Autodidactic learning has been a continuous theme in my posts and reflections. I have discussed how I learn most often from books and the Internet. Even in college, in courses that require you to listen to lectures and take notes, I seem to always resort to reading textbooks and other materials on my own time to absorb the necessary information. This method of learning – one that emanates from and relates to the autodidactic drive – has gotten me quite far. I have routinely done well on tests and reports (in accordance with my standards). But I wonder. How would I fare in a situation that inhibits me from doing things on my own? I am going to attempt to conceptualize a scenario where in order to learn and succeed I must rely on the lecturer, the classroom conversation, and the activity immediately beyond the scope of my personal boundary. I am going to imagine learning medieval music history (a course I have already taken) without my computer, the Internet, or a textbook to rely on. Granted, imposing a technological handicap may not actually simulate a plausible, universal, or relatable method of learning. But the goal is to free myself from a routine method that lacks the motive (and ability?) of listening comprehension and to embrace the distinctive positive and/or negative features of learning and absorbing through listening and interacting:
—
Day 1. I take a seat in front of the classroom. Teacher walks in.
Gregorian chant… Music was sacred and secular. Mostly Sacred… Blah, blah, blah… Oook got it.
[Professor:] …The motet was developed from the clausula and is the most popular form of polyphony…
—wait, klajewla? klaujula? What was the name?
[Me:] Anthony, what was the most popular form of polyphony?
[Anthony:] Motet.
[Me:] No, the other thing the ‘K’ word…
[Anthony:] I don’t know what you’re referring to…
[Me:] The other thing she just said…
[Anthony:] Moe. Don’t know. Shut up—
[Professor:] …it was in contrast to the plainchant’s popularity in the Italian secular repertoire
—crap, what was? I missed it? What’s in contrast? The klajala???
Class Discussion after listening to a composition by the composer Leonin
That was, eh, OK. I would never listen to that but I guess it’s not crap…
[Professor:] How does Leonin’s style compare and contrast to twentieth century classical music? And/or to any of your own compositions?
Hmmm. Maybe in how his polyphonies require attention to the sacred words whereas today melodic polyphony has no rules… [raise hand to answer]
[Student:] Well, in today’s music harmony is more emphasized than polyphony. So, even though there are melodic polyphonies inherent in today’s music we don’t have as prevalent an amount as Leonin in medieval culture and especially later on during Bach. It’s a matter of cultural trends.
Ohhh, that’s a better answer. She makes a solid point. I guess polyphony doesn’t even exist to the same degree today… [lowering hand]
[Professor:] Moses.
[Me:] Oh. I don’t know… Well… I was going to say that polyphony in Leonin’s music emphasizes and elongates specific sacred words. I don’t know…
[Professor:] As opposed to…
[Me:] I guess… my own compositions. I mean, even when I write a chorale piece for synagogue, I don’t care for the words as much.
[Professor:] Good. Interesting analogy. You see, this is the concern of medieval music. It’s all about the reason why it’s composed. It informs what is written and how…
Alright… yes. That was lucky. Some awesome b.s. I guess it’s somewhat of a relative point. But her point was better. I don’t know. Maybe I should focus more on harmonies than polyphonies. That might modernize my music…
—
Please bear with my contrived and amateur inner and outer dialogue. The point I am trying to illustrate is how listening and engaging in interactive learning may have its positive and negative attributes. I am not used to embracing this style of learning. Even though it constitutes the majority of today’s educational style, I personally have not been subscribing to it. And of course, the examples I provided were clearly drawn from knowledge I already have on the subject matter, so the content is inauthentic. But perhaps, there are constructive and informative things to gain from interactive learning based on listening and internalizing others’ comments and opinions. However, the first example above does demonstrate the potential miscommunications and frustrations that occur while relying on this style of learning.
So the course is now officially over, your final grades are posted, and I'm having a hard time admitting that we're finished! But since we've had a course (and a terrific course, thanks to all of you) about the future of education, I guess it doesn't really have to be done. When are we "finished" with the future? 
I like the way this reflection seems to pull together so much of what was in the other reflections (even though this reflection was first!). We’ve got an acknowledgment here that there may be more than one effective learning style–even for a single student. And we’ve got more focus on that element of discomfort that Frieda was talking about. Sometimes a learning style that we reject, because it makes us uncomfortable, is one that should be rejected. But maybe not always. Maybe sometimes there’s a benefit in being uncomfortable, learning to accept that, and developing a kind of comfort with discomfort (if that makes sense).
I know your point was to show both the positive and negative aspects of learning through interaction, but I think the positive outweigh the negative, especially if one engages in some meta-learning and knows how to get the most out of interactive learning. For example, if your fictional self had not had the academic insecurity that prevented him from expressing his real opinion, his idea might have been validated, or he may have been able to come to see why the other student’s idea actually was better (in terms of logic, and not emotion). But I think you bring up a good point, in that everyone would get much more out of interactive learning if no one had this academic insecurity your character does. I wonder if moving education to the internet relieves some of this, and makes interactive learning easier and more productive, in terms of this particular ‘negative’ aspect.
Interesting approach, Moses. I like how you pointed out what it would be like if you were to be unable to quickly look something up (in your case, clausula) and the frustration that would come along with it. If I’m ever without my phone, I feel like there is a part of me missing for this reason. It’s not just that I’m unable to contact people, but I also don’t have instant access to any piece of information that would be available through my phone’s web browser. I wonder how we would all fare if we were forced to live with this “technological handicap.”