Nine Rules for the Education Apocalypse

1. Don’t fear the Apocalypse. Emily Dickinson knew she was in the presence of poetry when she could feel physically the top of her head coming off. This was not a metaphor. It was a mystical experience. Incidentally, the word “apocalypse” (from the Greek apokaluptein) means “revelation,” and more specifically “to uncover,” as in lifting the top of a box. Surprise! It’s a present! Let’s not fear the apocalypse, but instead prepare our education system for transformation. Instead of exams, let’s assess them on whether or not the tops of their heads come off. Education should be about running a more complex, subtle operating system.

2. Suck less. There is this guy with a tug-boat who hauls icebergs from the North Pole to the Middle East to provide fresh water for billions. His job is easier than getting students to learn and getting teachers to teach. You can tug an iceberg to a desert and everyone will drink, but you can’t lead anyone to learning. I have yet to see a so-called education reformer address the fundamental problem with the education system, which is, put succinctly: school sucks. Boredom is the main currency of education, exchanged fluidly between teachers and pupils.

3. Create a new center. Where is the Andy Warhol of education reform, charging way out in front of the generals, the avant-garde? It was Warhol who created a new center out in the margins. He built a new camp that at first looked foolish, laughable, but soon became the new center. Prophecy. Then, after some time, his work became the status quo, until…look…here comes another Andy!

4. Be Useless. In The Idea of a University, Cardinal John Henry Newman creates a distinction between useful and useless knowledge, and then sides mainly with the latter. The Liberal Arts are the useless arts and, therefore, supremely useful. The merely useful fields of study are definitely useful, make no mistake, but they are not nearly useless enough. Chuang Tzu knew this, and so favored the disabled and crooked trees, and generally preferred to drag his tail in the mud rather than coming to court with sage advice for the king. Too few sages make the difficult decision to be useless. Too many decide to be useful, to claim a role in the established drama. Watch out for anyone chasing his destiny, submitting to fate, or following his dreams! Too often people dream of being useful. What’s the use in that? The earth, to pick one example, is completely useless. It doesn’t do anything. It plays a non-zero-sum game, and, even better, it’s totally unaware of itself, or at least can’t be bothered to submit the proper reports. The earth doesn’t care. It treats humanity like a straw dog. It does nothing, endlessly. See that oh-so-exquisite school of fish circling the coral? It dissipates, and then reconstitutes itself into various, ever-changing patterns. Constant adjustment, constant beauty, constant change. This is what we should be teaching our children: how to make beautiful schools. Of course, this requires rules and hard work. But mostly it means being useless and doing nothing.

5. End grades. If we treat students like rubrics, don’t be surprised if all they care about is grades, or, worse yet, don’t care about grades at all. The best students and the worst students are the ones who don’t care about grades. Students are not percentages, points, letters; they are not dollar signs, checked or unchecked boxes on rubrics. They are whole people and will respond as such if you treat them accordingly. A rubric is for a mechanic. This is what’s wrong with your car. This checks out okay. Transaction complete. Let me top off your fluid. If creating life-long learners is what we’re after, then why do we care so much if they get it right at the end of each three-month block? Let’s measure them in thirty years. See how well we did. Assess this: Dharma burning through Karma. Or, “We’ll change your brain, or your money back!” MRI instead of final exam. Replace the scantron with the brain scan.There are no grades in reality. There is only practice. The world is practice. God is practicing right damn now. Hey, Shakespeare, you forgot to finish that subplot with Polonius spying on Laertes in Paris. Minus 10 points on your little Hamlet play. Also, your main character has too many contradictions. Was he insane? Was he faking? It’s really unclear. Plus, I’m pretty sure you plagiarized, Shakespeare. I saw you looking over little Thomas Kyd’s shoulder.

6. Destroy Departments; Kill Majors. The new schools should soften all boundaries between genres, subjects, majors, departments, and degrees and instead orient student energy around direct action, creation, and experiment. The only reform necessary is a release and redistribution of energy. (Education reform! Ha! Was it ever formed to begin with?) The ever-shrinking art, music, physical education problem solved: do them all at once: climb and swing from ropes to splatter paint while listening to music and recording audio and video to edit into a film later. Or else we do all school work while walking 2.2. miles-per-hour on treadmills, ala Brain Rules by John Medina. Walking and writing. Perfect. Word art! Large scale installation art work made of language, maybe heavy-lifting in there, too. Let’s throw all subjects together! Science and Home Economics and History, study the chemical composition of food and the history and culture of dishes and cuisines. History, Literature, Religion, Philosophy, Psychology, Astrobiology, Evolution….these are not separate subjects. Never could be. The inventor of the concept of “bits” thought of himself as neither physicist nor engineer. The writings of Emerson are neither essays, sermons, or in line with normative categories of literature we might use to partition a syllabus: poem, play, fiction, non-fiction. What was Teilhard deChardin writing? You might find him in the bookstore under philosophy, religion, paleontology? Joseph Campbell? Marshall McLuhan? Bucky Fuller? There is nothing liberal about partitioning knowledge into categories or majors. The globe cannot be divided into majors and minors, so neither can its consciousness. The university is the globe’s consciousness. Not, “What’s your major?” but what are you working on, thinking about, advocating, becoming? Not, “Where are you from?” but “Who are you now?” In order to change schools, you would have to change yourself, and no one wants that. Socrates, at the beginning of Western Education, said, “Know Thyself!” and still, we do not listen.

