Category: Schooling

Discussions of issues of schooling.

Posted on

Corporate Schooling, Not Public Schooling

I was listening to NPR earlier this week (but I usually have trouble listening for very long, since they really should be NCR or National Corporate Radio, but that’s another story). One of the (non-)advertisements was about the Broad Foundation and their program of recruiting corporate CEO’s to become school superintendents. I was flabbergasted. How much more blatant can it be that the real agenda for schooling is corporate? Yes, this is just what we need… more people “in charge” of schooling who have never set foot in a classroom (other than being a student).

So, what is the corporate (and political… I think they’re the same) agenda for schooling? Corporations want employees at the massive lower levels of labor who will not question the authority of those above them. They want employees who will follow instructions and “policies” without questioning or thinking about the assumptions that underlie these instructions and policies. For instance, how many times have you tried to work out a problem with an employee (even at the supervisor level) of a corporation only to have them keep repeating the policy without listening to your problem? Usually this happens to me on the phone, but it happened last week at Costco. I tried returning a TV a friend of my son’s gave him. However, since we’re not “members,” it is against “policy” to return an item. Does this make any sense? How could anyone buy a gift for someone else? Of course, the supervisor looked at me like he had no idea what I was talking about and just repeated the “policy” over and over again. The same sort of “policy” routine was just encountered at my doctor’s office when the staff people said it was against their “policy” to accept a patient (my son) with secondary insurance (I’m sure my doctor has no idea this policy even exists). Of course, when I mentioned that “policies” only serve to kill an organization (like a physician’s practice), they looked at me like I was talking in some foreign language. “Policies” prevent any kind of adaption, personal relationships, and flexibility of any kind. But, this kind of reaction by employees is just what corporations want. They don’t want employees who can think at deeper levels, who can actually relate to customers.

Corporations also want employees who will (unquestioningly) conform to certain (arbitrary) standards. This conformity can be in dress and appearance (which used to be the characteristic of IBM, gray suits, no facial hair, short hair, etc.), behavior, thinking, talk, and so forth. Individuality is not a value in such contexts.

In schools today, blind obedience, not questioning authority, and conformity are usually the standard practice, along with reams of policies. And, no where (with the exception of some individual teachers and principals) are concerns for the individual child to be found. No Child Left Behind is a prime example of a super-“policy” that has no concern for children. NCLB is concerned with political capital and with keeping teachers so busy with teaching-to-the-test that they can never teach children how to think, teach them in ways that develop deep and meaningful understandings, teach them in ways that help them develop their full capabilities and unique passions, and teach them in ways that allow them to develop into decent and creative human beings.

Posted on

My Banned Word List for Teacher Education OR Questioning our Assumptions About Learning, Teaching, and Schooling

Since 2009, I have been “banning” the use of certain words in my classroom. I’ve come to this point because of my intense irritation when I hear them used. I’m irritated because these words carry an incredible amount of baggage loaded with faulty assumptions and meanings that are rooted in problematic theoretical and philosophical frameworks. In fact, most of these words are used within the frames of positivism and mechanism. Both “positivism” and “mechanism” describe a worldview that is based on the notion that everything fits into nice little categorical cubby-holes, that we can quantify everything, that everything works like a well-oiled machines, and that our world works in very linear and predictable ways. If we’re honest enough about our own experiences, we realize that such a worldview is more of wishful thinking than a description of what actually occurs. Yet, our society and especially our schools are deeply embedded in this positivistic and mechanistic worldview – complete with the highly questionable outcomes of testing as a measure of learning or intelligence, repetitive practice as the way of learning, working with children as a process of “management,” and schooling as a technical enterprise.

My banned word list arose not as an edict to stop using these words, but rather as a reminder to examine the assumptions that underlie these words. These assumptions tend to be consistent with positivistic and mechanistic views. At the same time, the use of these words perpetuates a dysfunctional status quo of schooling and undermines our attempts to engage students in systems thinking and its holistic and organic worldview.

a. What are the assumptions underlying these words?

b. What is problematic about each of these words?

c. How are they inconsistent with the following notions?

  • classrooms as communities;
  • children as producers of knowledge;
  • the complexity sciences (chaos and complexity theories) as explanatory frameworks for biosphere, psychological, and cultural systems;
  • learning as constructive, non-linear, and recursive;
  • democracy in education and education for democracy;
  • children as inquirers;
  • teachers as mentors, facilitators, orchestrators, models, etc.

