Ken Carroll

Harold Jarche writes about how the traditional ‘business model’ of the universities is under pressure. Universities evolved in in another era and remain stacked with inefficiencies (cost, structural, learning inefficiencies). Harold posits language learning as an area where innovators are working around these inefficiencies.

Yes. There is indeed a good deal of innovation coming from private operators, using the web to build out distribution, reduce costs, and explore the possibilities of the new media. Some of the most interesting work and discussions on pedagogy is also being done on the web and this is providing tremendous energy and insight for innovators. (I’m not sure there is anything that dynamic in ESL research at the moment.) It’s a unique situation and it’s all happening really fast.

I’m not sure how the universities are supposed to keep up, though it’s clear that they could certainly benefit from these innovations. I think a PLS, for example, would provide a lot more value to a university student than the old, static language labs that still dominate campuses. Nor is there any reason why students now have to be tethered to the location/scheduling and other needs of the institution in order to consume, practice, and learn from the teachers and community.

But the question of how far the institutions will open up remains. My guess is that institutional change will be slow, perhaps even really slow. That leaves people like us to continue to develop innovative solutions, create as much value as we can for learners, and perhaps to point to the future.

So, whatever about the institutions, the future for the life long learner looks more more like a Personal Learning Environment and less like a quadrangle. Surely learning in the future will have to conform more and more to the needs of the individual.

In that vein, we launched ItalianPod today. The ItalianPod team are the youngest of the 4 teams with tons of smart ideas and creative energy. They have brought new levels of drama and culture to the lessons that I think are remarkable. (I urge you to see for yourself.) I also know that, from every perspective these guys are out to innovate and improve. I can only imagine what they will be doing a year from now.

Ken Carroll

Some teachers see their work as a subversive act. To them, perhaps, western democracy is lacking, and requires their intervention. There is also an assumption that the teacher possesses the truth - that he knows with some degree of certainty what needs to be changed in our society and why.  

This is not how I see it. The real purpose of education, I believe, centers around  the pursuit of truth. The teacher’s role is to help learners find truth, not to instill a particular political view of the world, and still less to set them on a course of active subversion that the teacher chooses.  

There is no single truth in politics or morality. No paradigm explains either, and no teacher can ‘know’ political truths -  he can only hold opinions.  The learner has to be free to seek truth and form his own conclusions. To my mind, imparting political  ’truth’ is a form of coercion, something you find amongst ideologues or authoritarian systems. I believe teachers have a moral obligation not to push their own political agenda in the classroom.

As citizens in a democracy we have obligations (not just rights) towards it.  Subversion for its own sake is not one of them.  There is a difference between fairly debating the good and the bad in our society, and encouraging students to undermine it.  If teaching is subversive it is unlikely to present both sides of the issues. So, imbuing students with hostility towards their own democratic tradition (even where we vehemently disagree with a particualr government) is an anti-democratic thing to do. Consider the company you keep in that category.

It  may be true that, as an individual, you are either working to support political status quo, or working against it. But again, this is an issue for outside the classroom. Students are not our pawns - they also have rights. We are not hired to subvert, just  ask your employers, the parents, the learners themselves.

Ideology (again)

 The edupunk debate was a watershed. What for me was a discussion about a really bad software company was for others an issue of ideology. Can of worms: the people who drew anti-corporate political messages about Blackboard need to consider this: 

 If “edupunk” is anti-establishment and anti-corporation, does that mean a true Edupunk does not use any tools provided by large-scale companies? So does that mean no Google? no Flickr? no QuickTime? Alas - these are all tools provided by corporations. (Link.)

Neither this case, nor society at large, can be defined in terms of class warfare or one group oppressing another on the basis of ideology. That is way too reductionistic a view of society. (It’s also unnecessarily confrontational.) Besides, it is fully possible to take Blackboard to task without resorting to ideology. Politicization makes proper discussion untenable, particulalrly where it is reduced to Marxist analysis. 

Of course it is true that a free society has its own ideology. Many, many layers of meaning and ideology underlie free societies, but these include the ideology of democracy itself, of free speech, and of economic freedom, etc. It may even be true, as Gramsci pointed out, that one of the ideological foundations of democracy is that democracy does not have ideology, when of course it does. Either way, no single paradigm captures the complexity of an economic or social system. All it will do is distract from the real issue of learning.

Note, too that we have formed our own hierarchy in the edublogosphere. At the head of it sits Stephen. Like the rest of you I read Stephen assiduously, because I learn from him every time. He simply is a leading light in this field. But whether he likes it or not, Stephen has become an authority. Shouldn’t we be subverting authority figures? Is he oppressing us with his ideology? (No, he is not.) How about a cultural revolution? An attack for the sake of it? How much sense would that make? Not much.

I don’t plan on writing about politics again, so let me just say that subversion for its own sake is wanting. My vote is to keep ideology out of this debate. Can we just stick to the learning?  

 Ken Carroll

Am I the only one to find this Edupunk meme ridiculous? The adolescent ethos, music, etc, are matched only by the adolescent narcissism,  anger, wilful non-conformity,  sanctimony, and tirades against authority. Fine, except this is all coming from teachers!  

No seven ages of man here. These guys look intellectually and emotionally indistinguishable from their students. In keeping with that ethos comes their abhorrence for  The Man, the capitalist who is at the root of all Edupunk problems, and the guy who oppresses society, and the downtrodden. Normally, only teenagers take the time and energy to seek out with such vehemence these archetypal injustices. Are these father-figure issues? (You have to wonder at times, what must go on in their classrooms.)

But that rage contrasts with a dopamine credulity towards those who claim that ‘ industrial capitalism is a ridiculous game’ or the depravity of things like the DIY culture.  It was a destitute Marxist trope that animated this meme last week, via a science-fiction novel, written, btw, by a guy who flirted with Naziism.  It is from that novel that they lifted the ugly communist/fascist metaphors - vultures of capital, and captialism’s will to power, etc, to attack, er, Blackboard.  (As if that target were otherwise likely to go unnoticed.) The rebellion as  temper tantrum, had begun.

Now, Edupunks  are starting a movement  to expropriate power from the capitalists (and with cool music supplied by all the major labels!) Apart from that, there is nothing new from them.

 Except that Edupunks are seeking to politicize (and I would argue, infantilize) discussion in this space. Already this has begun. If there is one thing worse than what Blackboard is doing it is the attempt to reduce this discussion to ideology. I don’t know about you, but I do not see counter-culture and conspiracy as serious educational domains. 

 It is also dismaying to see the lack of edublogger critiques. Everybody loves Edupunks, it would seem. (I thought this was all about multiple perspectives, not an echo-chamber.) So here is my take: Allowing Edupunks to define themselves as agents of humanitarian uplift is absurd. Forty year old tenured men in hoodies, talking about revolution is no more than perpetual adolescence and self-indulgence.  By appointing themselves as the Defenders the Oppressed they are pre-empting the right to lecture on the subject. Personally I reserve that right for someone with a grown-up argument and a relatively serious attitude.

Of course they have the right to say whatever they wish and that is fine. Ultimately, however, I would not recommend that we politicize learning 2.0 and certainly not by reducing it to the level of  of DIY culture. Have they raised a real issue after all?

 Ken Carroll