I want to recommend to all my readers that they read this Lindsea's post on Student 2.0, and then encourage as many students as possible to read what she has to say.
This post is a well written definition of what learning is (or should be) in this age. Many edubloggers posting on these kind of topics write in such an erudite way that I often give up and don't finish the article. Lindsea, however has written a simple piece, which whilst referencing classical thought doesn't lose it's impact. Not only does she define learning, she also has interesting views on what a teacher should be.
Our teachers become some of the most important and revered authority figures in our lives
Unfortunately I think the profession of teacher has become so eroded and so messed up by politicians over time that many students think of us as enemies, and thus of learning as a hateful process.
Lindsea then goes on to differentiate between learning and thinking. If I have read it correctly learners aim to excel in passing exams and such like, whilst thinking is a far more dangerous activity. At the far extremes of this definition thinkers are often ready to die for their thoughts (eg Suffragetes to continue Lindsea's analogy.)
I like to think that I try to encourage thinking in my classrooms, but am often forced to go along with the learning as dictated by the assessment system. However in my own little CREATIVELY SUBVERSIVE way I try to allow more thinking with my younger students, because I can get away with it.
This is how Lindsea belives a thinker in school should be:
“Question, think, explore and dissent at your own free will, but listen (and obey)!”
I like the idea of dissent ( I would probably have said disagree) because she has preceded it with questioning, thinking and exploring. In other words, disagree by all means but make sure you have a reason and support thererof to do so.
If in learning, a student applies critical thought and decides that that particular piece of information goes against their belief system and all ideas of truth, then I believe the student is still obligated to learn it.
This sounds a bit like the adage in Sun Tzu's Art of War, "So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will fight without danger in battles." Basically in order to disagree you must first undersatnd the opposing viewpoint.
Nothing wrong in that at all.
So why do I say that teachers should have their students read this?
Well, there are too many students out there who don't seem to believe that thinking is important. Words like these coming from a fellow student could have that all important influence. It could show students that they do have the right to disagree but that disagreement must come from reflection and not simple reaction.
In Lindea's neo-education teachers and students embark on a journey of thinking and learning together, which still allows for students to hold their own opinions and for teachers to have their authority, promoting "learning both at it’s most basic, and most complex levels."
Learning is the process in which a person consciously takes their self farther away from ignorance. Ignorance is the lack of knowledge, the inability to understand something without guidance from an outside force.
Technorati Tags: learning, students2.0, teaching
Powered by ScribeFire.
Comments