In Teaching to Transgress, bell hooks states that “making a classroom a democratic setting where everyone feels a responsibility to contribute is a central goal of transformative pedagogy" (p. 39). The key word here is “responsibility”. Hooks concedes that learning is not comfortable. Having to confront deep-seeded assumptions is a difficult task. In fact, it can be downright painful.
But the teacher’s role in this process is not that of nurse-maid, coddling her learners as they navigate through this uncomfortable, difficult and sometimes painful process of shedding the old and donning the new. “Rather than focusing on issues of safety”, she writes, “I think that a feeling of community creates a sense that there is shared commitment and a common good that binds us” (p. 40). It’s this sense of community that makes it possible for her students to share their thoughts and ideas. So what if they don’t want to share and would prefer to engage in a more solitary analysis? Well, apparently hooks doesn’t have much truck with that. Students in hooks’s classes know that sharing is expected. Not to give voice to your opinions is a bit of a cop out. Learning just doesn’t happen if it isn’t given a voice.
Contrast hooks approach to that of Stephen Brookfield in Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher, and you can imagine that there was some bit of debate and comparative analysis in our online discussions this week. No more or less respectful of the painful process of learning, Brookfield
But what are the implications for online learning? On the one hand you could argue that the relative anonymity of the virtual environment would promote a safe environment. This is often the case in other online environments outside the learning paradigm. Case in point: social networking. As too many of us know either personally or through observation of others, people will often post things on social networking sites that they would never announce in a face-to-face environment such as a party or other social gathering. On the other hand, you could argue that the absence of visual cues makes it more difficult for a learner to judge how their honesty in a particular situation or on a particular subject will be perceived. In any face-to-face classroom there is a feeling-out stage at the beginning of the learning event. This may last from several minutes to several weeks, depending on the length of time that the learners will be together and each individual learner's stake in controlling the perceptions of others. Often this is also influenced by the leader of the learning – the teacher, facilitator or whatever you want to call them.
I recall a professor in one of my core adult ed courses who spent some time talking about a "welcoming stance" with regard to pedagogical practice. He referenced everything from signage (does it say “Welcome” or “All visitors must report to the office!”) to the actual body language of the professor, as being signposts that will indicate to a learner whether or not the environment is safe, welcoming of divergent views and diverse voices. He even went so far as to change his stance in the classroom as he lectured and led discussion. Picture a man in his 50’s, with a white-haired buzz cut and an earring, dancing back and forth on the balls of his feet. You can understand that, at the time, it reminded me of many football coaches that I had in my halcyon days explaining different types of stances for different positions, and downs and distances. And although it was the subject of some chuckles during our smoke break that morning, I wonder how that class would have played out online had we not had the visual cues that he was giving and even the tone and passion in his voice as an indication that he really bought into the idea of a safe and welcoming environment and wasn’t just lecturing on it's importance.
No comments:
Post a Comment