This American Life has a good story on doing the right thing, as hard and convoluted as it usually is. Listen here.
Radio Lab, quoted extensively in the above radio show, digs deeper into morality. Pragmatism vs. morality. Listen here.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Competition
This American Life presents what hyper-competition (from hyper capitalism) produces: the only bottom line is profit. Listen here.
Globalization and Culture of Conversation
Recently, my understanding of the effectiveness of Culture of Conversation has waxed and waned like that of a high school student’s acne. At times the site feels like a great way for youth to interact, to improve communication and understanding. It’s not like Facebook interaction where one can construct a pristine identity and have no repercussions for writing or viewing anything, or anybody. Facebook offers built in safety through anonymity, leaving youth to appreciate voyeurism more than genuine interaction. Contrarily, Culture of Conversation requires students to make opinions, even if utterly rejected by other readers. Identity appears on any discussion thread a student writes for, removing any place to hide. Students become defined by what they say, not by what snap shot they choose or simple group the join. Actions through words speak louder than the simplistic ability to choose. At other times, though, Culture of Conversation seemed to be a product of its time, no different than a Facebook or MySpace. Culture of Conversation follows the crowd in a sense; originality checked itself at the door long ago. I have assumed students actually want to say something. In fact, students may enjoy saying nothing.
Then I realized this conversation really revolves around the positive and negative effects of globalization. If it were not for globalization and the advancement of technology, Culture of Conversation would not exist. What I thought to be a simple idea of students from around the world interacting through written English, assumes that (1) all students have access to the internet, (2) most international students actually do speak English, and (3) students would actually have self incentive to write. Basically, I took an extremely narrow and close-minded understanding of the benefits of globalization without ever considering the negative side effects and the current construction of many students. My idealism has run smack into the wall of globalization. But like any wall, this road block can be traversed.
The assumption that the “world is at our fingertips” only really applies to a “micro-minority” of people (Gomez-Pena, TDR. Spring 2001). This “micro-minority,” which unfortunately I’m one of, tries to control the rest of the world by proclaiming that our lifestyle is the most superior in the world. In turn, those with power (States, NGOs, MNCs, transnational movements, etc.) try to push their lifestyle, mainly devised by the notion that market liberalism is good, throughout the world. My website, in this sense, is no different. I have implicitly suggested that every student would want to join because he or she will see the beauty of the site—my constructed world.
Culture of Conversation does not have to fall into this trap. Instead, the site actually acts as a reaction to the path American education currently is on. Because America is a hyper-consumerist society, where corporations have latterly hijacked our democracy, education is slowly falling victim to increased competition and the idea that choice makes Americans free. Many Americans see privatization as a way to save the education system. If privatization succeeds, education will be a for-profit entity and cause a diaspora of wealthy (in terms of socio-economic class) students away from impoverished students. Educational diversity will disappear, resulting narrow minded students. This departs from the historic understanding of what education means: the guidance of youth to make profound decisions, especially when the youth take control over the country, regardless of class. To define education in capitalist terms counters everything education means. Privatization will increase the competition in schools, leaving education as a system to win, not a compounding process. Also it will segregate those who can pay and those who cannot. Culture of Conversation goes against this idea and accepts any and everyone. (Culture of Conversation assumes that globalization will bring internet to more and more communities worldwide.)
Instead, Culture of Conversation provides a platform for youth to travel through, letting skills improve without ever submitting to competitive, market forces. Students working together actually improve more then students competing against each other (Johnson, Skon, and Johnson. American Educational Research Journal. Spring 1980). Different cultures can interact in-depth. Simplistic understands, which globalization creates, become obsolete when youth can interact with each other in a written, communal way.
So the question I want research and try to prove through the website is this:
Can Culture of Conversation take the good aspects of globalization (the shrinking off space because of technology) to counter the bad (the push for market liberalization in every aspect of life)? Can increased discussion create a discourse that is so complex and rich that understandings of different cultures pervade in an intersubjective space? I believe with more empathy human interaction can strengthen relationships to new levels. Having a space to work through this process is key. Culture of Conversation can be that space.
Then I realized this conversation really revolves around the positive and negative effects of globalization. If it were not for globalization and the advancement of technology, Culture of Conversation would not exist. What I thought to be a simple idea of students from around the world interacting through written English, assumes that (1) all students have access to the internet, (2) most international students actually do speak English, and (3) students would actually have self incentive to write. Basically, I took an extremely narrow and close-minded understanding of the benefits of globalization without ever considering the negative side effects and the current construction of many students. My idealism has run smack into the wall of globalization. But like any wall, this road block can be traversed.
