In John Taggʻs book, The Learning Paradigm College, he does an excellent job of helping you discover a new lens by which to think of the College system. At first, I self-reflected on how I was a true student of the Instruction Paradigm. Now as I am studying to become a professor, he has given me insight on how to break down the walls of the Instruction Paradigm and move towards a Learning Paradigm.
As he describes the paradigm as a lens, a habit, and a language, I could connect how the paradigm truly is all of these. I connected mostly with his part about the paradigm being a lens. As I look through my own lens, I can see my experiences and how they have contributed to molding my lens. I can see how I have been trying to put new lensʻ on but have come up short.
Since I was most recently a student within this Instruction Paradigm, I understood the tactics and strategies of surviving college. I was very much of the mindset that I need to push through my courses to get my degree to get out. Fortunately, I found a mentor my junior year and she helped me see the value and role that college plays in the formation of todayʻs youth. It was not until my mentor interviened that I realized that college could be fun. Learning could be fun. I began to make the connection of how the things I was learning in one class would help me succeed in the next class and eventually in the real world and in life. I was, in my own way, breaking down the classroom walls.
Instead of forgetting everything I was taught as soon as the final exam was over, I began to find meaning in the subject matter and was able to connect the material to my life. This is what pushed me into graduate school. I wanted to continue to learn and I wanted to learn skills that could help me create the environment of learning I had just discovered. Similar to Tagg, I had no notion of these paradigms or that I was trying to change it but I knew that something was wrong in the way students were approaching college as a whole and I am intended to change that.
While it would be so nice if Tagg could just pass along a recipe for creating a Learning Paradigm college, the reading has shown that only time and dedication can truly bring change. The examples that Tagg gives were excellent ways of showing how there are colleges out there RIGHT NOW implementing tactics to change the paradigm. Tagg gave me great ideas for both in the class as well as approaching changing the paradigm as a whole. The most succicient information that he gave was the Golden Rule.
Now I am a stickler on the traditional Golden Rule. I do not believe people should be treated how you want to be treated, I believe people should be treated how people want to be treated. But with the way Tagg reworded the Golden Rule to fit the mission of changing the paradigm, the rule fit perfectly. "Do what you want your students to do. Be what you want your students to be."(pg.347) While at first I struggled with this concept, trying to make sense of how do I be what I want my students to be. I realized that right now, I am student, and I can actually practice this more effectively.
I now have on a new lens. While I feel like over the years my prescription has changed and it will continue to do so, I finally have found a working lens that gives me perfect 20 20 vision. I see the issues that the instruction paradigm has pushed into our system. I see the thriving learning environment that our school system should be participating in through the learning paradigm. However, it is by taking part in living the Golden Rule and making that change, only then will I be able to begin to connect my own dots of how to transition from the Instruction Paradigm to the Learning Paradigm.
Sunday, February 3, 2013
Saturday, February 2, 2013
Reflecting on the Schooling Movie
WOW! I can not begin to describe the thoughts, emotions, and information that I have been trying to sort through after watching the documentary, Schooling: The White Manʻs Last Burden. This movie was truly eye-opening as well as very moving. I am still processing through my thoughts of the movie but I thought Iʻd just share some of my general thoughts about my reactions.
One of my first thoughts of the movie was about the differences in impact for white people compared to the impact on minorities. I felt as though, as a minority, that I was able to relate to the things expressed by the Ladakhi people. I wondered if other white people in the class felt guilty. I wondered what the thought process was in a white personʻs mind verses a minority. While I know there are many other factors and experiences in molding a person, through personal experience, I have found that a person from an oppressed group of people processes things such as this film quite differently then a white person and such conversations are very interesting.
While Hawaii is by no means a third world country, the hardships of poverty are ever so present here in Hawaii and most evident within the Hawaiian people. I was able to draw on similarities on the idea of the white man educating Hawaiians and teaching Hawaiians the ways to have a "better life".
I really liked how the movies showed testimony of native Ladakhi people and showed how mothers were sad that their children went away. The movie repeatedly showed Ladakhi people who were disappointed that the students could no longer speak their first language, that the students could not survive as though their parents had, and consequently the students had lost their culture entirely. The school system had slowly weeded out any language, ability, and knowledge involving the Ladakhi culture. After showing how unhappy the people were with what their children were learning in school, the film showed footage of white people who were proud to say that the education system was helping the students. White people were stating that families were happy that their children went to school.
This part was very eye-opening because as I related that to my own culture, I wondered if white people that took over Hawaii and outcast our culture, truly believed that they were helping the Hawaiian people. My whole life I have thought that foreigners who took over Hawaii were well aware of their actions and the consequences of doing away with the Hawaiian culture. However, what if white people truly thought they were helping? While I still believe other people had other agendas, such as owning and selling Hawaii, I do believe there were some that did think that by teaching us the foreign beliefs, they were saving the Hawaiian people. The movie had a good point when the National Geographic guy suggested that the white people suggest to the natives that they have skills with which the natives could use. Rather than making the white way, the right way, the foreign ideas would be integrated into the culture rather than erasing the culture entirely.