7. No classrooms! Learning is the goal. Who cares the vehicle? As soon as you set the times for a class period, you kill learning, which does not occur in 50 minutes chunks at the appointed time. In school, out of school. In class, after class. Such ridiculous boundaries. Education has a design problem. Create whole learning environments, entire learning communities (not just like two classes jammed together for 6 credits.) I mean a whole learning world. Does the Internet exist? I mean, if the internet is everywhere, it is nowhere. It just is. If it’s in our cars, phones, brains, then it is an extension of life as we know it. Same for education, same then doubly of online education. It should be called just education, and then, not even that. There is no classroom, never was—don’t go to class—you are the classroom, the pupil, the teacher, the world, the universe, basic human consciousness is the university. The university is nowhere and everywhere or else its center is everywhere and circumference nowhere. I forget which one.

8. No more hoops and papers! Jump through the hoop! Get the piece of paper! No, let’s paper over the hoop and at least make them crash through it. Or shrink the hoop! Maybe expand its circumference beyond detection. Make the center of the hoop everywhere, the circumference nowhere! If you get your piece of paper, you will be prepared, at least, for the coming fascist onslaught. (Show me your papers!) If the paper is what matters, than the trappings of education matter. The book itself matters more than the content, more than the act of reading. Book as bludgeoning device. There is no teachable moment, only one continuous mistake. Shikanza, shikanza. Your assignment for next time: Build a new planet from scratch with your hands.

9. Charter for a New University (Based on Mirra Alfassa’s Auroville Charter)

—The university belongs to nobody in particular. It belongs to humanity as a whole. But to live in the University, one must be the willing servitor of the Global Consciousness.

—The university will be the place of an unending education, of constant progress and a youth that never ages.

—The university wants to be the bridge between the past and the future. Taking advantage of all discoveries from without and from within, the University will boldly spring toward the future realization.

—The University will be a site of material and spiritual research for a living embodiment of an actual human unity.

The Teaching-Learning Paradox Revisited (Part 2)

If the conclusions in Part 1 are correct, it does not really matter which teaching method instructors use. Lecture? Small-group? Discussion? Tutorials? Online? Some combination of these? It makes no difference. Student outcomes on final examinations will be the same.

Perhaps this conclusion is way too obvious. Why should something as superficial as the physical arrangement of the room and the shuffling around of its human components have any meaningful impact on learning?

If I’m being honest, small-group work has always struck me as a gimmick hashed-out during some administrative retreat, and whenever I employ it, I always feel like I’m appealing to some newfangled rule book in order to check an activity off of a list.

It’s pedagogical hokey-pokey.

But this is too harsh. And I’m ignoring my own conclusions from Part 1. It is not the teaching method, per say, that affects learning. If small-group work is a gimmick, then so is lecturing.

The reason that The Teaching-Learning Paradox concluded that teaching method has no impact on learning is simple:  only learning has an impact on learning.

Cue the sound of a million minds being blown.

Here it is again, in case you missed it:  Only learning has an impact on learning.

(I know it sounds like a poorly edited bumper sticker, but stay with me.)

We like to think of learning as social, as shared, as something that happens together in collective spaces and that can be facilitated by arrangements supporting a diversity of human interactions, and we tend to preference intimate, close-knit combos in which we assume the exchange of ideas and reflections will be more fluid and will lead to comprehensive understandings that far exceed what one individual could think up alone sitting in a cold lecture hall listening to someone drone on about stagflation.

But there isn’t anything magical about these arrangements in-and-of themselves. And I suspect that they are just as likely to reinforce bad learning as they are to support it. I hate to use this cliché, but it seems appropriate: if the classroom is not centered on authentic learning, shifting into small group discussion is merely rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

So what is authentic learning? I don’t know, but I would like to suggest some conclusions reached by cognitive science, in particular the research that centers on how we learn. Ultimately, learning must take place in the brain, whether that brain is sitting in a lecture hall, in a small group, or in front of a computer screen. We have more knowledge now of how the brain learns, and instructors and students should take advantage of this knowledge to increase learning.