The assumption that the “world is at our fingertips” only really applies to a “micro-minority” of people (Gomez-Pena, TDR. Spring 2001). This “micro-minority,” which unfortunately I’m one of, tries to control the rest of the world by proclaiming that our lifestyle is the most superior in the world. In turn, those with power (States, NGOs, MNCs, transnational movements, etc.) try to push their lifestyle, mainly devised by the notion that market liberalism is good, throughout the world. My website, in this sense, is no different. I have implicitly suggested that every student would want to join because he or she will see the beauty of the site—my constructed world.
Culture of Conversation does not have to fall into this trap. Instead, the site actually acts as a reaction to the path American education currently is on. Because America is a hyper-consumerist society, where corporations have latterly hijacked our democracy, education is slowly falling victim to increased competition and the idea that choice makes Americans free. Many Americans see privatization as a way to save the education system. If privatization succeeds, education will be a for-profit entity and cause a diaspora of wealthy (in terms of socio-economic class) students away from impoverished students. Educational diversity will disappear, resulting narrow minded students. This departs from the historic understanding of what education means: the guidance of youth to make profound decisions, especially when the youth take control over the country, regardless of class. To define education in capitalist terms counters everything education means. Privatization will increase the competition in schools, leaving education as a system to win, not a compounding process. Also it will segregate those who can pay and those who cannot. Culture of Conversation goes against this idea and accepts any and everyone. (Culture of Conversation assumes that globalization will bring internet to more and more communities worldwide.)
Instead, Culture of Conversation provides a platform for youth to travel through, letting skills improve without ever submitting to competitive, market forces. Students working together actually improve more then students competing against each other (Johnson, Skon, and Johnson. American Educational Research Journal. Spring 1980). Different cultures can interact in-depth. Simplistic understands, which globalization creates, become obsolete when youth can interact with each other in a written, communal way.
So the question I want research and try to prove through the website is this:
Can Culture of Conversation take the good aspects of globalization (the shrinking off space because of technology) to counter the bad (the push for market liberalization in every aspect of life)? Can increased discussion create a discourse that is so complex and rich that understandings of different cultures pervade in an intersubjective space? I believe with more empathy human interaction can strengthen relationships to new levels. Having a space to work through this process is key. Culture of Conversation can be that space.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
I wrote this during the summer of 2006:
The Problem with Education
Since teaching in Taiwan, I have realized the problem of education: numbers. Numbers have hijacked education. Students only care about grades and not material. Yes, grades are needed to determine if the student has improved in a given area and should advance to the next level. However, the idea of grades has changed. Grades no longer evaluate improvement. They now acts as the sole purpose of education: what the final grade looks like (and will it look good on college applications or resumes) overpowers everything.
It is not the students who have changed the meaning of grades; it has been schools and teachers. And, no, it is not Mr. Rogers who has influenced students to actively seek extra credit. Rather, it is the constant message education projects. Alarmed by the growing message of getting into a good college or get a good job; students are forced to beg for extra credit in fear of a “B” or a “C.”
In Taiwan, I have adopted a different message to project to my students: the elimination grades can increase education, and ironically, improve grades in the long run. Without seeing grades, the grades will improve! Amazing. This “no grade” policy may seem foreign to many of these students, but it has truly worked –even in an SAT class where numbers dominate, well, everything. The students have now taken two full exams, never seeing their scores. After each exam I go through looking for trends. Which areas –grammar, critical reading, or vocabulary –need improvement? From these trends, lesson plans are created to meet the students’ particular needs. This does take many hours to compute, but it allows for true learning. Education cannot be standardized; needs vary for every student. Changing focus depending on the students mistakes, the students main concern becomes education, not scores. With the elimination of scores –and stress the scores bring –students have increased their scores by an average of 5% --around 100 points --in only two weeks. (I did a complete percent-change analysis for each student to prove to them the "no grade" policy really works. Some students improved an amazing 50% on a particular section!)
To look at this educational digression from a broader perspective, it is, in my opinion, competition that plagues the system. Since when should education be competitive? Education’s main goal, simply, should be the education of children: to prepare them for the world; to help the advancement of our society. Yes, competition abounds in the “real world,” as it should, but education must exist outside of this world –the reason education never falls in the category of “real world.” Students seem to live within the world of competition –from the basketball court to acting stage to musical concert seats. It makes sense this competition should invade classrooms; however, it is the teacher’s responsibility to erase this idea, focusing on education alone. The results are in: the un-focus of grades works! Now it’s time to see a systemic change.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Fotomaps for the COC?
