The more I study the nature of technology, teaching, and learning, the more I come to realize that the structure and design of most universities prevents deep, meaningful learning from happening.
Historically, universities have been designed similar to medieval citadels, housing and protecting the keepers of knowledge and all that can be known. These fortified institutions employ the gatekeepers that determine what is Truth, what is knowable, what is proper, and who is (and is not) allowed to enter and exit. In this sense, universities are bastions of oppression. Perhaps universities did not start out this way, but over time it is clear that they have developed what Paulo Freire would call an oppressor consciousness, transforming teaching and learning into an object of domination. The oppressor consciousness is mostly unaware of the oppression it is responsible for. It establishes its authority as an inalienable right, a right that its caretakers earned through labor, effort and the courage to take risks.
Now, before I get too caught up in this idea, I must admit that I have benefited greatly by my university access. I have gained employment because of my diplomas. I even met the love of my life at my university. I have been allowed to network with a variety of sentient beings in a very humanistic sense. And even within its employ, I have been allowed to publicly cry the king is wearing no clothes! and still maintain job security and some limited authority.
So why the condemnation?
As a doctoral student, I have witnessed the development of new pedagogies, new forms of learning environments that build on a learners’ desires and skills and that meet both functional and educational needs. And I have witnessed many academics curse, ballyhoo, and condemn these new teaching and learning ecologies. And as such I have even been branded a “radical” for my beliefs.
What does it mean to be radical?
In my mind, being radical is seeing things differently. For example, it is looking at learning as the connections we form with other people. Being radical involves taking risks. It involves dealing with certain amounts of fear (mine and others) and responsibility. Being radical involves a re-visioning, a re-birthing of sorts; being radical is not a matter of being, it is a matter of becoming.
Paulo Freire was fond of representing the views of the oppressed, those of us working in repressive institutions. He suggested that those who are oppressed must understand that they are oppressed and take action against the oppression in a way that is authentic, human, wholesome, and life-giving.
I believe those of us who see the possibilities that teaching, learning and technology provide are in the initial stage of building a new pedagogy. This new pedagogy starts out by unveiling the world of oppression and through praxis (i.e., through critical dialogue, reflective thinking, communicating), commit ourselves to transformative action. This first stage deals with consciousness-raising; it takes into account the roles, behaviors and ethics of both sides of the debate.
Once the reality of oppression is transformed, this new pedagogy no longer belongs to only those of us who recognize its value; it becomes pedagogy for all. Those that recognize the value of this new pedagogy will be called “radical” or “subversive” since they will want to tip the balance of power in their favor. And this is an important point to consider. Freire suggested that the oppressed must struggle with the dual nature of oppression; i.e., while creating this new pedagogy, we must be aware of the current pedagogy and its forms of teaching and learning and not replace it with the same thing. I have seen many academics and educators use technology to simply do the same thing they were doing before, i.e., preaching from the stage, without thinking about what they were doing or how they were doing it. They used the technology to continue their oppressive style of teaching and learning.
What I am calling a new pedagogy is what George Siemens calls Connectivism and Stephen Downes calls E-learning 2.0. This new pedagogy is based on interactivity, on humans networking, in a usable, relevant environment where students accept more responsibility for their own learning. This new learning ecology provides more freedom and is more liberating in many respects, but with this freedom comes more responsibility, more transparency, more accountability for both learners and educators/academics.
This shift is beginning to happen as more learner-centered environments take shape both formally and informally across the globe. I believe it is our duty as educators, as role models, as netizens, to act critically, and consider the options carefully so as not to fall back into or continue oppressive teaching and learning practices.
As noted in the Wikipedia, “Sometimes the convincing force is just time itself and the human toll it takes, Kuhn pointed out, using a quote from Max Planck: "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
In the meantime, play on drummer...