It seems that, because it was published in 1968, the conclusions of The Teaching-Learning Paradox could not take cognitive strategies into account. Furthermore, since their focus was on various teaching arrangements (and not on styles, strategies, and tactics*), they were unable to analyze the actual infrastructure of learning. This supports the criticism put forth by Ten Cate and others (see Part 1) that Dubin and Taveggia are not really measuring a dependent variable by comparing final exam scores. Also, what is the true effect on the student? Certainly, one key component of learning is the demonstration of content acquisition, but are the studies in The Teaching-Learning Paradox merely testing for how efficiently the knowledge provided by the instructor slid from his mouth and onto the final exam page? Seen in that light, every study that Dubin and Taveggia analyzed was a success. The knowledge did transfer, and all at the same rate.

But what about the students? Did they learn? Really, how would you expect to measure learning if you’re merely testing how the classroom is structured. You are not testing learning or learning strategies. You are, instead, testing physical arrangements. And if the instructor and the students are not employing strategies that facilitate learning, then what is the value of the study?

Fortunately, a lot of work has been done with authentic learning strategies based on cognitive research. And in order to test these strategies, you can look at studies that are not too dissimilar from the ones Dubin and Taveggia analyzed in The Teaching-Learning Paradox. Do classrooms that employ cognitive strategies result in greater learning on final examinations? (Later we’ll address the shortcomings of solely focusing on content knowledge and memorization, but, as many cognitive scientists note, memorization is a critical component to learning, though not sufficient in-and-of itself).

This new focus on learning strategies will be a true student-centered approach, since the goal will be to figure out how students actually learn** (how the brain actually works) and to design curricula, lectures, assignments, and study sessions with this knowledge in mind. And since, as Dubin and Taveggia point out, studying is a measureable difference-maker, teachers should find ways to facilitate student learning by teaching effective strategies, delivering content with the cognitive “tricks” in mind, and motivating students to take their learning into their own hands, hearts, and minds. (Is that a Girl Scout motto?)

What are these cognitive “tricks?”

Well, let’s take one. It doesn’t matter if you’re tutoring someone one-on-one, standing in front of a lecture hall filled with 500 students, or sitting in a circle with 15 students, if you’re not asking “Why?” your students aren’t learning.

Dunlosky, et al. present ten learning techniques based on cognitive research in a 2013 article titled “Improving Students’ Learning with Effective Learning Techniques: Promising Directions From Cognitive and Educational Psychology.” Each technique is summarized and bolstered with supporting studies. The first, “elaborative interrogation” is essentially a fancy way of asking students “Why?” and encouraging them to construct their own answers. You might present some content on (drawing from my own experience) the correlation between the increase in sophisticated literature during the so-called American Renaissance period  and the rise of American printing companies. “Why do you suppose literature became more sophisticated as more printing companies arose?” Or, in a Mythology course, you could have students read creation myths from several different cultures and ask them “Why do so many of these cultures portray female goddesses as earthbound and male gods as living in the sky?” The idea is that learners must now actively construct new knowledge in response to the question, and in doing so, retrieve existing knowledge in order to fill in the gaps: “The prevailing theoretical account of elaborative-interrogation effects is that elaborative interrogation enhances learning by supporting the integration of new information with existing prior knowledge” leading to insights that are “self-generated rather than provided” (8). More learning is actually occurring in the learner’s brain as they struggle to develop an answer, and not just as part of a transfer from the instructor to the pages of the final exam. The authors cite one study where “Why” questions were integrated into a biology text, resulting in higher exam scores compared to a control group.

This is true learner-centered, active learning, not the kind that is staged by simply rearranging the classroom. The interesting thing about the above study is that the vast majority of their strategies are student studying strategies, some involving annotation of texts, pacing of study sessions, and mnemonic devices. The idea is to empower students to turn their own brains on to better learning strategies. We want lifelong learners who learn to do things for themselves. We want more of the learning to be happening in their own brains.

I will discuss more examples of cognitive strategies in futures posts, but I’d like to close with a few words from education theorist Bill McKeachie who discussed the “learning” approach to teaching in a 2008 interview in Teaching of Psychology:

We also found that when students thought more about the material, they were likely to become more intrinsically motivated and interested in the material for its own sake rather than just to pass the test. That shift in focus makes a big difference. If teachers are interested in helping students learn for the rest of their lives, then they should want their students to develop intrinsic motivation for learning and not just learn when they are told to learn because they are going to be tested on it.

A couple of things here: First, next time I’ll discuss the work of Daniel Willingham (who is also one of the authors of the study I cite above) who echoes McKeachie’s deceptively simple call for getting students to think about the material. It sounds obvious. However, if you want to make something stick in the brain, you first need to figure out how to make it sticky.

Second, McKeachie’s emphasis on intrinsic motivation could not be more important. And this is exactly what Dubin and Taveggia’s The Teaching-Learning Paradox cannot measure. In fact, I don’t think intrinsic motivation can be measured quantitatively. This is what prompted B.F. Skinner to disagree with cognitive research, since it could not be observed as behavior could. (McKeachie recounts their disagreement in the interview.)