Banned Words

• Lesson Plans and Lessons

Whenever I hear “lesson,” I can’t help but think about some serious adult saying sternly or worse to some child, “I’ll teach you a lesson!” In addition to such a negative connotation of “lesson,” the underlying assumptions of lessons and lesson plans undermine authentic inquiry, complex and meaningful learning, and classrooms as communities. Lessons are discrete packages of teacher controlled and directed sequences of instruction. They occur during predetermined periods of time, which are generally quite short and inflexible. The content of such lessons is almost always delivered to various degrees of fragmentation and tends to be disconnected from other subject matter areas. Predetermined lessons disallow authentic inquiry that arises from the curiosity and questions of students. And, the entire approach tends to reject the power of spontaneity, the importance of emergent curriculum, and the worthiness of children as thoughtful decision-makers and contributors to classroom communities. Even though “lessons” and “lesson plans” are problematic, teachers do need to plan. Planning for inquiry and planning in ways that support the dignity of children needs to be done in very different ways and in conjunction with the children themselves.

• Closure

Why in the world do we want to close down any learning? In fact, as Gregory Bateson suggested, students should leave school with more questions than “answers.”

• Objectives

This term arose from behaviorist approaches to schooling. They were called “behavioral objectives” at that time. Even though the name has been changed, the approach hasn’t.

• Classroom Management

Based on the notion of control and the preparation of children for factory work, this term undermines approaches to classrooms as communities, where children share in the control of the classroom.

• Test

Testing and the quantification of “learning” is rooted in positivist traditions, but really don’t tell us anything about what children do and don’t understand or the depth and extent of such understandings and misunderstandings.

• Worksheets

Just drill and “kill.” They may allow for very superficial learning, but the learning is usually what is not intended: that is, “going through the motions can be enough.”

• Scientific Method (as a singular and linear process of knowledge production)

There are many scientific methods. The linear and dogmatic one used in schooling tends to kill curiosity and misrepresent the nature of science.

• Direct Instruction

If used more than 20% of the time and at the expense of engaging children in inquiry, communication, and the production of knowledge, then children’s real learning is minimized.

• Anticipatory Set

An over-used and out-dated approach to setting up direct instruction. As it is presented, it tends to narrow the possibilities and make teaching and learning a linear and lifeless process.

• Accountability (unless we hold banks, corporations, CEOs, politicians, et al. accountable)

Misplaced approach to assessing teachers. Typically accountability is based on student achievement, but it only perpetuates bad teaching and superficial learning.

• Piagetian stages of development

Way out-dated. It has been disproven by Margaret Donaldson. Her account is available in her book, Children’s Minds.

• Behaviorism – including:

  • rewards,
  • reinforcement or reinforce
  • behavior modification, etc.)

Demeaning to children, not to mention a superficial, positivistic, and simplistic view of learning.

• Prescriptive Learning

Just down right scary that we can view learning as something that is imposed upon others.

• E-Learning (& related terms)

At best, online learning is superficial. It focused almost entirely on content learning, which is only one part of learning and a decreasingly important part at that.

• On-Task

Another term related to “control” over children. How often are adults “on-task?”

• Efficiency (in teaching and learning)

Real learning isn’t about efficiency. It’s about taking the time to go into depth and extent, to play with ideas, and to question and test ideas.

• SWBAT (Students Will Be Able To)

This is a meaningless phrase embedded in positivistic views of teaching and learning, especially behaviorism.

• Age appropriate

More often than not this well-intended idea leads to underestimating the capabilities of children.

• Standards

Content standards are always questionable. Who decides what is and is not important to learn? What is the agenda behind such decisions?

Posted on

The Problem with Hierarchies

We live in a world of hierarchies… that top-down organization with a few powerful people at the top along with progressively larger numbers of individuals at each layer as we move towards the bottom. Our political structures, the military, the organization of businesses and corporations, the organization of schools and universities, and all sorts of other groupings tend to be hierarchical. Even most families tend to be organized as hierarchies. Such organizational schemes are so pervasive that most of us have no clue how to organize groups in any other way.