The structure that may help Culture of Conversation receive more attention from students, though a huge technical challenge, comes from fotomaps interactive approach for sharing photos. Instead of photos, Culture of Conversation’s map would consist of “conversation,” which could include, photos, videos, blog posts, forums, etc. Just as I dreamed about walking up to different tables in Linderman library to contribute to the on-going discussion, students in this new conception of the Culture of Conversation can zoom into different global areas to become involved, or just observe, different conversation/interactions. Instead of the flags next to names (as I dreamed up for a new style of forum), the interactive map would allow students to travel around the world, interacting with students depending on where they created their individual space, and visually seeing where Taipei or Jakarta are located.
The benefits:
• The map is a fun way to interact
• Conversations can include anything the student wants instead of just writing
• Students can write in any language, allowing students to write in their second or third language to practice.
• Searching for Colleges takes on a different meaning for international students. Students can zoom into, say, Bethlehem, PA and read what Lehigh has to say about itself. Students could also ask questions if they needed some information about Lehigh. Or, students could interact with other students interested in Lehigh University.
• The map would only be for high school students. We could restrict access similar to how Facebook started: only specific email address, as defined by various international schools, would be allowed to register.
The problems:
• The idea requires a programmer
Maybe some of the ideas from this can be translated into the current site without requiring drastic amounts of programming.
The benefits:
• The map is a fun way to interact
• Conversations can include anything the student wants instead of just writing
• Students can write in any language, allowing students to write in their second or third language to practice.
• Searching for Colleges takes on a different meaning for international students. Students can zoom into, say, Bethlehem, PA and read what Lehigh has to say about itself. Students could also ask questions if they needed some information about Lehigh. Or, students could interact with other students interested in Lehigh University.
• The map would only be for high school students. We could restrict access similar to how Facebook started: only specific email address, as defined by various international schools, would be allowed to register.
The problems:
• The idea requires a programmer
Maybe some of the ideas from this can be translated into the current site without requiring drastic amounts of programming.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Opening up: Structure for online education
Structure matters. To effectively teach, the structure of the course matters. This includes not only the syllabus or the grading rubric, but also more importantly structure means how the class runs. The structure is immediately set at the beginning of the course. If the teacher stands in the front of the class, creating a hierarchy, this format, as far as the students are concerned, must be reproduced. For example, an English class this semester started this exact way. When the professor tried to sit in the circle we somehow pushed him back up to the front of the room, back in control of the class. Alternatively, a class that starts with an absence of hierarchy will have trouble creating hierarchy once the class is underway. The professor who enters on the same level as students will stay on that level; resistance against surpassing this level will keep the professor in place. Both styles of teaching work and can effectively foster higher learning. The point is that structure matters and is set immediately by the teacher and held in place by the students.
Think of your experience: is it easy to change the direction of a class once it is underway? Does a certain format grow inside a class that cannot be changed?
What does this mean for online teaching?
In one word: everything. Starting an online course with the wrong structure creates a situation almost impossible to correct. With the right structure, an online course can create undeliverable results that the students (and professor) do not wish to end. The tricky part, though, is determining the best structure before the students arrive. This, unfortunately, proves to be nearly impossible. (Most likely, this is the case because sticking with the same method year after year lands your teaching style into an archaic rhythm.)
Think of blackboard at Lehigh University. This is a structure full-time students understand and embrace well. But looking at how the majority of classes use blackboard, I notice that many of the capabilities blackboard offers remain untapped. (This happens for numerous reasons, but the point is that it does happen.) Students become structured to think blackboard means a place to download files, maybe a place to write a “blog” post. Anything beyond these “normal” capabilities receive backlash by the students, forcing the standard structure back into place. Now take a class of off-site students who take primarily online courses. These students only see blackboard in full force: video, audio, group work, assignments, tests, quizzes, and instant polls. The structures for primarily online classes work because it is set from the onset. (These students would think an online class absent these features would be abnormal.) But this online style, too, limits the potential because the platforms beyond blackboard become foreign. Risk increases because the professor and the students would have to learn something new. Who knows what other capabilities exist for online teaching?
So, again, what does this mean for online teaching?
On the one hand a good structure needs to be set to enhance learning, but on the other structures need to adapt for new, different students each year, each semester.
Why online?