Dubin and Taveggia could, however, (in limited samples) measure the effect of studying, and found it to be positive for test results. If we can help students become intrinsically motivated, get them to pay closer and deeper attention (to think about the material, in Willingham’s and McKeachie’s formulation, which means to take advantages of cognitive tricks that line up with how the brain actually learns), arm them with proven study skills, and structure class sessions with the cognitive research in mind, measurable improvements might be recorded. If students need to learn how to learn, then teachers need to teach them how to learn.

In short: if you want learning, you have to teach learning.

*In Part 1, I suggested a difference between method and style. I’m going to alter this. I like the word “arrangements” better to describe Dubin and Taveggia’s focus on comparing lectures, discussion, one-on-one sessions and other such organizational methods. For now, at least, “styles, strategies, and tactics” will be a stand-in for a discussion of approaches to authentic learning that can occur irrespective of classroom arrangements.

**Next time I’ll cover Daniel Willingham’s claim that learning styles, as they have been propagated, do not exist.

The Teaching-Learning Paradox Revisited (Part 1)

A simple syllogism to begin:

1. All people are ideologues*.

2. Teachers are people.

3. You know what goes here.

If you reject the premise, you probably want to stop reading. You are the problem.

If you accept the premise, you also probably want to stop reading. Some unpleasantness flows from it.

There is a secret that snakes through the history of education research. In fact, it’s not even a snake. A snake could easily slip into the rushes and go unnoticed. What I’m writing about looks more like a roaring springtime river bloated with snowmelt. Don’t fall in.

NO DIFFERENCE

In their 1968 study The Teaching-Learning Paradox: A Comparative Analysis of College Teaching Methods, Robert Dubin and Thomas C. Taveggia analyze 40 years of research comparing the effectiveness of a range of college teaching methods, including lecture, discussion, tutorials, independent study, small group work, and TV courses (1968’s equivalent of online education). Their book can be summarized in two words: “No Difference.”

Dubin and Taveggia poured over the data of nearly 100 studies that compare teaching methods by using final examinations as dependent variables (a potential weakness I’ll discuss later). What they found should be disturbing to any instructor who has ever flown the flag for a particular teaching method, for example, favoring small group work over lectures.**

They repeat their conclusions frequently throughout the 86-page study, anticipating, rightly, that no one would listen:

In the foregoing paragraphs we have reported the results of a reanalysis of the data from 91 comparative studies of college teaching technologies conducted between 1924 and 1965. These data demonstrate clearly and unequivocally that there is no measurable difference among truly distinctive methods of college instruction when evaluated by student performance on final examinations. (35)

Lecture? Lecture plus discussion? Small group work? One-one-one tutorials? Self-directed independent study.

No difference. Regardless of method, students will earn the same grade on the final examination.

Rubin and Taveggia also compared small classes with large classes, as well as so-called instructor-centered vs. student-centered classrooms (a bizarre, Orwellian construct if I’ve ever heard one. More on that in future installments.)

No difference.

Just to repeat: When measuring the performance on college final examinations, lecturing is no worse or better than other methods (despite the lecture’s oh-so authoritarian overtones). In fact, it does not matter one whit which teaching method is employed.

Sure, 1968 is a long time ago, but The Teaching-Learning Paradox has been cited over 200 times since then, and there is widespread agreement on its conclusions. Medical educators seem particularly drawn to (and perhaps repulsed by) its conclusions. This is unsurprising given the importance of final exams in medical school, and the heavy content-knowledge required to become a medical professional (again, Rubin and Taveggia are measuring the kind of end-of-semester knowledge acquisition that many of us may find limiting).

Olle Ten Cate, a medical school professor and former president of the Netherlands Association for Medical Education, published an article in 2001 called “What Happens to the Student? The Neglected Variable in Educational Outcome Research” that is largely a response to the problem presented by Rubin and Taveggia. Ten Cate summarizes the problem (and the accompanying feeling of frustration). He also, however, begins searching for a way around the paradox:

Yet, is it conceivable that there really is no difference in the effects of such different treatments in education? How can we sustain the idea that systematically different educational approaches, not during one hour, not a day, or a week, but during four or six full years and thousands of hours of ‘experimental treatment’, will show hardly any measurable differential effect other than student opinion? (83)

He also points to the money that is being wasted on such studies, since it has been clear for decades that the overall conclusion is “No Difference.”

If we put so much money, time and energy in such huge curriculum experiments, some day the community might not remain satisfied with the consistent finding of ‘no difference’.