The problem with hierarchies is that they tend to set up dysfunctional relationships. They are not based on “seeing relationships” or on establishing effective relationships. Of course, some hierarchies may be necessary, such as with the military, where functioning is based on having centralized control. In most cases, this centralized control and power at the top is problematic for some of the following reasons:

  • Many of those who occupy lower layers tend to compete with their “layer-mates” in order to rise to the top. This competition can be ruthless and without concern for the well-being of others.
  • Those at lower layers tend to distrust and/or resent those at higher layers in the hierarchy.
  • Feelings of inadequacy and apathy are fostered.
  • People who occupy the lower layers tend not to have a stake in the organization and do not take the work seriously.
  • An attitude of going-through-the-motions is promoted.
  • The “look busy” technique is standard practice.
  • The top and the bottom are disconnected.

The alternative approach to organization is what I refer to as holarchy. Holarchies are embedded layers, where there is no top or bottom, but rather center and periphery. Control and power are distributed among the layers. Holarchic social structures are based on participation and shared “governance” among all participants. Some examples of such organizational structures include: (a) original tribal organization, where the “chief” or elders are at the center as models of leadership and wisdom, rather than as those in absolute control; (b) the Dalai Lama as model of enlightened leadership and manifestation; and (c) a few businesses where power and leadership are distributed, such as with W. L. Gore. In fact, the ideal of democracy is modeled as a holarchy with involvement and shared governance among all members.

Holarchies are based on establishing relationships and on shared power and control. Participants in holarchies operate through negotiation and consensus. The major question is: how can we move towards holarchic organization and away from hierarchy?

Posted on

“Stupid”

Earlier this week, my teacher education students completed their month-long moon study. As I’ve been doing for years, we spend a class session “debriefing” and sharing the explanatory models each student has developed over the month. In general, this session reveals the conceptual difficulties children and adults have in making sense of phenomena from a scientific perspective. The difficulties arise from the conflict between what we observe and experience throughout our lives and what is actually occurring. A common “everyday” conception is that the moon moves from east to west around the Earth. We develop this understanding from seeing the moon “rise” in the east and “set” in the west. However, with careful observation over a number of nights, we will notice that the moon moves further to the east every night. Such an observation indicates that the moon is actually moving from west to east around the Earth.

The problem that arises almost every time I do this is that a significant number of students feel “stupid” for having difficulty “getting” the concepts involved. Sometimes students are in tears. Other times, they retreat into some “safe” place while solidifying their dislike for science (and other forms learning). For some reason, I’m always taken aback by these reactions. However, I too fall into situations where I feel “stupid.” It’s the legacy of our system of schooling.

The “feeling stupid” syndrome seems to arise from our experiences in school. If you don’t “know” something, the subtle or not so subtle message is that you’re not smart. This labeling is further reinforced by our ridiculous obsession with testing and by a wide assortment of other situations, such as the TV show, “Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?”

However, the research in student learning shows that these faulty conceptions are evident in almost everyone (including highly educated people). These types of understandings are so basic to our ways of viewing the world that we consider them self-evident “truths,” even though they are not accurate. So, why do we consider ourselves and others “stupid” for not having a particular understanding? Why are these feelings of “stupidity” propagated by our schools and our social institutions? These negative labeling patterns are major disconnections and acts of psychological violence that hinder our ability to learn and to enjoy learning. Instead of feeling stupid, we could feel “challenged to inquire further” or “intrigued by another interesting problem.”

Posted on

Creativity and Kids

A while ago, I posted a short entry on creativity and children. The essence of this entry was that the politics of schooling with an emphasis on achievement and test scores is problematic. In fact, the current efforts in schools are actually acts of psychological violence against our children (and teachers, too!). Testing, accountability, standardized curriculum, oaths of allegiance to a corporate curriculum (yes, this is actually happening in a democracy!!!), scripted curriculums that teachers have to follow (why not hire a homeless person instead of a teacher?), classroom management as the way to “control” kids, and just so much more are all ways of killing the spirits and creativity of our children.

Sir Ken Robinson does a wonderful job of showing just how important creativity is for the education of our children. Watch his TED.com presentation – “How Schools Kill Creativity”:



Posted on

Children as Real People and Engaged Learners, but Schools Get in the Way

I mention in my book, Creating a Classroom Community of Young Scientists (2nd ed.), that “children are people.” Although this may seem obvious, the “institution” of schooling assumes that children are something less than human. In fact, children (as emotional, thinking, creative, and curious human beings) are totally missing in The No Child Left Behind Act. Children are merely pawns in the politics of education.

