Why I decided to attend Virginia Tech

This week’s articles were difficult for me to comment on, because I agreed with them so thoroughly. Of course the humanities are important, and, as much as the media bags on literature professors, they do contribute something exceedingly valuable to the scientific community. Unfortunately, “Well Duh” is not an appropriate response far a blog post, but it feels pretty apt when all of these articles are acting like this is some great discovery. However, because I would like to contribute to the conversation in a way that doesn’t involve retyping the articles in all caps, I thought I would share with you the reason I decided not to attend a liberal arts university.

I could have attended a Graduate program that would have catered to a liberal arts background and turned out liberal arts undergraduates, but I specifically chose not to. Don’t get me wrong, I love literature and philosophy, I’ve dedicated a large portion of my life to it, but liberal arts graduates are not those who need the humanities. When I teach people who are invested in the ethical good that literature can provide it often leaves me feeling like I’ve just spent my time in a coffee shop with friends; we’ve had fun, we’ve discovered something new, but a majority of the learning could have happened with or without each other. We knew where we were going, but we wanted to go together. We were just passing time and introducing one another to new topics. Preaching to the choir doesn’t do anyone any good. I love teaching thinking, writing, and philosophy at a STEM heavy college because when I do, I can see the change that it makes in people. I teach writing and rhetoric to an engineer and all of the sudden they realize that all of their professors are taking them more seriously. I read Those Who Walk Away from Omleas with a physician and he begins to think about why he does what he does for a living. It’s not bringing them into a coffee shop with me, its opening the door to their fallout shelter and allowing them to see daylight for a little bit. When they return to the fallout shelter afterwards they remember why they are working inside it to begin with, and who they originally built it for.

This stepping out works both ways. Often time’s debates within the humanities will end on a difference of unprovable opinion. The world, it would appear is a constant bed of reconstruction that we simply allow ourselves to attempt to make sense of. I hate this notion. Not because it is necessarily untrue, All accounts prove otherwise, but because it is so defeatist. It’s a way for the humanities to throw their hands in the air and live in a state of agnosticism. In all honesty, I find it cowardly. I admire STEM for its certainty. Its ability to say, “The world is something we can figure out, just give us a little more time.” This is optimism at its core and it’s a good counterweight to the issues that we in the arts suffer from.

I know that I have probably said too much, and I don’t want anyone thinking that I have betrayed my field. I do think that, at the current moment, the humanities need to be heavily championed so that they continue to provide the services that society so desperately requires. If I can leave you with one belief it is this. The humanities are not a cure all. They are a vitamin. Without them society will transgress into a place that it doesn’t want to be, but I wouldn’t depend on them to cure cancer. We shouldn’t have research colleges and liberal arts colleges, we should have universities where individuals are taught to be uncertain so that they can attempt to work toward certainty.