You could easily connect the conclusions of The Teaching-Learning Paradox to today’s hot teaching technology, online education. A 2009 meta-analysis of online education by the U.S. Department of Education showed no significant differences in the learning outcomes of three different teaching “mediums” (online, web-blended, and face-to-face). The study’s conclusions claim that blended students performed “modestly better,” but if you dig into the study a bit more, it stipulates that “the studies in this meta-analysis do not demonstrate that online learning is superior as a medium,” only that many of these course required more from students and instructors and “It was the combination of elements in the treatment conditions (which was likely to have included additional learning time and materials as well as additional opportunities for collaboration) that produced the observed learning advantages.”

This lines up nicely with Dubin and Taveggia’s conclusions. If I can take some liberties here and subvert Marshall McLuhan, it’s the message, not the medium.

In fact, as Dubin and Taveggia note, there are only two factors that are consistent in all 91 studies they analyzed: students enrolled in a course, and each course featured a textbook. Lecture at them. Make them watch you on TV. Make them do the work on their own. Make them log into a website. Tutor them.

As long as they are enrolled in your course and reading a textbook……

You guessed it:  No Difference!

HOW CAN I MAKE A DIFFERENCE?

Are you drowning yet? Rethinking your teaching method? Wondering whether or not this huge push for more interactive, student-centered learning environments (think ice-breakers, small group work, group projects, student agency, one-one-sessions) has been a complete waste of time?

Well, yes. Yes it has.

That is, if your central goal is to deliver content. The evidence seems clear. At the end of the semester, students will know about the same amount of stuff regardless of teaching method***. Read The Teaching-Learning Paradox and then sit through some faculty training on how to engage students. If you’re not furious, you can’t do math. Dubin and Taveggia’s work is lucid and straightforward, and seems to be supported with each new study on teaching methods. If your goal is for your students to obtain content knowledge by the end of the semester, you should be in open revolt against anyone who suggests that one teaching method is superior to another. It simply isn’t true.

But…

What if content delivery isn’t your ultimate goal? And what might Rubin and Taveggia be leaving out? In future posts, I will consider other studies and books that present the issue from a slightly different angle. For now, let me return to Ten Cate’s paper for some possible solutions. First, he provides a potentially depressing anecdote that (after some reflection) presents a way forward from The Teaching-Learning Morass:

Some call it the VanderBlij Effect, after the Dutch math professor who delivered remarkably clear lectures. However, students attending his lectures usually received lower grades at the test than those who had not attended his teaching. The latter were forced to study so hard to master the material that they really grasped it. But the effect we are discussing may affect students in both groups.

Oh my. Even skilled teachers are wasting their time? This story actually offers an important (and hopeful) truth: authentic student-centered environments (and student effort and study time) can have an impact. In fact, this was the only thing that Rubin and Taveggia found that did make a difference:

We found two studies in, the literature which compared some form of study with no study and evaluated their respective outcomes on examinations covering ability to recall or prove knowledge of course content.These studies had a total of six comparisons between groups of students who studied and those who did not, all of which were independent comparisons. The results are significantly in favor of study. (26)

The grand irony of many so-called student-centered learning strategies is that they are just more instructor-centered strategies in disguise. It’s the soft authoritarianism of ceding control.  Above, we find that if students actually take their learning into their own hands, it can make a difference. It seems to be the only thing that does. As one of my colleagues says, “I don’t teach no one nothing.”

The lesson of The Teaching-Learning Paradox is that if instructors apply their own methods (whether instructor-centered or student-centered) it will not make a difference. Hence, Ten Cate’s question, “What Happens to the Student?” He claims that the studies Rubin and Taveggia analyzed (and almost all subsequent studies that support their conclusions) have three massive flaws: First, they confuse an independent variable for a dependent variable. That is, the results of a final examination are not really the result of the teaching method, they are an extension of it. This is why, potentially, all of the final exam results do not vary. Second, these studies are not truly blind, and can never be. If they students know they are being taught, they will act differently. Third, the effects on the student are not being measured. Is education simply about inputs and outputs? Is it merely about transferring knowledge? Shouldn’t we be looking for models that measure the effects on student behavior, which is, ultimately the one factor that can make a difference, if we extrapolate from the above mentioned studies on “studying,” and on the true meaning of the VanderBlij Effect?

Maybe The Teaching-Learning Paradox does not present a paradox after all. It might simply be an infinite regress. When the twin mirrors of content delivery and final examination are made to face one another, you get a perfect, endless, pointless reflection.

END OF PART 1

*Perhaps I’m abusing this term. I simply mean that everyone operates from within a particular perspective or set of perspectives, and that we often, consciously or not, make judgments about the world based on assumptions that our perspectives are superior to others. I’m doing it right now. One purpose of this blog post is to point out that educators often charge forth into the classroom under the assumption that their methods of instruction (whether cutting edge or traditional) are the most effective ones available. Evidence to support such claims does not exist.

