binds are used as a form of “control without coercion”… creating confusion that can’t be resisted, or effectively responded to… I could feel myself totally identifying with the whole argument, so persuasive it was…. I was seeing my whole professional life as one big fat double bind…
things declared to be in the interests of ‘the learner’ being, probably, more in the interests of staff… causing students to feel both deceived and unable to say so…
visions of ‘good’ learners and teachers playing along with the faux relationship, and silenced forever from actually ever talking about their experience… paranoid… suspicious.. defiant… cynical.. depressed, apathetic… silent.. withdrawn.. mute…. yep, I think anyone with half a still functioning brain knows what that’s like!
How can a teacher tell students stuff and at the same time encourage them not to take what is said as gospel or given? How are we supposed to both tell students what and how to think, and yet at the same time encourage them to think in ways we don’t specify – to think differently, independently, creatively?
I’m taking home some tricks from the design of this mooc, that I think are pulling that one off rather well… (but bearing in mind of course, that its success relies on an enormous degree of pre-existing high level engagement and linguistic creativity potential of the sort of student who willingly writes this kind of reflective blog….)
And thinking about technology, what else changes, when the medium does? Can we continue doing the ‘same’ activities in new media, or do we only pretend to? or are we missing the point, missing the meaning potential of new media as we try to stuff square pegs into round holes? yes I think we can all identify a bit of that going on in our workplaces….
And what do we mean by ‘open’ education, really? When, where and how often do we seriously consider the ‘systems’ we’re in – not as technologies, buildings, administrative processes and faceless executives counting beans, but as linguistic, discursive experiences, shaping how we read and write, or speak and listen?
Campbell considers ‘openness’ not in terms of easy access to ‘free’ information, but in terms of the possibility of shifting meaning and context… he said, the double bind might be a prison, or it might be a way out… depending on how it’s framed… well, that seems quite a pearl! It resonates with the sort of linguistics I know… that openness is about contextual shifts that enable significant semantic shifts, and deep learning is about desire to make meaning, together…
that love is a philosophy… is simple
and then…. what does that mean for daily teaching practice?
And another little pearl slipped in…. fostering habits that are helpful to learners.. ‘practices laying rails for knowledge to run on’ (thankyou Jeff, for that lovely phrase you quoted there)
now like a mindless sheep following the latest thing I hear, I want to begin every class with Campbell’s mock Apgar test….
Blue or pink baby? Are you alive, can we proceed…. love that!
As I ponder the compatibilities of Bateson and SFL and semiotics, I wonder, do I help my students develop a meta-contextual perspective of sets of choices, where they’re willing to put self at risk and go there, into the questions that ‘blow the mind’? How many of them are, and how often am I, living with a sense of free agency?
I’m just thinking out loud to myself, but it’s bed time now, so I’ll sleep on it…. good night 🙂