Fundamentally, humans are born as learning beings. From the moment children are born, they start exploring and making sense of the world. They learn one of the most abstract “things” we ever learn (i.e., language or languages) and do so within the first few years and with no real “instruction.” They come up with all kinds of explanations about the world (many of them are amazingly complex, but might make natural and social scientists cringe).

Children’s curiosity almost seems like a basic need. They crave learning  new things. Certainly from a biological point of view, curiosity leads to learning and learning provides human beings with tools for survival. For parents, the concern is always to what extent can you let children pursue their curiosity? If they curiously explore an electrical socket or a cabinet full of chemicals, they could end up getting seriously injured or worse. However, some parents seem to limit children’s exploration around all kinds of personal issues, like “not wanting to be bothered,” “too noisy,” etc. Then, of course, despite the best intentions of parents, they go to school. In most cases, school is the death nell for the spirit of children, which is filled with wonder and curiosity, intriguing ways of making sense of things, an innate cheerfulness, amazing imagination, and an excitement for learning. Schools immediately try to “control” children and make them conform to some adult standard of behavior. They limit or destroy their imaginations and curiosity. They deaden the very process of learning. It becomes the drill and practice march into stupefication. No more excitement for learning, no imaginative play, no more curiosity, no more exploration — just boredom. I’ve seen this happen to my own children, despite our best efforts keep them excited and curious.

Children are capable of so much more than No Child Left Behind will ever allow them do. Then we test them repeatedly for days on end. And, not only do we test them, but we drill and kill them for months in preparing for the tests. It’s a psychological act of violence that parents should be standing up to and saying “no more!”

If we really think hard about what is important for children, we might find that what schools are doing is just the opposite. Of course, there are many amazing teachers, who work very hard at helping children grow in ways that keep the excitement for learning alive, but they fight an uphill battle against their administrators, other teachers, and parents. It is extremely hard for teachers, especially new teachers who may enter the professional with the right kind of ideals, to pursue the kinds of approaches to teaching and learning that will actually benefit children. Such approaches see children as the producers of knowledge rather than the consumers of knowledge. Children explore, investigate, and generate explanations for what they have found. This what they do naturally. Teachers just need to help them refine these skills, challenge them to go to new heights, support them in whatever ways possible, and take peaks at new perspectives and possibilities.

Gregory Bateson (anthropologist, biologist, a thinker way ahead of his time, and one time husband of Margaret Mead) said there were three ways people can find the limits of the possible: (a) exploration (try out new things, see where one can go, etc.), (b) play (fantasy play, “what-if” play, pretending, experimenting, etc.), and (c) crime (breaking the official and unofficial rules, not conforming to the status quo, etc.). If we think about famous people who have made significant contributions to society through writing, science, the arts, etc., have these people engaged in any of these three ways of pushing the limits? Do children engage in any of these before entering school? What do schools do when children engage in these?

[* Thanks to Lisa Smith for her painting of the unicorn frog © 1976]

(originally published June 28, 2008)

Posted on

Confusion – Double Bind or Connection in the Classroom

Recently, I was reading part of A Letter to My Students that I had sent them a few days earlier. Among the ideas that I mentioned were ideas of learning as non-linear and of learning as pattern thinking. After I finished a student asked the question, “… but how do patterns fit?” She went on, “they seem to be linear.” I started to respond, then I asked her to explain and she said, “oh, never mind.”

It would have been easy to just continue on with what I had in mind for the rest of class, but I insisted that she explain. As it turned out, she was thinking of patterns as the way in which we might create more rigid, linear, and repetitive approaches to our everyday lives. (Pattern thinking on the other hand is a recursive approach to understanding our world.)

The point here is that we often avoid confusion by solidifying our views or by side-stepping the point of confusion, as the student above was about to do. This event was a classic double bind. The typical situation for a student is that she if she asks a seemingly stupid question, she will look like a fool, especially if she exposes her confusion. On the other hand, she doesn’t ask the question and appear like a fool, she may end up getting a lower grade on an exam or other form of assessment. It’s a no win situation. However, as both Gregory Bateson and his daughter, Catherine Bateson, have suggested, double binds are not necessarily bad events. Avoiding or side-stepping the double bind event is generally problematic since it perpetuates a pathology in relationship. However, if one engages the double bind as a point of potentiality, all kinds of possibilities can emerge. They can be points at which one can connect in ways not possible when immersed in the pathology of a double bind. They also can stimulate creativity, new insights, and novel ways of seeing and relating.