**The results of the study hold true for different mixtures of methods, such as combing lecture, discussion, and small group work.

*** Later, I hope to discuss the difference between “teaching method” and “teaching style.” I will also discuss some more recent cognitive research. It may well be that “style” is another “method,” and that style will also make “no difference.” I hope not.

Should Only Rock Stars Make Online Lectures?

After reading David Byrne’s recent ode to Iowa (in which he recounts the state’s socialist utopian roots and observes that Iowa “may not be cool, but it might be beyond cool. Here among the winding creeks and fields of corn they may have arrived at some kind of secret satisfaction”), I went looking for more wisdom from the former Talking Heads musician and found his TED talk (which was thankfully decidedly un-TED. By that I mean it wasn’t a breathless, triumphant paean to the coming salvation of our digital overlords).

In fact, Bryne’s presentation is quite understated. He only makes one simple point: the evolution of music can be tied to architecture of performance venues.

This sound obvious, but it carries immense implications, essentially undermining the Romantic notion of creativity’s emergence from individual emotion and intuition. In other words, creativity isn’t the product of inner-magic. It is shaped by the external environment. In fact, Byrne argues that the external form might precede creativity, or, as he writes elsewhere:

So, the order of the process is the reverse from what is often assumed: the consideration of the vessel comes first, and that which fills it comes afterwards. Most of the time we’re not even aware of this tailoring we do. Opportunity is often the mother of invention. The emotional story — “something to get off my chest” — still gets told, but its form is guided by contextual restrictions.

He is writing about music, but I instantly thought of online lectures, and of the classroom in general.

Today, I read an anti-MOOC article in Slate by Jonathan Rees which, among other complaints, trashes the lecture format that appears in some MOOCs:

But the most common way to assess learning in the MOOCs offered by the largest providers is a single multiple-choice question after approximately five-minute chunks of pre-taped lectures. If I had told my tenure committee that I taught history this way, I’d be in another line of work right now.

I know exactly what’s he talking about, but I think he’s missing the point. You simply can’t teach the same way online that you can in the classroom. Had he told his tenure committee that he recorded and uploaded a live 80-minute lecture and discussion session onto Blackboard, he would not have pleased them either. Online instructors who use the 5-minute-and-quiz format are not trying to dumb their product down (that might be the unintentional result). Instead, they’re trying to adapt to a new environment.

I write differently on a blog than I do with my pen and notebook. I teach differently in a lecture hall than in an oval-shaped seminar room. I have some classrooms that I’m still trying to figure out. Exactly how do I teach in here?

The online classroom is one of those. We are all struggling to adapt.

Perhaps I was enamored by Byrne’s star power or his recent praise of Iowa, but I was able to pay attention to his lecture, in part, because of environmental or technological factors (it helped that I was intrigued by his argument as well).

That is, he used pictures, which he changed frequently. Also, the camera angles changed often. I don’t have a crew to replicate the latter, but the former is quite simple to do in an online lecture.

The video below is my relatively recent attempt to make a lecture that suits the online format, minus the camera (I have a hard time making this look natural or finding the right setting. I wish, like Byrne’s TED talk I could be recorded in a hall packed with people). Still, I use ten slides in less than 10 minutes, not MTV fast, but enough perhaps to keep attention.

In this respect, I should probably follow more of Pecha Kucha format, which is 20 slides, 20 seconds per slide. Here is author Dan Pink explaining and demonstrating:

Finally, here is a recent video I did using a webcam and a few pictures and text on PowerPoint. Someone told me it looked like I was talking in a closet. Again, I’m not sure how to make the video appealing without either having the camera pointed up my nostrils or projecting me in the background like a specter:

A regular classroom is just a regular classroom. No one is expecting Literature 101 at 8:00 in the morning to be a Hollywood production. But, once you create a video and upload it to YouTube you are, in a way, competing with the pros.

What is someone with no training in media and performance supposed to do? I guess become famous and let the TED folks film you.

I’ll get right on that.

What is Mythology? (Part 5)

In Part 1, I attempted to explain the complexities of the term “myth” and the difficulties of defining it. Largely, this was a riff on the contemporary understanding of “myth” as “false,” as in, “It’s a myth that turkey makes you sleepy.” (Which is true, by which I mean that you get sleepy on Thanksgiving because you’ve eaten too much, have the day off work, and started drinking wine at 11:00 in the morning just to deal with your extended family, not because of the relatively minuscule levels of tryptophan* in the turkey)

Instead, I’ll be more direct. Here is the working definition of mythology I use in my classes: Mythology is the study of stories exploring fundamental mysteries of existence, especially those pertaining to the following three questions: Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going?

