Although this is a course about learning and education - and I work at university level in education AND, yes, we learn all of the time - I have to admit it was ages ago since I was a student. It's even longer since I was a pupil in elementary school. None the less, I - like a lot of people in higher ed - often start sentences with "When I was a student...". As even more people have attended elementary school than higher levels at university, it comes as no surprise that even more people often reflect/criticise the contemporary school system by starting their sentences with "When I was in school..."
We often fail to keep in mind that when those people were students, the university was (very and at times considerably) different from what it is now. Not to mention how things were in schools then versus now. Different times, different learning cultures and expectations, different levels of education amongst the parents - and the list goes on. A lot, if not most of which, effect the way education and learning takes place today. The social dimension of education should not be underestimated, as it has as great an effect (if not more) than administrative situations or the structure of education. As I have learned from attending my MOOC/The Future of Education there is a great deal to be said about differences in national systems, cultures, age/educational trends, and even schools (differentiated or not).
More precisely put, the educational system and the socio-economic identities of those who partake in the educational system at certain levels HAS changed considerably over the past (say even) 50 years. When people say "When I was in school, things were different" well they are right; things WERE very different. The new demands this places on the pupil, student, teacher and parent (as well as school system in general) is considerable. These new demands equal new roles, but I don't think it has changed learning in general. So I disagree with the thought that teachers, for example, will no longer be needed in the future. This is the backdrop for two main points I want to make today:
1: When we write meta texts about learning and education, based on our own reflection (reflection texts), how do we secure our texts against being subjective or too personal? My personal experiences cannot be said to be representative of the many. Especially not the MANY we are in contact with through the MOOC. We may be all talking about apples, but there are a whole load of different apples out there. Reflection (directed thinking) may make the material more alive, but it naturally can only do that for certain aspects of the material if reflection texts are a main part of a MOOC's learning strategies.
So, when I reflect on how universities or schools should be today and use my own personal experience as a background to reflect from, I am essentially reflecting from my individual and very subjective memory and and seeing everything else through those lenses. Furthermore, memory can, and does, trick you - so it is not really my experience I am drawing on, but rather my personal, romanticized version of a past, lived period of my life.
2: When we read texts (course material) and not specifically discuss and deal with the course material and the ideas there in detail and in a critical fashion, how can we secure that we are actually understanding the material? Do I understand this material in a half-baked fashion, pulling out those parts of the material which fit well with my romanticized idea of my own education?
Nobody is really putting me to the test with regards to my understanding of the core material. Not that I would be lazy and not read it (this is an optional course, so if you don't want to do it, quit), but what about to discuss the material with me and challenge my understanding of the material? Material such as this auld work your mind, change your way of thinking through actually understanding a different way of looking at a topic. Unless put to the test, I don't know if I can trust myself to have fully understood the ideas at hand.
My end reflection is that while I am working on this course - and spending dare I say hours on it each day (thinking about it, writing my blog, and generally being preoccupied with it in addition to reading and meeting people on discussion forums), I feel I am working really hard. I am working far harder on this, I think, than I did at times on my degrees. But working harder doesn't mean that I am working smarter - or getting more out of the material/course than I would if I had quality, structured intellectual guidance on the topic. To be truly successful with MOOC learning, you must be aware of this, and your conscious approach to MOOC learning needs to be critical, encompassing and thorough. If not, you can end up with half-developed ideas based on personal experiences and misinterpretations of theoretical material.
The difference with MOOC learning is that you have to be working on a meta-level with regards to your own learning all of the time. Not just learning the material, but questioning your learning and learning approaches. Is this challenging my thinking, am I open to these new thoughts? Do I understand them to the full extent that they can be understood, or am I taking them for what I think they mean - to justify my personal, subjective perspective?
That is a very difficult thing to do. I will have to give it a shot, and follow this thought up for later posts.
Ingen kommentarer:
Legg inn en kommentar