Teaching online can pull out greater conversation from more people in one designated space that actually transcends time. No bell will cut students off from communicating. Trevor Owen writes about an experience he had with online communication (in the 1980s!), “ The students interacted in ways that were a little like ‘talk,’ but also a little like ‘writing,’ and I began to see that their online interactions were quite like the very best of class discussion, only richer, deeper, and more reflective than most of our period-bound classes could sustain. I also saw—to my horror—that it was different students who were doing the talking. And worse, that the things they had to say to one another were things that were largely unknown to me, their teacher.” He concludes that, “what happens when you change the arena of discussion [is] different people talk.”
That, my friends, is what teaching is all about. Teachers don’t have the “answers”; students don’t have the “answers”; but a collaborative discussion can bring all of us—teacher and student—a little closer to the essence of “truth.”
I have thought up a rough idea for the structure culture of conversation should take. In essence it is a “no-structure” structure. The idea came while sitting in Linderman Library watching all of the students study at the big tables that line the main floor. Wouldn’t you like to be able to go up to each table and interact with each study group? If you don’t know the subject, either move on or just listen—you may learn something. Those that do spark your interest, please add your two-cents.
I will go deeper into the implications and barriers this idea has in my next post.
Think of your experience: is it easy to change the direction of a class once it is underway? Does a certain format grow inside a class that cannot be changed?
What does this mean for online teaching?
In one word: everything. Starting an online course with the wrong structure creates a situation almost impossible to correct. With the right structure, an online course can create undeliverable results that the students (and professor) do not wish to end. The tricky part, though, is determining the best structure before the students arrive. This, unfortunately, proves to be nearly impossible. (Most likely, this is the case because sticking with the same method year after year lands your teaching style into an archaic rhythm.)
Think of blackboard at Lehigh University. This is a structure full-time students understand and embrace well. But looking at how the majority of classes use blackboard, I notice that many of the capabilities blackboard offers remain untapped. (This happens for numerous reasons, but the point is that it does happen.) Students become structured to think blackboard means a place to download files, maybe a place to write a “blog” post. Anything beyond these “normal” capabilities receive backlash by the students, forcing the standard structure back into place. Now take a class of off-site students who take primarily online courses. These students only see blackboard in full force: video, audio, group work, assignments, tests, quizzes, and instant polls. The structures for primarily online classes work because it is set from the onset. (These students would think an online class absent these features would be abnormal.) But this online style, too, limits the potential because the platforms beyond blackboard become foreign. Risk increases because the professor and the students would have to learn something new. Who knows what other capabilities exist for online teaching?
So, again, what does this mean for online teaching?
On the one hand a good structure needs to be set to enhance learning, but on the other structures need to adapt for new, different students each year, each semester.
Why online?
Teaching online can pull out greater conversation from more people in one designated space that actually transcends time. No bell will cut students off from communicating. Trevor Owen writes about an experience he had with online communication (in the 1980s!), “ The students interacted in ways that were a little like ‘talk,’ but also a little like ‘writing,’ and I began to see that their online interactions were quite like the very best of class discussion, only richer, deeper, and more reflective than most of our period-bound classes could sustain. I also saw—to my horror—that it was different students who were doing the talking. And worse, that the things they had to say to one another were things that were largely unknown to me, their teacher.” He concludes that, “what happens when you change the arena of discussion [is] different people talk.”
That, my friends, is what teaching is all about. Teachers don’t have the “answers”; students don’t have the “answers”; but a collaborative discussion can bring all of us—teacher and student—a little closer to the essence of “truth.”
I have thought up a rough idea for the structure culture of conversation should take. In essence it is a “no-structure” structure. The idea came while sitting in Linderman Library watching all of the students study at the big tables that line the main floor. Wouldn’t you like to be able to go up to each table and interact with each study group? If you don’t know the subject, either move on or just listen—you may learn something. Those that do spark your interest, please add your two-cents.
I will go deeper into the implications and barriers this idea has in my next post.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Starting the research
I will utilize this blog while I explore methods, approaches, philosophies, and techniques for online teaching. My main thoughts going into this research are these: Education has been hijacked by competition. Students only understand education through numbers, grades, and awards. I believe an online community, diverse in its creation, can revive education into a fun, relaxed, enjoyable culture. Ideally, students will see education as a way of life–not the road to a career. Eliminating competition and creating participation are the two main barriers I see facing online education, especially education with zero incentives. Can it be done? Stay tuned.
* This site is private because I will write exclusively about Culture of Conversation. I do not wish for my brainstorm to be public knowledge. Once I work out my ideas thoroughly, applying them to my web site, I will then post them on my blog, willbrehm.com.
* This site is private because I will write exclusively about Culture of Conversation. I do not wish for my brainstorm to be public knowledge. Once I work out my ideas thoroughly, applying them to my web site, I will then post them on my blog, willbrehm.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)