Five reasons you might be a romantic educator

Another way of looking at ‘integration’ of technology is to see it as a hybrid solution. I remember Top Gear reviewing the Toyota Hybrid car, suggesting “this car has two engines. Normally, in say a Bugatti, this would be fantastic, but here one’s electric the others petrol – neither are very good”. Rather awkwardly digital-traditional hybrids haven’t sat easily or consistently in school either. In many ways, like electric cars the infrstructure simply isn’t there. But I’m a romantic, and I think that rather than paint a picture of a ‘digital classroom’ – building romantic classrooms is what successful teachers are doing now, and these people are somewhat irrepressible because they understand digital culture and society more than the machine which seeks to control it. If this wasn’t the case, we would walk outside and the world would be steampunk. Here are five reasons I believe in the romantic classroom.

1. Ambivalence towards a tipping point.

Some teachers and students get a great deal, others nothing in between is ambivalent interest waiting for a tipping point. As classrooms and lectures today don’t operate in isolation from society, so it’s possible that kids don’t experience any continuance in how they learn with technology, and recent Australian report show no increase in student engagement or satisfaction in recent times. It would be easy to think if students have a laptop, then digital hybrid learning is changing learning on a wholesale bases. Without clear evidence on a wide scale, the question is how do we know hybrid education is better than an alternative? For example, government policy to allow parents to purchase a laptop for their child directly (as parents carry the risk anyway) and then to present digital education as a family and community concern.

Let’s pitch a something else. Say we create a digital department who’s sole job is to work on topics from and in the digital domain. Digital is already a social undertaking. It harbors networks of people
who have been working together, sharing research, arguing, competing, and collaborating for many years – create a superstructure where a willingness to participate has a reward system. The department is publicly visible in ways to which education might be generally unaccustomed, yet where scholarship and pedagogy that are bound up with infrastructure in ways that are deeper and more explicit.

2. The drop out zone

While this sounds exciting, even a depiction of the “connected educator”, the problem is that it doesn’t work (yet). Much of the current research is around how to identify students at risk of drop out which then leads to predictions of virtual school success. Overwhelmingly, they find digital-opportunities tend to benefit primarily already-advantaged learner and educational access does not equate to educational opportunity.  The advantage schools have in prediction lies in policy where kids are not really allowed to physically drop-out, where as online, dropping in and out is the experience loop itself – and completely normal. In higher education, students can easily drop out. In 2010 this cost Australian Universities billions of dollars. Drop out rates among teachers, in my experience is similar story. While 30 sign up for some technological training, only half show up and two percent will persist on a reflective process of experimentation – often  over 12 months before they believe it is successful. Along the way is a sea of self-doubt – and we know the human brain hates that sensation. This means very few become digital-explorers, most remain users of the provided infrastructures – and many do it perfectly well in the context of the institution. There’s no data on how long exploration lasts either, some feel happy to put down roots in some topic or interest, while others continue to roam the metaverse in search of wonder.  More pragmatically, when only 11% of Australian have a Twitter account (which doesn’t indicate activity), I seriously question how this use (exploration method) among educators can have all but marginal benefits,  It’s easy to tune in and drop out – and results little public-sphere or institutional improvement so far. It has no scale.

3. The utopian elevator to nowhere

The Gates Foundation paints a different picture, they believe “In this paradigm of next-generation learning models, students and teachers— both secondary and post secondary—will have access to high-quality, relevant, and engaging content in a variety of forms.” In addition they say they hold “a belief that providing investment capital to strengthen emerging information and learning technologies, collecting and sharing evidence of what works, and fostering a community of innovators and adopters will result in a robust marketplace of solutions and a larger pool of institutional participants”. In other words, throwing money at it will lead to greater participation and quality. It forgets that what people imagine and what they believe are quite different things – and that for many people, this is a very Victorian idea where mechanisation will lead to greater discipline. There are then people who are are going to challenge this – romantics if you like – those who highly value individual success, pastoral activity and local community (the rural life). Look on Twitter, which is more evident? People doing what Gates suggest, or the romantics?

4. The crash-zone

The point (to me) of using digital technologies is to shape it to discover something new and wonderful in it, to do things that are otherwise not humanly possible and open doors to break the illusion being presented by people who title things with cybertopian headings. None of what they espouse tackles perceptual infrastructure issues that hybrid idealism creates (making it worse). For example, we can use technology to demolish the utterly dysfunctional 9th grade electives and replace them with digital departments (which are not the same as virtual schools). Electives are generally a 2 line system that has been around as long as mass-education. It was a way of water shedding kids using the aggregate that the numbers who get what they want – are sufficient to perpetuate the chain, but not flood it.  In column A are four subjects and in B, another 4. You choose 1 from each line and there’s no guarantee of satisfaction or transparency. Typically is you like music and technology and they are on the same column, you can’t do it. This nightmare persists regardless of whether the school has laptops, iPads or a holo-deck. It’s insane to then moan kids are disengaged in a topic that they were herded into in the first place or think giving them a laptop will somehow make them more interested.

5. Great  teachers are romantics

I believe in creating romantic learning experiences, and these lead to deeper learning. It doesn’t matter if this is in adult, primary or secondary education. People are pre-wired mentally drop out if they believe something is crap or they can’t imagine any emotional engagement in it.  Kids who grow into using the Internet independently, focus at school on things they like (as do adults) – they create friend networks and vary interest towards their academic subjects based on their belief of success and intrinsic motivation – which they call ‘work’.  Kids now have so much access to digital youth culture that they can easily opt out of ‘work’ and into thier networks of i interest – most of which are highly romantic, based on friendship and binary opposites – as is the nature of youth. This is actioned as updating your profile, liking your friends, posting a photo, support a friend in crisis  and so on. This is what digital technology is for – to react against the machine and to escape reality (which itself is an illusion of the actual world).