An Argument Older Than Christ

Socrates once told a story to his student Phaedrus, which Plato recorded. It went like this: I heard, then, that at Naucratis, in Egypt, was one of the ancient gods of that country, the one whose sacred bird is called the ibis, and the name of the god himself was Theuth. He it was who invented numbers and arithmetic and geometry and astronomy, also draughts and dice, and, most important of all, letters. Now the king of all Egypt at that time was the god Thamus, who lived in the great city of the upper region, which the Greeks call the Egyptian Thebes, and they call the god himself Ammon. To him came Theuth to show his inventions, saying that they ought to be imparted to the other Egyptians. But Thamus asked what use there was in each, and as Theuth enumerated their uses, expressed praise or blame, according as he approved  or disapproved. The story goes that Thamus said many things to Theuth in praise or blame of the various arts, which it would take too long to repeat; but when they came to the letters, “This invention, O king,” said Theuth, “will make the Egyptians wiser and will improve their memories; for it is an elixir of memory and wisdom that I have discovered.” But Thamus replied, “Most ingenious Theuth, one man has the ability to beget arts, but the ability to judge of their usefulness or harmfulness to their users belongs to another; and now you, who are the father of letters, have been led by your affection to ascribe to them a power the opposite of that which they really possess. For this invention will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it, because they will not practice their memory. Their trust in writing, produced by external characters which are no part of themselves, will discourage the use of their own memory within them. You have invented an elixir not of memory, but of reminding; and you offer your pupils the appearance of wisdom, not true wisdom, for they will read many things without instruction and will therefore seem to know many things, when they are for the most part ignorant and hard to get along with, since they are not wise, but only appear wise. I heard, then, that at Naucratis, in Egypt, was one of the ancient gods of that country, the one whose sacred bird is called the ibis, and the name of the god himself was Theuth. He it was who invented numbers and arithmetic and geometry and astronomy, also draughts and dice, and, most important of all, letters. Now the king of all Egypt at that time was the god Thamus, who lived in the great city of the upper region, which the Greeks call the Egyptian Thebes, and they call the god himself Ammon. To him came Theuth to show his inventions, saying that they ought to be imparted to the other Egyptians. But Thamus asked what use there was in each, and as Theuth enumerated their uses, expressed praise or blame, according as he approved  or disapproved. The story goes that Thamus said many things to Theuth in praise or blame of the various arts, which it would take too long to repeat; but when they came to the letters, “This invention, O king,” said Theuth, “will make the Egyptians wiser and will improve their memories; for it is an elixir of memory and wisdom that I have discovered.” But Thamus replied, “Most ingenious Theuth, one man has the ability to beget arts, but the ability to judge of their usefulness or harmfulness to their users belongs to another; and now you, who are the father of letters, have been led by your affection to ascribe to them a power the opposite of that which they really possess. For this invention will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it, because they will not practice their memory. Their trust in writing, produced by external characters which are no part of themselves, will discourage the use of their own memory within them. You have invented an elixir not of memory, but of reminding; and you offer your pupils the appearance of wisdom, not true wisdom, for they will read many things without instruction and will therefore seem to know many things, when they are for the most part ignorant and hard to get along with, since they are not wise, but only appear wise. (From Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vol. 9, translated by Harold N. Fowler. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London) Now, while I apologize for the lengthy quote, I hope that this strikes a chord of recognition for you with this week’s readings; it should. Within the parable Socrates is using the discussion of two gods to make a point about writing. Socrates is taking his position behind Theuth, whilst his students are presumed to be behind Thamus. He makes logical points about the entire argument, and even reaches a viable conclusion when he states that “this invention will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it, because they will not practice their memory,” but, as we are aware, history has proven that his final statements about wisdom and the human condition remain untrue. He attempted to frame the narrative in the form of two gods speaking with one another to give the tale credibility. Gods are powerful an knowing so certainly what they say should be accurate, but this is just an empty attempt at an argument created from an ethos that doesn’t even exist. He structured himself in a false argument to attempt to accurately convey his predictions for the Human race. However, it fell short. By in large, humans have been better off since the invention of writing. Our memory has remained, and our thinking has deepened. The Greeks were not the last people on the planet to invent and produce, and Socrates was disproven. So why do I bring this up? What does an old argument have to do with this week’s readings? Simple, it’s the same argument. Look at the article Is Google making us stupid? by Nicholas Carr. He begins the article with an excerpt from a made up story about humankind in the future and the problems of technology. He is using this story in the same way that Socrates was, as a means to bring an ethical appeal to his argument. In essence, he was saying, “look! This movie acts like a glimpse of the future and what a dark future it portrays. Humans will be like robots!” This argument is meant to tug on your fears and make you see him as an authority on the future. But, in the end, Mr. Carr is just a storyteller like Socrates. His fear isn’t unwarranted, but I doubt it will come to pass. Like writing, the internet and new technology is a massive leap forward in the progress of mankind. And, like writing, there are those who will oppose the change that it brings. However, to say that Google will somehow halt the wisdom of people or their ability to read carefully is akin to saying it about reading. There will be negative effects associated with these changes, but the positive ones far outweigh the downfalls. Life will carry on, and humanity will adapt. Google gives us a chance to stop focusing on the memorization of facts and data and start focusing on the skills required to use those facts to benefit humanity. We will all be better because of the internet, because we will have more time to be better. Mr. Carr’s concerns about emerging technology are valid, but they are not new. People have been complaining about change since the dawn of time, and his is one more concern in the wake of many. The point of this is not to criticize Mr. Carr or Socrates, but instead to pose another position to them. Instead of worrying about the change that is occurring, we should spend our time worrying about what we are going to do with that change. I would direct you back again to connected learning. Connected learning is what happens when we stop fretting about the change that might occur in the future and start worrying about how we can use this change to benefit our students. They are the ones who will live through this massive change in human culture; it is important that we train them to make the best of it. As always, let me know what you think below!

