Crossmedial teaching: the university's interface

By Jelke de Boer on 7 July 2009

When looking at new developments in technology and the possibilities to apply new ideas the educational system seems to be a popular field for opinions and experiments. The introduction of the computer into schools not only had a big impact within the classroom it also opened a wide range of discussions on classic education versus newer ways of teaching. We should off-course keep looking at educational strategies and learning styles continuously and try to improve them where possible. Many influential thinkers have interesting and appealing new ideas on the impact of the internet on our lives, or even broader, on life, the universe and everything. I think its great to discuss those ideas at conferences, but we should not turn our school system into some lab setup using a generation of students as our lab rats. Many ideas seem plausible at first sight but actually only apply to a very small group of top students. Or to no students at all. In fact most of the world changing new ideas on education are driven by an ideology, in this case the ideology of technology. Is our youth fundamentally different from previous generations? Do we need to change the way students and teachers interact now we have this great interactive thing called internet? Here’s a reality check from my teaching experience.

We need to agree before we can disagree.

 
Huh? Okay I’ll rephrase that. Interaction requires a shared knowledge base. Any discussion will find its offspring in some kind of consistent world view combined with specific knowledge of an issue. In the teacher student relation there often is a huge gap in knowledge. A student will be able to gather information using Google and Wikipedia but will not necessarily be able to put this information into a wider framework. Lacking this framework they most likely will miss a lot of relevant information. In my experience as a teacher I can always find at least one relevant piece of information that my students missed. I consider that lack of information is a serious handicap in any conversation.

Google is not a source

Let’s assume we do end up in a discussion. My student will present a case in which I am completely wrong. Ouch. First thing to find out is: Where does it come from and is it a viable source? Discussion requires rules on the value and use of information. And that’s exactly what’s wrong with Wikipedia. In general we don’t know who exactly wrote the entry and, in general, my students will not read all the references provided. Wikipedia is not always right, as demonstrated by the justice department of the Dutch government. Officials were playing a misinformation game, making absurd edits in Wikipedia pages. As a result 30.000 employees were banned from Wikipedia after an issue in Intermediar magazine on this information vandalism by staff members.

The professor should provide useful directions for further research

One of my favorite professors in the time i was attending the academy of arts used to carry a big suitcase filled with art history books. In my personal experience he provided the most effective interactive strategy in education i have seen so far. It would roughly go like this:

Student is working on a project
Professor watches the process for 2 minutes Professor opens his suitcase and grabs a book
Professor calls for student to come to him
Student stops working
Professor opens the book and points at a page
Professor says: You should take a look at the works of this artist
Student tries to find a paper to write down name of the artist
Professor walks away

Not really a discussion there. It’s more like providing a link to a specific web location which is useful for one specific student working on a project. It’s giving a guidance to students for finding relevant information based on years of experience (yes, this professor was an old man). I’d say its something like narrowcasting: Provide useful in-depth information for a niche group.

Animated conversations are extremely expensive

The example of the professor opening a book, showing a page and walking away took roughly 5 minutes. There was no discussion on weather it would be relevant or not, it was completely up to the student to find out. It did give students an opening into the framework of knowledge the professor was carrying around. Carrying literally, the suitcase was extremely heavy. A link on the internet may improve the physical state of the professor but i somehow liked the small ritual of the opening of the suitcase and the book as a solid source of information. I’m not sure but it feels like a professor spelling out a deep link to a web location seems to be wrong. In this form the teacher should be able to talk to quite a lot of students, finding a relevant link wont take any time since he is just sharing associations. Just think of the time a discussion without any research in a library (yes I’m that old) would have taken. I’d say a useful and productive discussion cannot be done in less then 20 minutes. It would effectively downscale the action-radius of this specific professor 400% and it would also take away the opportunity for students to research the value of a source by themselves.

Students don’t want to inquire they want to drink beer

Opportunity to research? Well to be really honest with you all while I was attending my academy sometimes I did research, but many times I did not. Why? Was I more lazy then other students? Or was I not interested? The truth is I was too interested, but not in the study necessarily. Attending a university is not just about learning to do some job, its an exiting phase of your life in which you learn many things without any professional relevance. Like what opening line the girls will react to. You may find out if beer tastes better then wine or make friends you will see for the rest of your life. Don’t underestimate the value of the social side of attending a university. Most people meet their partner during their study and marriages between people that meet later are significantly less stable.

Don’t focus pedagogy on the weakest or strongest students

Is a student that is focusing more on the social part of following education per se a weak student? Are the students who seem to present a weak product in inspiring way weak students? Our future seems to be designed by people who can present an idea much more then by people with a theoretical background. Did Jesus Christ present a solid theory on life, the universe and everything or did he inspire people? At least he did not exclude people that where not the early adapters of new technology or ideas.

A lecture can be inspiring

Guess we should all agree on this. It’s not the form, its the presentation. There is no such things as boring content, there’s only boring developers. or teachers. or professors. Same as there is no product selling itself there is no information spreading itself. Be inspiring! Try to learn from the entertainment industry and make a show. A college should be an event people want to attend because it offers them a specific value. The professor has left the building…

It’s education, not entertainment

So what makes a good teacher? Looking at my colleagues and the way student’s rate them there is an interesting twist. There’s the young group of new lecturers who all try to incorporate new forms of education in their programs. Opposite to us (yes, now I’m young again) there are the dinosaurs with the ultra conservative views on education. Ironically students don’t seem to care much about the form of a course; they are really clear on what they want. They want to be educated by people they respect for their knowledge of their field of expertise. The most effective way of teaching is giving original views on actual cases. An extremely effective way of presenting actual cases is… a lecture! Or to put it in more 2.0 like language, in the university setting content is king. I hope we all agree we don’t want our university’s to build up some kind of cult of the amateur.

A study should be a balanced program

Inspiring lecturers, real life examples and in-depth information (preferably information not publicly available) can spice up a college. But what is the position of a course in a program? Offering single courses is great for students that want to explore an area besides their study but it can never replace a complete program. A program should offer more then a collection of individual courses, there should be extra value in the way information between courses is linked. Think of an exhibition in a museum where the art of Picasso is not only shown but also compared to other artists and is put n a cultural historic perspective. Does the audience just enjoy the Guernica as a painting or does it get a better understanding of the relevance of art as a mirror of human nature? Presenting a complex story requires insight in different views and approaches, from different specializations. That defines our role as lecturers; we should look beyond our area of expertise and try to find a way to encourage discussions without the need of us to actively participate in all of those discussions. Discussions between students are as valuable as discussions between student and teacher.

At the Institute of communication we have a program where we are practicing this. We all start our classes with the following statement: all of our colleagues are not only wrong; they are complete idiots and should not be listened to in any case. Finding out why we are wrong seems to really awake our students. And not only our students, it’s a form of behavior we all can recognize in ourselves.

I hope after reading my entire post you think I am completely wrong, but you better be able to argue it!

tagged with: crossmedial teaching, education

Comments