To me, successful teachers which use hybrid technology (not opimal technology) almost always create romantic positive digital spaces. The poor ones use hammers and gears of the machine. The best create the illusion of a digital department (usually for almost no money) and bring in like-minded friends to fuel the richness of the experience loop they want- the bad ones hold a webinar and talk.

I think that by using technology is to discipline students. To me, those who use it to break the illusion, and open doors have a lot in common with romanticism and for the most part use it against the machine, just as Blake wrote deceptively simple poems, using the technology of his day. That seems kind of wonderful to me.

One thought on “Five reasons you might be a romantic educator

  1. The trouble is, that there is no data. You are still collecting it! You will not know for some 20 years yet. You cannot tell whether “digital” is good or bad yet, worthwhile or a waste of time and expensive resources. (The same applies to romanticism.) You do not know the future.

    So currently, all we can really say is that digital is the current fad. And romanticism, has a certain lack of utility in science and accounting. In fact, romanticism, computers, and gambling, are what set off the “Meltdown of 2008”, if I recall…. But you may not be a finance professor. Perhaps your home is still worth what you paid for it, and your interest rates still low. And of course, your RRSP, 401K, and other investments did not suffer a whit. My, but you are one astute investor! I take it also, that your pay doubled, your job is a s safe as ever, and etc???

    Also there are too many vested interests, today. Of course, Bill Gates wants computers in classrooms! That is where he made his fame and his money! And he has enough money that if every single IBM were trashed tomorrow, because God (Steve Jobs) came back from the dead and commanded it upon pain of HELLA… that every classroom have nothing but Apple products… Bill could still eat and pay the rent! So he does not care. Likewise, if Aliens landed tomorrow, and backed the Win-Tel side, and every Apple product on earth were vaporized…. Neither Gates, nor Allen, nor Woz, nor the resurrected Jobs would care! And the same applies to Google, Yahoo, Twitter, Facebook, et all…

    We are basically performing a science experiment on kids. We do not know what constant texting and Tweeting in 120 char bursts will do to their life, minds, or writing and communication “sets”

    We also do not know whether all, some, or a few students will perform better in life. Or whether they will learn more, and remember more, Indeed there is much evidence that they are acquiring the memory span of goldfish. They learn and recall nothing, because they figure they can always Google it. But knowing how to find info, and knowing how to use it, are two different things. Then too, everything is on the internet… but can you (or the students) actually find and use it efficiently? But who cares? The net tells me that a candidate for President (and many others) says that the US Revolution occurred in 1576, was fought in New Hampshire, exclusively on Bunker Hill, and that “the Brits got Whupped”, by Paul Revere, who told them, as they quaked in their boots: “Us ‘Mericans, wez got guns!” And of course, every word I just wrote is Gospel Truth, willed by Geebus and Homer Simpson. But I am an ignorant Canadian! What would I know of your little nation’s wars? Except that I lived in Phoenix Arizona for 10 years as a child. And a History Professor Named Dave Rickard at CeHs, taught me some different facts. Surely he was wrong! Like I said, “we have known knowns, know unknowns, and unknown unknowns. HELLA, we even have unknown knowns!”

    What will be the future? Does teaching the Prezi today, really prepare them for tomorrow? Powerpoint is still, after all, the language of business. Maybe we should teach them Open Office instead! Or some other program….

    Or, will we even have, or need computers in the future? You can laugh, but at one time abacuses were “the thing”. I remember being tortured to use slide rules in school…. And… I am sure you used a slide rule to write your column….

    Teachers today, are doing no more than the teachers in my day were… Or the teachers in Abraham Lincoln’s day were, when they taught him how to split rails and kill vampires…. They should perhaps be a bit more careful, and a little less self-confident…. Perhaps, after all, slide rules are not the be-all and end-all of technology. And digital? The same. And Analog? The same. And romanticism? Well, now that IS perfect. Ah, yes, the wonderful, perfect, altruistic, respectable, wise, careful, shrewd bankers and auto company executives! And what did Abe’s or my teachers do when they taught us how to slay dinosaurs with the jawbone of an ass? They were doing the best they could with what they had at hand. Modern teachers should be careful what they are hunting. And is that an automatic, or a semi-automatic jawbone?

    What with peak oil coming, and Nuclear Reactors proved unsafe, and wind and solar not being reliable…. And we have already reached our full potential for affordable hydro-electric power… And you know, about 12-15 Hiroshima style bombs set off simultaneously, over North America, would be enough to set up an EMP pulse wave that would wipe out most computers and the internet, as well as TV and Radio. Oh, the hardened military stuff would survive. But that will not do your laptop much good, will it?!

    I think the hybrid technology we should employ, is a little less special effects and videos — since we cannot all possibly become Walter Winchels, or Walter Cronkites, or Betty Whites, or Doctor Phils… And a little more partly “tried and true”, partly “it seems to work today”, and partly “we hope this may be tomorrow”.

    Think about it. Because when you are old, those kids will be paying your pension. Maybe. And there, I am being very romantic! Because an actuary, would be much more matter of fact.

Comments are closed.