I Want to Believe!

I had never read the works of Paulo Freire before this was brought to the forefront of my education, and yet it feels like I have read everything by him. Every now and then I read a theorist’s work and I come to the realization that everyone that I have been reading is merely echoing the initial speaker. This was my experience with Paulo Freire. He was serving as the source for a great deal of theory in this class, as well as the others that I have taken part in. His work was being repeated and added to over the years and I had been seeing those additions without being able to recognize the original foundation. The problem that one encounters when they come across a work like this is the issue of contributing anything relevant to the conversation. I agree with Paulo Freire and have found his ideals to hold true in most classrooms. If we give students the ability to become collaborators in their education and in the world, then they will be able to shape the world that they live in. This is especially true in rhetoric which seeks to sway the opinions of others in order to accomplish tasks that one may not have the martial power to accomplish. Only through knowledge and a true understanding of the world can people begin to change their environments. However, there is a final component to Mr. Freire’s work that I think he acknowledges as a given, but, in my experience, some teachers may not fully grasp: A belief in your students.

The cornerstone of Paulo Freire’s work is the belief that students (in all of their forms and age groups) will be able to construct the material necessary to progress in their goals and use it in a way that benefits their environment. He advocates the use of complex dialogue and exposure to a great many viewpoints and beliefs. I see too many teachers that strive to implement Freire’s advice, but miss this critical notion. Students must be trusted with their education in order to fully take responsibility for it and create a critical dialogue. This idea is in direct opposition to the banking education that we so covet, because it involves making an investment without a guarantee. In a banking conceptualization we want measured returns on our version of society, but this may or may not be a version that suits our students. This leads to an inherent conflict that forces teachers to view students as possible nodes of failure that teachers must prevent. This is wrong. We cannot assume that our students are incompetent waiting to be made competent if we really mean to trust them with the future. Students must be seen as journeyman; they must be seen as people beginning a expedition that they are well equipped to handle. Freire’s vision is difficult for some to accept for this reason. There can be no large scale standardized testing in Freire’s concept, because standardized testing is inherently mistrustful of the learner. It is given to assure that transfer of specific knowledge has taken place, not to assess the future needs of the individual and their environment. Note that standardized tests are given with the purpose of determining which learners fall below a line of attrition; which products are not up to code. No one ever looks at the test results from a standardized test and says, “Gee, these students did really well in vocabulary. I wonder how we can use their immense vocabulary skills to assist in their understanding of history. How do we connect what they know to what they need to know?” Of course not. That would be a theory of connectedness and our current system is based on a theory of sufficiency.

Teachers who struggle with these concepts are often the teachers that complain that their students are cheating on their tests by looking at past answer keys. If they are learning the information, who cares how they learn it? And, if you believe that they are not learning the information by studying past exams, then your exams may need a second look. A good test should force students to construct new knowledge using the tools that you equip them with in class. Any examination of a past test should simply serve as a review before facing the new challenges that will be set before them. These students that are “cheating” in this manner are simply informing the teacher that the learning environment has stalled and needs retooling.

