This week we learned about how teaching Klingon could actually help our students learn English better as well. From the readings, I have a few comments. Firstly, I am not sure I am as convinced of the necessity of teaching Klingon to teach English. According to the article,by studying the custom designed language of Klingon, (in which interest had spiked when the article was written but has dropped of late) students will learn linguistic structures and patterns that are common to all languages. While I am sure that this is true, it seems to me that the student might be better served by learning a language that is actually in use outside of trekker conventions and Big Bang Theory.
The problem, of course, is that learning Klingon is the hook by which the teacher is trying to interest students in the study of their own language. However, as all the benefits of learning of language structures and patterns gained from studying Klingon could also be gained from having the students studying an actual language in use by non-trekkers, it seems, the students would be better served by having the educational staff working to spike interest in a different language.
Another takeaway for me from the readings was that I think the success of these teachers depends as much on the fact that the teacher is incorporating their own passions into the classroom. I am operating under the assumption that anyone who has devoted time and energy into learning Klingon is enamoured with the language and Star Trek. I think teaching with passion like this has two major effects. Firstly, teachers are more likely to spend large amounts of time on developing lessons and pedagogies for their teaching if they are filled with passion for not only the subject matter ( which we will assume) but also for the methods of instruction. This will result in extremely well planned lessons and plans which could result in better run classes and better results. Secondly, I believe that when teachers teach with great passion, this passion is contagious which results in greater student involvement and greater interest which also fosters greater results.
So, teaching with Klingon, Yea or nay? I think I would have to fall on the side of nay simply because I am only a passive Star Trek fan. I don't speak Klingon and it is not my passion. I also think it is not the hook it was back in the early 2000s. However, I do think that if it were my passion, I think it could make a good pedagogy.
Sunday, October 25, 2015
Monday, October 12, 2015
Science Fiction and you
In schools, literary analysis in languages classes is sometimes a little predictable. Many schools teach a number of Shakespeare's plays, To Kill a Mockingbird and maybe a similar novel but it is relatively rare for a school to embrace the teaching of a science fiction masterpiece.
As a genre, science fiction has a bit of a bad rep. The nature of the beast is that the plots tend to be a little further from the norm and, if fantasy is included in the discussion (as it often is) sometimes the plots get way out there.
What educators need to remember is that one of the main goals of an artist (which includes novelists) is to look at the world and interpret what they see back to us. In this way they hold a mirror up to society and we can see our humanity in what they write.
In the movies (until the advent of believable CGI) for an screenwriter to go into the realm of the fantastical where anything s/he can dream up can happen, they would need to turn to animation where the physical boundaries of our world and the physics that rule it are immaterial. In fiction, science fiction and fantasy fulfill this role. If a writer wants to explore racism and how humans are often inhumane to each other in a way that drives home the inhumanity perhaps it would be better to cast the ostracized as aliens as in District 9. If someone wants to look at humanity's perseverance and how they function when threatened with a global problem, perhaps a zombie apocalypse is in order. The ability of a writer to set their message in any setting from any time or any space allows them the freedom to showcase almost anything.
This freedom, coupled with the often undervalued writing skills of many science fiction and fantasy writers, should be enough to ensure these novels begin to possess a premium place on the booklists of our schools.
As a genre, science fiction has a bit of a bad rep. The nature of the beast is that the plots tend to be a little further from the norm and, if fantasy is included in the discussion (as it often is) sometimes the plots get way out there.
What educators need to remember is that one of the main goals of an artist (which includes novelists) is to look at the world and interpret what they see back to us. In this way they hold a mirror up to society and we can see our humanity in what they write.
In the movies (until the advent of believable CGI) for an screenwriter to go into the realm of the fantastical where anything s/he can dream up can happen, they would need to turn to animation where the physical boundaries of our world and the physics that rule it are immaterial. In fiction, science fiction and fantasy fulfill this role. If a writer wants to explore racism and how humans are often inhumane to each other in a way that drives home the inhumanity perhaps it would be better to cast the ostracized as aliens as in District 9. If someone wants to look at humanity's perseverance and how they function when threatened with a global problem, perhaps a zombie apocalypse is in order. The ability of a writer to set their message in any setting from any time or any space allows them the freedom to showcase almost anything.
This freedom, coupled with the often undervalued writing skills of many science fiction and fantasy writers, should be enough to ensure these novels begin to possess a premium place on the booklists of our schools.
Tuesday, October 6, 2015
Selling School?
For decades, marketers have been developing and perfecting methods to convince us to buy things that we don't actually need an often didn't even want until we were told we did. In the article we read this week it was proposed that perhaps we could take some of the lessons learned from the marketing gurus and apply them to education. If only we could convince our students that they want to study, the hard work required for success is actually fun and that the academics wing is where all the cool kids hang out. The problem is that many of the techniques employed by the marketers are precisely what we work hard to help our kids combat. Many of the marketing techniques employ variations on pride, gluttony, envy, greed, and laziness (convenience) not to mention fear and shame and lust.
Even assuming that we could come up with new, less psychologically damaging marketing techniques, it does seem a little like tricking our students into learning. Isn't learning something that we want to be inherent? Don't we want our students to see the joy of learning and to recognize that feeling of ownership when they have mastered a new skill or concept? I think we would all agree that this is exactly what we want but we are faced with the reality that the students that we are teaching are living in a world where they are bombarded with constant media messages that shape their lives and the way they think and feel about pretty much everything. Education obviously needs to be reshaped. We are living in a 21st century world and are using a largely unchanged 19th century model of education.
In the past, with the hard core 19th century model of education, there was little concern as to whether a student was intrinsically motivated to learn or not. In fact, the model was based on an extrinsic motivation. If the student was interested in the subject matter, that would be fine but is largely inconsequential to the process. Today we are very (perhaps too much) concerned with the motivation of the students and work to ensure that the interest of the subject matter is such that it inspires the student to want to learn.
I don't think the answer is in using skills from marketing to convince students to want to learn. I think we are inherent learners. What is needed is a new pedagogy which taps into the students inherent desire to learn to work with them to channel this desire into various subject areas.
Even assuming that we could come up with new, less psychologically damaging marketing techniques, it does seem a little like tricking our students into learning. Isn't learning something that we want to be inherent? Don't we want our students to see the joy of learning and to recognize that feeling of ownership when they have mastered a new skill or concept? I think we would all agree that this is exactly what we want but we are faced with the reality that the students that we are teaching are living in a world where they are bombarded with constant media messages that shape their lives and the way they think and feel about pretty much everything. Education obviously needs to be reshaped. We are living in a 21st century world and are using a largely unchanged 19th century model of education.
In the past, with the hard core 19th century model of education, there was little concern as to whether a student was intrinsically motivated to learn or not. In fact, the model was based on an extrinsic motivation. If the student was interested in the subject matter, that would be fine but is largely inconsequential to the process. Today we are very (perhaps too much) concerned with the motivation of the students and work to ensure that the interest of the subject matter is such that it inspires the student to want to learn.
I don't think the answer is in using skills from marketing to convince students to want to learn. I think we are inherent learners. What is needed is a new pedagogy which taps into the students inherent desire to learn to work with them to channel this desire into various subject areas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)