I borrowed these questions from Paul Gauguin’s painting of the same name, “Where Do We Come From? What are We? Where are We Going?”

where

I then use each question as a separate unit of study: Where Do We Come From? (creation myths) What are We? (mainly epic tales)  Where are We Going? (This third unit can cover apocalyptic narratives and stories of the afterlife, but I also use it as an opportunity to discuss the potentially oxymoronic “Contemporary Mythology,” as well as narratives we use to imagine the future, especially futurism, science fiction, and technological utopianism, about which I’ve recorded a lecture and written an article.)

The majority of the texts we cover in my Mythology course fit comfortably into the standard canon (indeed, my central textbook, World Mythology: An Anthology of the Great Myths and Epics, is printed by McGraw Hill) but I like to define the term so that texts and ideas beyond just the ancient and classical world can be explored.

This leads me to three misnomers about Mythology, which correspond to the categories of Geography, Time Period, and Purpose. Some of this is addressed in my video “Contemporary Mythology.”

1) Geography. In-coming students often assume that mythology comes primarily from Greece, Rome, and wherever Norse is. This is not their fault. America’s educational heritage comes from Europe. American and European literature mainly references myths from these cultures. These myths have been translated more frequently. More texts have survived, and so on. When you look at them on a world map, however, they don’t even account for 1% of the world’s land mass. Myths can be found in every culture, on every continent (well, not sure about Antarctica), and from every religion. (In Part 7 I will discuss the difference between religion and mythology.) Why not explore mythology on a global scale. For centuries it was believed that Homer’s epics were the oldest on the planet, until The Epic of Gilgamesh, a Sumerian text which predates Homer by 1300 years, was discovered. The myths of the West are wonderful, but it’s a big world.

2) Time Period. Mythology is not something that simply stops with the later versions of King Arthur in the 15th century. It’s something we do each and every day. We will continue making myths because this is what humans do best. It makes perfect sense to spend most of the semester reading the canonical myths, from Gilgamesh to Arthur, with stops at every civilization along the way. However, it would be a mistake to assume that mythologizing (the verb form, which simply means to create somewhat exalted stories out of reality) was just something that pre-scientific people did when Wikipedia was not around to provide the answer. In fact, I would argue, we create myths every time we come home and answer the question, “How was your day?” or every time we return from vacation or fishing trips. Mythology is a living field of study. Mythological figures emerge from celebrity culture, sports, and politics on a daily basis. John David Ebert’s film criticism is a great examples of this practice. Furthermore, the myths of the past are alive today in exciting ways. When you see someone gazing lovingly into his glowing screen of social media, you are witnessing the living Narcissus.

3) Purpose. I couldn’t tell you for sure why students sign up for Mythology courses. I do believe a good many have a genuine interest in the subject and find the myths they have heard to be compelling and mysterious and out-of-the-ordinary. Some want to have fun (as much fun as a college course can be, which is to say slightly above mowing the yard). Others may anticipate an easy grade. All of the above might be true, but I believe the purpose of mythology is to reconnect with the mysteries of life and to achieve a sense of wholeness. I can’t grade on such a standard, but it’s no accident that Joseph Campbell quickly found himself transitioning from English professor to something like a self-help workshop guru. This is not a path I want, but it does demonstrate the power of myth (to borrow the title of a wonderful book and interview series Campbell did with Bill Moyers).

Finally, I take great pains to emphasize one key portion of my definition, which is that myths explore mysteries; they do not explain them. Certainly if some portion of a myth takes an actual stab at explaining how giraffes developed long necks and concludes that a crocodile bit down on a giraffe’s head one day and stretched the poor creature out, then we should not deny the place of contemporary science to object.

I do not believe, however, that myths were merely an early attempt at science. Nor do I believe that science can do everything that myths can do. In fact, any good scientist will tell you there are certain questions that are not theirs to ask. Some of these are mythological questions.

*First, I should point out that WordPress wanted me to spell “tryptophan” as “Aristophanes,” which is hilarious to me and five other people. Second, dozens of foods you probably eat each week have more tryptophan in them than turkey. Do you say, “Man, this tryptophan is making me sleepy!” after eating a ham sandwich? No? Then be silent. I’m trying to watch the Lions game.

Riffing on McLuhan #1

A segment in which the blogger drinks too much coffee and writes extemporaneously following a passage from Understanding Media. This segment is not intended as an accurate depiction of McLuhan’s theories (nor of mine necessarily).

Page 149: “Now in the electric age of decentralized power and information we begin to chafe under the uniformity of clock-time. In this age of space-time we seek multiplicity, rather than repeatability, of rhythms.”

I think instantly (a by-product of the electronic age) of dueling concepts commonly used in the lingo of online learning: synchronous and a-synchronous, as if such distinctions are possible post-Einstein, post-Schrodinger, post-Big Bang Theory (the show and the actual theory). How to be out of sync?  How to be in sync?  Language fails us!