We as teachers and educators need to begin believing in our students again. We need to believe that they can reach the goals that we set for them and that they can do it without being force fed our education of the past. Students should be tested and allowed to converse with the results of the test. They should be included in every step of the educational process. This is their education and it is high time that we let them take the reins. If we believe in our student’s ability to reach a goal, then our only task remaining is to assist in their ability to accomplish it. Students that have this kind of encouragement will create a world that we want to live in.

Cool, so now what?

Hello readers,

Though most of my posts are generalized about a given topic, today I would like to hone in on a specific piece of writing that I will, for the sake of the post, assume you have read. Dr. Claude Steele’s book Whistling Vivaldi is a wonderful read and an endless font of discussion material. In fact, while reading, I so enjoyed the sections that were assigned that I sought out the remainder of the text online. After having finished a grand majority of the work, I would like to offer up some fair criticism of the piece in hopes that a productive discussion might arise. I mean no ill will to Dr. Steele in this, but rather put it forth in the hopes that his work might inspire further change at the university level.

I would like to begin with an odd stipulation: Let us assume, for a second, that we are in complete agreement with the argument that Dr. Steele has made. We could, wasting our time, talk about how outdated his examples are, and how most of his research in Whistling Vivaldi is pulled from 40+ years ago, and that, if he were speaking about computers instead of students, he would have written a comparable book on how inefficient the Ditto machine is. But, I believe to do so would be pointless. We could spend all day nitpicking his minor arguments, and, at the end of it all, still not have hit at the heart of what troubles us with this book. So, for the time being, I would like to assume that we completely buy into everything that Dr. Steele has put forth. I do this for a multitude of reasons, foremost being that Dr. Steele is most certainly acting out of honest concern for the well-being of students, and I can fault no man for this. He has put his heart into making certain that a group of individuals, who are currently struggling, will be pushed the forefront of the educational agenda in hopes of securing them a better future. Secondly, I do not sense any ill will in the writing of Dr. Steele. He is not searching for solutions at other’s expense. He is striking at this problem with the hope of destroying it without casualties.

For these reasons, I am willing to give Dr. Steele the benefit of the doubt, and begin with complete acceptance of his argument before I begin any criticism of it. If we assume that Dr. Steele has made a correct assessment of the current state of affairs in academia, then there is really only one criticism that remains worth pursuing: a criticism of response. The fact remains that after all agreements have been furnished, Dr. Steele does not give any concrete advice towards a solution. At the end of his book, he puts forth a solution that would be considered vague at best stating:

“Still, a hope arises from this research. If we want to overcome underperformance, if we want to open the door for many stereotyped students to learn and prosper in society, we should, in addition to focusing on skill and knowledge, also focus on reducing those threats in schools, classrooms, workplaces, even basketball gyms. You should focus on making the identity less inconvenient, and this first generation of intervention studies makes a good beginning in showing you how to do it.”

But does it?

Did he really give us any practical advice towards a solution? Let’s review his advice and experiments:

He begins the book by recounting a large amount of examples and justifications for the existence of stereotype threat; here we have no issue. He then recounts his study of the women in math class and demonstrates how he helped them. However, let’s not forget that his “help” involved telling them that stereotypes did, in fact, apply and that they had created a test that accounted for the difference in the genders. I would argue that, while this proved the existence of the threat, as a teaching method, it does nothing but reinforce the assumptions. He also gives the suggestion to set high expectations and promote confidence in student achievement, but this is a tactic endorsed by the “colorblind” group that he rallies against at the beginning of the book. In the end, the only practical advice that he gives out amounts to “be aware that it happens and fix it.” This, however, is problematic as well.

In order to fix a problem ( And I think we can all agree that underperformance is a problem) one must find the source of that problem and seek to change the elements that dictate that source. According to Steele, there are two things that cause the black students of today anxiety to the point of feeling obligated to “Whistle Vivaldi”: 1) The depictions of white people in positions of wealth and power in the media and in observation, and 2) Their minority status within the campus.

