From a recent Seth Godin blog post about respecting people's time: "The simple rule is: If this can be done on multiple tracks, at our own pace, it should be. If it creates a benefit when we all do it together, then let’s."
That sounds so reasonable and I'm sure that, on some level, the future of education may be contained in that simple pair of sentences.
But my nearly four decades of in-person teaching created habits and opinions that are tough to shed. I have seen posts that claim showing a movie in class, for instance, is a horrible waste of time. After all, the movie could be watched on the students' own schedules and the 2-3 class periods required for a movie would be better invested in answering questions, discussions, projects, and assorted creative activities.
I know I should adopt the "improv credo" of "... yes, and..." but I can't help thinking of some reasons to say, "No, because..."
My main objection is simple observation: If I provide a link to a two-hour movie (and that is rarely possible), what assurance do I have that any particular student will find that time within a busy schedule? And prior to our class period where all that cool creative thought is scheduled to occur? My experience has taught me that there will ALWAYS be a percentage of students who can't find the time.
When I taught a high school course on Shakespeare, I made it a point to show a filmed version of most plays. My reasoning was that we should read the play, of course, but that Shakespeare never intended that his plays be read privately. He expected them to be performed.
Later in my high school teaching career I would even show TWO versions of "Romeo and Juliet" -- still one of my favorites to teach -- starting with Zeffirelli's 1968 version followed by Baz Luhrmann's 1996 version "Romeo + Juliet."
Here is the trailer for the 1968 film. Here is the trailer for the 1996 film. Even a brief sampling makes clear the stylistic differences, not to mention changes in setting. I thought seeing both of those, even if they spanned five days of class, was worth the deep dive.
I wanted students to develop comparison skills while forcing them to also get to know the narrative and the poetry and themes a bit better. At least a few years I added watching "West Side Story" to not only enhance understanding of the themes but to get students thinking of how many movies and books and TV shows rely on the basic "two households" in conflict plot device.
In a perfect education world, I suppose the school day could be shortened, allowing for more flexible time for students to watch videos, etc. In a perfect education world, we could access the videos we need on demand, rather than having teachers buy the DVDs for classroom use (and I still have those). In a perfect education world, students would adhere to deadlines to do that "out of school" viewing and notetaking and come ready to talk about what they saw in class on a designated day.
I just never taught in that perfect world.
A lot of angst over education tends to focus on efficient time use, with a classic culprit being a harried teacher showing "Goonies" in class while sitting in the back of the classroom grading papers that have piled up.
Very rarely there would be a local stage production of a Shakespeare play with a matinee offering designed for students to attend.
We would go as a class on that field trip and all sit in the theater and experience the play live.
How was that different from watching a professional film version right in school, without the need for buses and permission slips and excuses from other classes for the day?
So Mr. Godin's "simple rule" reminds me that in education there are few simple rules.
No comments:
Post a Comment