Fast forwarding to today, the UH system has come very far in immersing the Hawaiian culture and/or history into the University schooling system. While I think there is still lots of work to be done, we are much more ahead then the Ladakhi people. My thoughts today are even though we are integrating Hawaiian culture into our higher education system with majors such as Hawaiian Studies, Hawaiian Language, Hula, etc., how are these students who have chosen to dedicate their education to Hawaiian culture going to be able to survive in our consumer driven society. Is the only job for a Hula major to teach hula or to dance for money? What jobs are available for a Hawaiian studies major or a Hawaiian language major?
The movie showed how the Ladakhi people are out in the fields and they are harvesting their food. It shows how the people are working together everyday to provide food and shelter for their families. In Hawaii, if a student wants to grow their own taro and live off of the land, as did the Hawaiian people of old, that cultural practice is near non-existent without cooperating with the laws and rules governed by the US. For instance, if a student wanted to become a taro farmer, they would need to sell some of their taro in order to pay for land, for water access, for a house, for electricity, etc. Is this plausible?
These are factors introduced by foreigners that are part of everyday society in Hawaii. How do we integrate culture into curriculum AND be able to practice the culture in our consumer driven society? What as HigherEd professionals can we do to help contribute to the success of cultural integration in the university system and how can we apply that outside of the university system?
One of my first thoughts of the movie was about the differences in impact for white people compared to the impact on minorities. I felt as though, as a minority, that I was able to relate to the things expressed by the Ladakhi people. I wondered if other white people in the class felt guilty. I wondered what the thought process was in a white personʻs mind verses a minority. While I know there are many other factors and experiences in molding a person, through personal experience, I have found that a person from an oppressed group of people processes things such as this film quite differently then a white person and such conversations are very interesting.
While Hawaii is by no means a third world country, the hardships of poverty are ever so present here in Hawaii and most evident within the Hawaiian people. I was able to draw on similarities on the idea of the white man educating Hawaiians and teaching Hawaiians the ways to have a "better life".
I really liked how the movies showed testimony of native Ladakhi people and showed how mothers were sad that their children went away. The movie repeatedly showed Ladakhi people who were disappointed that the students could no longer speak their first language, that the students could not survive as though their parents had, and consequently the students had lost their culture entirely. The school system had slowly weeded out any language, ability, and knowledge involving the Ladakhi culture. After showing how unhappy the people were with what their children were learning in school, the film showed footage of white people who were proud to say that the education system was helping the students. White people were stating that families were happy that their children went to school.
This part was very eye-opening because as I related that to my own culture, I wondered if white people that took over Hawaii and outcast our culture, truly believed that they were helping the Hawaiian people. My whole life I have thought that foreigners who took over Hawaii were well aware of their actions and the consequences of doing away with the Hawaiian culture. However, what if white people truly thought they were helping? While I still believe other people had other agendas, such as owning and selling Hawaii, I do believe there were some that did think that by teaching us the foreign beliefs, they were saving the Hawaiian people. The movie had a good point when the National Geographic guy suggested that the white people suggest to the natives that they have skills with which the natives could use. Rather than making the white way, the right way, the foreign ideas would be integrated into the culture rather than erasing the culture entirely.
Fast forwarding to today, the UH system has come very far in immersing the Hawaiian culture and/or history into the University schooling system. While I think there is still lots of work to be done, we are much more ahead then the Ladakhi people. My thoughts today are even though we are integrating Hawaiian culture into our higher education system with majors such as Hawaiian Studies, Hawaiian Language, Hula, etc., how are these students who have chosen to dedicate their education to Hawaiian culture going to be able to survive in our consumer driven society. Is the only job for a Hula major to teach hula or to dance for money? What jobs are available for a Hawaiian studies major or a Hawaiian language major?
The movie showed how the Ladakhi people are out in the fields and they are harvesting their food. It shows how the people are working together everyday to provide food and shelter for their families. In Hawaii, if a student wants to grow their own taro and live off of the land, as did the Hawaiian people of old, that cultural practice is near non-existent without cooperating with the laws and rules governed by the US. For instance, if a student wanted to become a taro farmer, they would need to sell some of their taro in order to pay for land, for water access, for a house, for electricity, etc. Is this plausible?
These are factors introduced by foreigners that are part of everyday society in Hawaii. How do we integrate culture into curriculum AND be able to practice the culture in our consumer driven society? What as HigherEd professionals can we do to help contribute to the success of cultural integration in the university system and how can we apply that outside of the university system?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)