Now the first of these cannot be changed by classroom professors, and I think this is where his message of awareness comes in. Professors, though powerful incubators of change hold very little sway over geopolitical economics and the media. however, this does not leave us powerless. As Steele suggests, if we provoke our students into a realization that whiteness is not a normative function, it may counterbalance some of these media portrayals. But the second issue is more of a sticking point. How does one make minority students feel safe and non-threatened, if their existence as a minority is the source of the threat? I’m not sure I have an answer, and I’m positive that Dr. Steele does not provide one. It’s a cyclical issue that cannot be resolved anytime soon, though some have tried. Diversity faculty hires exist for this very reason, as do classes in cultural studies. But the problem becomes one of separations. As Steele mentions, these programs frequently are only attended by the minority students to begin with, which only serves to separate them further on campus and strengthen the stereotype threat that they experience. If aid is given, the question quickly becomes, “how much,” and, “for how long?” with no specific answer in sight. It’s an issue that deserves a solution, but which may not have one for a long time.

In the end, I’m not faulting, Dr. Steele’s book. It’s very well written and extremely enjoyable. Quite the opposite, I’m suggesting a sequel. I need a book where he sets forth a series of guidelines to improve the quality of life for these students across a variety of campuses. We agree on the threat Dr. Steele, but now it’s time to do something about it.

As always, if my readers have any clever solutions I would love to hear them in the comments below.

 

Scribe Remembers

Hello, Readers! It’s good to see you again. I’ve been off for a while, writing about the current standing of the American college, but I’m back today to talk about a concept called mindful learning. It’s a concept originally coined by Ellen Langer, a professor of psychology at Harvard, that seeks to explain the current myths surrounding education and inspire a movement toward new ways of thinking about thinking. Her current state of worry about student learning is complex and takes up the greater part of a book. Now, I’m aware that many of you may not have the time for such a read, so I’ve included a video by Micheal Wesch, Author of  his own article Anti-Teaching, because I believe the concerns of Dr. Langer are mirrored nicely and briefly in the youtube video below:

Scary right? Like Horror movie scary. But hey, that’s school. However; according to Dr. Langer, it doesn’t have to be. To combat this mindless drudge through the campus, she suggests a new type of learning; Mindful Learning. In Langer’s book, she states that this style of processing and learning would include the following: “the continuous creation of new categories; openness to new information; and an implicit awareness of more than one perspective.” In short Dr. Langr is making way for a style of teaching that is flexible and learner-centered. She wants educators and students to think critically about situations before accepting them.

I like Dr. Langer’s proposal, and I’d like to take a moment to highlight her brilliance in one specific section. In one of her early chapters she discusses her use of the word “how”. She mentions that phrasing a question of absurdity by prefacing it with the word “how” is critical because it shifts the origin of thought on the subject from a fact of impossibility to a quandary of possibility. This shift in thinking, she claims, is mindful. You see, it’s not  about the specific question, but rather how it was asked. The question she presented in this scenario was an open ended question with a variety of answers. in addition, she did not let the students laugh it off. Forcing them to answer the question put them into a hypothetical space that required them to respond and think in new ways. In the video above, students are seen holding up various signs with the problems of today (War, Crime, Poverty) these are questions that require the same  kind of thinking that Dr. Langer is encouraging in her students. By making a move toward mindfulness, one could argue that her pupils are better prepared for these challenges than those who have gone the mindless route of wrote preparedness. what cracks me up about all of this, is that what she is suggesting is neither new nor novel. What she is recommending is an education in philosophy with an emphasis on Socratic teaching. Thousands of years ago, a student named Plato recorded the teaching methods and advice of his teacher Socrates in a series of books: The Republic, Phaedrus, etc. He recorded his teacher, in dialogue, asking complex questions, in an open answer format, to try and get the young men of Athens thinking about the problems that the world faces in a way that was meaningful. when one of the students would laugh a problem off, Socrates was prone to put that issue into a context that might actually occur. Sounds quite similar to our Dr. Langer no? So what has happened to make Dr. Langer avoid this obvious connection? Has the whole world forgotten about philosophy? I don’t believe so, but I believe (To use Dr. Langer’s psychology terms) it has repressed it, and I believe the Great Depression is to blame. Around the 1930’s America was so tired of being poor that we forgot what it meant to be educated. We became concerned with production and stopped worrying about proaction. Philosophy saw a sharp decline, because it didn’t produce anything (at the surface level). There were no philosophy factories turning out products. Philosophy, as a major in college, became a joke. Children who had grown up poor turned to careers where they would produce things that would, in turn, feed them. In their education, they demanded to be taught the absolute minimum to go out and get a job producing as quickly as possible. Education, which used to be a lifelong pursuit, turned into a four-year dash. But this hurt them in the long run. we forgot that it takes meaningful thought to invent the future, and now we need that philosophic teaching that we threw out. but we did too good a job of branding it negatively with jokes about the practitioners of philosophy and fast food. It’s hard to pick up tools that have been discarded for so long, but I think Dr. Langer is doing just that. she has rebranded philosophy under the new title of mindful thinking and is attempting to cajole it back into common curriculum. I for one am glad. I think we will need it if we are to face the future with open minds. let mee know what you think.