The teaching – learning situation is full of double binds. We see the results of double binds in student dropout rates, in students’ “playing the game” of going-through-the-motions with no real connection, in student passivity, in student resistance, in student “pleasing the teacher” actions, and in the full array of schooling pathologies.

(originally published January 23, 2010)

Posted on

The Travesty of “Distance Education”

If you watch television, browse the internet, read magazines and newspapers, listen to the radio, or read bulletin boards and billboards, you’ve been bombarded with advertisements about distance education degrees, like those listed below:

  • “Earn an Distance Degree In 5 Days”
  • “Earn a degree online while you keep
working.”
  • “It’s back to school time-Have you
 registered for your online classes?”
  • “Earn A Degree On Your Sched.”
  • “Earn Online Degree Fast
Under $99/Credit hr. Books Included”
  • “Get Your Education Online at an
Accredited University. Apply Now!”
  • “A Quality Education, Convenient For
 The Career-Focused Professional”
  • “Online, Accelerated, Accredited & Affordable Degree Programs-Sign Up! “
  • “Earn Your Degree Fast. 100% Online.
Class Starts Jan. 4th. Apply Now!”
  • “Earn a Degree & Enrich Your Life!”
  • “Get a top degree at your own pace & 
time from an accredited university!”
  • “The Full University Experience
 Anytime, Anywhere. Learn How!”
  • “Pursue your degree online. It’s 
never been easier. Learn how.”
  • “The Smart Choice For Working 
Professionals.”

The first one is among my personal favorites. This ad really provides one with a great deal of confidence about learning how to write poorly (e.g., “an Distance degree”). It also provides an honest assessment of the value of such a degree in terms of the amount of time needed (i.e., “5 days”). The ninth one also models good writing ( i.e., “Earn your degree fast”). However, the one ad that is probably the most outrageous lie is “The Full University Experience Anytime, Anywhere.”

My sarcasm in the last paragraph does not describe just how disturbed and frightened I am about the very dangerous direction we’re taking in education. The “distance” in distance education is much more than the physical distances that such programs offer to span. The real dangerous distance involves a number of major disconnects:

Disconnect #1: “Education” (as in distance education) has nothing to do with “real” learning.

By “real learning,” I mean learning that not only involves deep and extensively interconnected conceptual understandings, but also involves (a) learning how to think deeply, critically, and creatively; (b) developing an identity as a learner and thinker in whatever disciplinary area one is involved; (c) learning how to participate in the community of that particular discipline; and (d) developing complex and meaningful connections to the discipline and its knowledge, ways of thinking, ways of talking, and methods (of knowledge production, inquiry, communication, and so forth). Such “real learning” cannot take place in an online environment, since it requires the connections and relationships to both the experts and compatriot novices in a variety of settings that include classrooms, hallways, offices, coffee shops, and other places where fellow community members relate.

Disconnect #2: Online programs are based on antiquated theories of learning.

Although a number of education researchers and theorists from the late 1800’s through the latter part of the mid-1900’s promoted approaches to learning that focused on “how to inquire” and “how to produce knowledge,” the force that has dominated our schools and views of education for the past 70 years or so has been rooted in behaviorism and the related mechanistic and positivistic concepts. Although very few people will admit to such a view of learning, actions and language betray that denial.

Mechanist, positivist, and behaviorist views are very seductive. They portray a world that is relatively simple and well-structured, with clearly delineated “right answers.” In fact, such a view portrays “learning” as the ability to demonstrate (i.e., select correct answers on tests) one’s recall of specific content knowledge. At the same time, this perspective does not place any value (a) on one’s emotional connections to the discipline; (b) on one’s ability to think analytically, critically, or creatively; (c) on one’s participation in a community of learners or professionals-to-be; (d) on one’s ability to solve problems or generate important questions. Such a view is basically a “deadened” or lifeless view of learning.

More recent research-based and theoretical frameworks of learning (including brain-based learning, constructivist and social constructivism, embodied dynamicism, learning as a complex adaptive system, distributed learning, and others) view learning as quite different. Learning involves much more than simple “book-type knowledge” that is “stored” in one’s brain. In fact, the more we learn about learning, the more we are finding that the processes of learning extend beyond the brain to other parts of our bodies and even beyond our bodies altogether. Basketball players, on-site technology groups, teams of scientists, actors in a performance, and other contexts where groups of people are learning together involves learning that is distributed among and cycles through the physical context and individuals. Conceptual learning is closely interconnected with emotions, values, beliefs, imagery, humor, aesthetics, physical and social experiences, and the whole of our human embodied experience.