The sync is constantly sync-ing regardless of your disposition, physical location, or philosophical stance. Here comes the unholy forward plunge of time, and we can see it all stretched out before us and after us like a mad river or a train off its rails (that train has free wi-fi…the tweeters on board have already logged the future in the backwoods of their feeds.)

There is no classroom. There is a brief physical intersection of student and professor at set times that some adhere to. But where does learning occur? Well, mostly in our sleep. Dreams train us as a whispering wizard might astride our bodies in the night at the king’s command, except there is no wizard. He has been stabbed to death by the hyphen in “Post-metaphysical.” That wizard is you who learns spells by absorbing the world around you, and all the bits that get sucked in, not just the sterile pool water, but also the twigs and bits.

Sleep when you sleep, and be awake when you wake!

Or, barring that, sleep in the classroom and stay awake all night. Your phone will keep syncing with the instant unfolding of the world. Don’t watch the clock, for it just spins in circles. No one is moving forward if everything is moving forward. Look over yonder! Here comes the rock of the past, fixing to puncture our canoe. That canoe is the curriculum. It’s patched up with gum and C+ papers.  (The river is actually C++)

Students, you should always be in your classrooms when your classes meet. Faculty, thou shalt be there, too.

However, the question “when is your class” makes as much sense as “when is your dog?”

Each course should be, like a jewel on Indra’s net, a perfect reflection of everything, open and connected to the rest of the web. There is no putting your “course face” on. There is no relaxing your “course face” at 11:05 AM upon emerging from the dusty cocoon of Ancient History. Ancient History never ends! The heated galloping and cuneiform forming proceedth beneath the murmur and shuffle of hallway, and across the crunch of the leaves on the quad.

So, I say, synchronous, asynchronous, this distinction is destroyed, though we don’t need electronics to make it so. When you are in a class you should be in it, always, ensconced by its love like a child in a womb. It’s just that you should never be born. There is no point.

Always be learning (not closing), for as Confucius says in the Analects, it is the highest form of pleasure, and (as some other smart guys and gals say) endless pleasure is better than strife ’cause there ain’t fun left when you leave this life. And so on.

Finally, I say live inside of learning, curl right up inside there and don’t pop out. Scribble witticisms across the boxy confines of some official school calendar. Hang a sign around your neck when you walk around (better yet, tattoo it on your forehead) that reads, “In Class.”  Ring a bell to begin your nightly sleep. Upon rolling out of bed in the morning, pretend you’re switching seats to get a little closer to teacher.

Blog Basics for the Classroom

Using Twitter on the Half-Dipper Bridge

Based on I.S.T (Internet Standard Time) , this 2010 David Carr article about Twitter is ancient. However, I’ve just come around to David Carr after watching the brilliant Page One, so forgive me for coming late to the party.

Carr, who was initially a Twitter skeptic, has come to find great value in the micro-blogging software:

At first, Twitter can be overwhelming, but think of it as a river of data rushing past that I dip a cup into every once in a while. Much of what I need to know is in that cup: if it looks like Apple is going to demo its new tablet, or Amazon sold more Kindles than actual books at Christmas, or the final vote in the Senate gets locked in on health care, I almost always learn about it first on Twitter.

I find this to be true when preparing for class or exploring ideas for research. If you’re following the right people on Twitter, it can be an endless source for material. Carr’s quote also made me think of a passage from Shunryu Suzuki’s Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind, where he explains the proper way to draw water from a stream:

If you go to Japan and visit Eiheiji monastery, just before you enter you will see a small bridge called Hanshaku-kyo, which means ‘half-dipper bridge’. Whenever Dogen-zenji dipped water from the river, he used only half a dipper, returning the rest to the river again, without throwing it away. That is why we call the bridge Hanshaku-kyo, ‘half-dipper bridge’. It may be difficult to understand why Dogen returned half of the water he dipped to the river. When we feel the beauty of the river, we intuitively do it in Dogen’s way. It is in our nature to do so.

I guess it’s best to avoid drinking too deeply from the stream of information, to let some of water pass back into motion. Carr warns that Twitter’s power can wash you away:

All those riches do not come at zero cost: If you think e-mail and surfing can make time disappear, wait until you get ahold of Twitter, or more likely, it gets ahold of you. There is always something more interesting on Twitter than whatever you happen to be working on.

All that gurgling can also be misleading. Carr quotes Here Comes Everybody author Clay Shirky, who has long praised the wisdom of crowd-sourcing your problems and allowing the hive-mind to go to work (how’s that for larding up my prose with buzz words?)

Twitter helps define what is important by what Mr. Shirky has called “algorithmic authority,” meaning that if all kinds of people are pointing at the same thing at the same instant, it must be a pretty big deal.

Maybe. You’ll see “Kim Kardashian” trending on Twitter more frequently than “Eurozone.” Collective intelligence is powerful, but so is collective ignorance. Sometimes the stream of consciousness is just water under the bridge.