 

Scribe Gets Connected

Hello, readers! I’m back today to talk about the new world I just stumbled into. the world of Connected Learning and educational blogging. Now as most of you know, I’m obsessed with finding new and exciting initiatives within teaching. I generally scour the forums and journals to find the latest and greatest in teaching. I even read the comments (I know, I know it’s like digging through garbage) to find the rare diamond amongst the throughs of coal. Well, as I was taking a new course on Contemporary Pedagogy, to learn on the cutting edge, I found myself introduced to this new concept called Connected Learning. I thought that it was worth talking about, and so I bring it to you here. Now, admittedly, upon further inspection, Connected Learning is not completely new. In fact, it’s a remixing of the digital literacies movement to incorporate the humanist, student-centered classroom. However, I believe this remixing is combining two things that were meant to be drawn together. What we are witnessing is essentially the birth of the educational PB Chocolate Swirl. I’ve got your attention now, don’t I? From what I’ve been reading and observing, Connected learning is learning that brings together all of the different aspects of a person’s life with digital tools to inspire personal learning and growth in a way that is both self-encouraging and self-motivated. That’s a powerful idea. essentially we are taking the student-centered classes of Donald Murray and Howard Gardener and using digital tools (Like Blogging) to make them available to everyone while incorporating feminist teaching ideologies and social cognitionist teaching to ensure total incorporation. If you Haven’t noticed yet, this post is an inception-style use of this theory. I’m currently using Connected Learning to Learn about Connected Learning, to use Connected Learning to teach you about connected learning in a connected learning environment (And the top keeps spinning). This is an exciting time to be jumping into all this and I believe that, as many of the articles that we are reading for week two have said, the blog is the perfect tool to start with. it incorporates much of  the ideologies and hopes of connected teaching into an easy to use format.

This being said, like with any technology or innovation, I think that it would be unwise to go forth without voicing my reservations on the subject, so here they are: Connected learning seems too big. I could be wrong, and I certainly hope I am, but right now it seems to be taking on too much. It wants to free students from the classic classroom, incorporate digital technologies, and invite communal participation and action within the lives of the students. It’s simply too much. It’s like trying to learn to swim, run, and fly all at the same time. And, that’s if others are willing to cooperate. I can’t speak for the college level, as I have not been teaching here very long, but at the high school level getting a parent to show up one night a year is considered successful. asking for complete community participation in addition to total digital emersion seems like a pipe dream. However, I’ll be the first to admit I’m a sucker for idealism and I’m ready to get behind this if others will help.

What do you think about this initiative? what are some of the limitations that you can see? Let’s talk about it in the comments.