When we remove the social experiences and contexts and limit the embodied social experience, we reduce “learning” to the acquisition of knowledge of words and disembodied concepts. When words and concepts are so readily accessible, we do not need education that focuses almost entirely on such knowledge acquisition. We need learning opportunities that focus (a) on the development of thinking that is analytical, critical, and creative (a part of which needs to focus on evaluating knowledge claims found so easily on the internet); (b) on the social negotiation and production of knowledge claims (as processes of participating in learning communities); and (c) on developing complex interconnections with subject matter disciplines that involve emotions, other aspects of our personal “contexts of meaning,” and the distributed aspects of learning and knowing.

Disconnect #3: The possibilities for learning as transformation are severely limited, if not impossible.

Learning, at its best, offers us opportunities to transform. Transformation may be the penultimate “learning outcome.” Such transformations occur when we have engaged in a learning context, when we have been challenged to re-evaluate our assumptions, and when we participate in a social context that both pushes us to delve into the world of ideas and provides the support of a “safe” social environment where we can take risks.

Disconnect #4: Learning as shared human experience does not occur.

As mentioned above, the shared experiences in online environments has a number of problems: (a) actual personal connections cannot happen, where people can see sphere of people and physical context with all kinds of information flowing in complex pathways throughout learning activities (video cannot capture this sphere); (b) shared experiences are limited to written words and possible myopic and/or tunnel-vision video views of others; (c) communication has the potential to be dangerous – that is, to promote disconnected communication where people have no stake in the social connections in an actual physical location; (d) participants cannot smell, feel, touch, and hear (more than whatever is “official,” if that) the context of the physical and social context – all of these senses are important components in developing contextually-embedded learning; (e) people cannot interact with others, including teachers or mentors, and with materials and objects in ways that are more spontaneous. Such interactions are phenomenally more meaningful and relevant to learners.

Disconnect #5: Emergent learning is grossly limited, if not impossible.

One of the most exciting and meaningful learning events occur where some idea, problem, or question emerges from the particular learning community and changes the direction of ensuing activities. Such an emergent curriculum provides a sense of “ownership” (by students) over what is being “studied.” Emergent curriculums value ideas, questions, and problems, while promoting recursive, non-linear approaches to pursuing understanding. On the other hand, almost all online environments are static and linear. Although our system of schooling and likewise most teachers do not promote or value emergent curricular opportunities, they could. Distance education cannot promote emergence. Emergent curricular opportunities occur where the spontaneity of personal interactions, safe environments, and conceptually and materials-rich contexts provide for meaningful, relevant, dynamic, and embodied engagement.

Disconnect #6: Online courses and programs promote a devaluation of engaged and connected learning.

It’s far too easy to play the game of going through the motions or jumping through hoops with little if any emotional and complex engagement in the material. As teachers, we can’t see the faces and body language or look into the eyes of our students as they engage in learning activities. For all we know, someone else is sitting in front of the computer. However, the point is that there is no real dynamic interaction between teacher and students, where teachers can change the dynamics in ways that may further engage students.

Disconnect #7: Learning as induction into a community of practice is one of a severely crippled approach.

As should be evident from the previous six disconnects, online environments are limited in the ability to help induct people into a learning community or community of practice. Virtual “communities” that extend “real” communities may be valuable, but they do not replace “real” communities.

Fundamentally, online distance education is a very poor substitute for education that occurs with groups of people within a physical setting. Of course, many classrooms do not function much differently from those that are offered online. However, we can make changes to such static classrooms, where such changes cannot occur online.

The dangers of treading this path of distance education are summarized in the following points.

  • Learning in a world of easy access to information is omitting the important learning involved:
  • in critical, analytical, and creative thinking;
  • in problem solving;
  • in problem posing;
  • in evaluation of knowledge claims;
  • in promoting knowledge production rather than knowledge consumption among learners;
  • in developing an “identity” as a valued participant in a particular community;
  • in developing the skills and attributes of a community participant;
  • Education is being trivialized.
  • Education is being devalued… even further than it already has been.
  • Learning is becoming increasingly superficial, disconnected, fragmented, and meaningless.
  • Online education is disembodying learning.
  • Online education is undermining the importance of spontaneous social interactions and emergent curriculum.

(originally published December 30, 2009)