As I said in the previous mini-lecture, there are many ways in which visions of the education of the past (School 1.0) are actually comments on the present. The same is true for visions of the education of the future (or on alien planets, other galaxies, alternate dimensions). To a large extent, all of science fiction (like all of all literature) is about the critical concerns (the fears, the desires, the joy, the mysteries) of its own time and place.
We’ll be looking at some science fiction visions throughout the course. Let’s start with one vision of a “school” of the 24th century on the planet Vulcan.
(this one is a one-minute click, and it’s on a password-protected page. Just for our class. You’ll need the password in order to view it. I’ll give you the password. When you’ve got it and you’re ready to watch, click here, and then come back to this post.)
Watched it? What did you see? Isolation. Absorbing content (and repeating it back, it seems). Vulcan is an advanced planet and the Vulcans are an advanced race (you can tell by the spooky lighting and the holograms and the pointed ears). And how they learn is something that we would call…advanced? What do you think? (And notice that one thing that doesn’t change, as the end of the clip demonstrates, is the learning that happens when kids bring each other insults and aggression. More about that in another unit to come!)
Then let’s take a look at a humorous idea of how education can work (not sure whether Father Guido Sarducci means this to be past or present or future. You decide.)
I really only want to comment on the Star Trek clip right now, although Father Guido Sarducci is both hysterical and piercing in his commentary.
That particular clip of Vulcan is from a movie released only last year. In tradition SF form, it feels more like a commentary on today than on the future. (Although that film actually disappointed me in that regard. But that is a topic for another post.)
We are currently in the transition from School 1.0 to something different. Technology is allowing schools to experiment with different forms of education, such as this class.
Yet Vulcan seems to have taken some of the worst qualities of School 1.0 (in this case the rote memorization and spit-back techniques that are typically criticized,) and combined them with a disadvantage of School 2.0 (the disconnect and lack of person-to-person interaction.) Note that none of the teachers seem to be interacting with the students at all.
In fact, the teachers drift by, literally above the pupils who only interact with an uncompromising machine. In fact, we see no actual learning in this clip, only proof that learning has occurred. To paraphrase Vincent’s post about technology on the forum, this technological extreme has constrained the freedom of student-teacher interactions and it has removed all emotions from the learning process. Very Vulcan.
So while the Vulcan’s may be an advanced race, I think this clip demonstrates a less than advanced style of teaching. It encourages no free thought, no input at all from the students. It doesn’t encourage the kind of entrepreneurial spirit which I know is being encouraged in more cutting-edge schools today.
The Vulcan school clip is interesting when you keep in mind how their society works and what’s expected of them in their culture. The Vulcan race, in fact, is one that shuns emotions and follow the ancient ideology of the Stoics. So for them, a school where everything is cold and information without interaction is the perfect way for them to learn. They don’t want their students to grow up asking questions and they don’t want to encourage free thought. If you’re familiar with Star Trek, you’ll notice that the Vulcans are a very rigid race, resistant to change. How better to inculcate their children in their ways than to quash the free thought we embrace?
I see the Vulcan ways as a weakness(, and it does make me wonder how they became so advanced). Our freedom with emotions and thought and the way we learn communally is how we’ve gotten so far.
Here’s quote from that fine blurb on flaming that prof U posted:
“Fundamental assumptions differ but are never brought into the open. Goals are different but left unstated. It is little wonder that compromise takes so long. And even when consensus is reached, the underlying assumptions may be fallacies that lead to laws and programs that fail.”
I’m curious what your assumptions are about life and what is of value in life when you judge whether the vulcan way is more or less advanced.
Though I don’t entirely disagree with your points, our current and more “advanced” and “enlightened” views of learning have lead to a teacher-centered classroom to student-centered classroom or from the general trend of objective thinking to subjective thinking.
As post-modernism and its minions (irony, secularism, fountainesque urinals…) continue to permeate every level of society, our once collective assumptions begin to dissipate, like the idea that Socrates is someone everyone should know.
Take a look at this article in the American scholar: http://www.theamericanscholar.org/the-decline-of-the-english-department/
What does “actual learning” mean? And what’s the issue if we have “proof that learning has occurred”? The people at the top of the vulcan system decided that it’s important in vulvan life that these certain ideas and facts must be known by the pupils and the pupils learn them – what’s the problem?
Must every student be a epicenter of creativity?
I just got back from Japan where individuality is shunned and the collective racial identity and lack of individuality is used in unparalleled ways towards efficiency.
So to circle back, what is the goal of education? Which inevitably leads back to the question of what is the purpose of life?
First of all, Hi Daniel! It’s nice to someone new at MHC.
You’re right, I haven’t stated my assumptions concerning “advanced education.” So I will elaborate. I’m going to play a little bit of devil’s advocate, because I do think that it’s important for people to take English classes, and history classes, and be able to rattle off certain important dates and literary figures. But here goes.
As a society progresses along it’s current trends (being those of wide-spread education and technology, less hands-on jobs, higher educational requirements for many occupations, robots and cheap labor abroad replacing many jobs locally, etc.) education needs to re-format to best prepare students for this new world.
Today, it takes only seconds for me to look up multiple detailed pages about Socrates, his works, his death, etc. But do I have the skills necessary to compete in the modern workforce? Can I generate enough unique ideas and connections to stay ahead in the workforce?
I want to direct your attention to this webcomic: http://xkcd.com/519/
“Actual learning?” “Proof of learning?” I have no idea how to solve those problems. We know that a degree is no guarantee of a job, even though it helps. The article you directed me to was fascinating, but it also pointed out how English majors are not finding jobs. A business degree is a flimsy sort of guarantee that the graduate knows about business, at least. There are no guarantees he’ll be good at it, but maybe he will. What is an English degree bringing to the table?
And it should be noted that while the Vulcans have a system for judging learning, it’s the mostly-human Federation that chooses to send out a ship with no goal besides “exploring strange new worlds.” The Vulcans are happy to stay at home. The humans are having a great time out there in the universe. Who is more advanced? (obviously it’s subjective)
Concerning Japan. Well, I should mention that I’m something of a huge fan of Japan, and I’m trying to figure out a good program that will allow me to study there for a semester. (Out of sheer curiosity, what were you doing there? Did you have a good time?) I think the country itself has a lot of positives and a lot of negatives. Yes, they are very efficient. They’re so efficient, in fact, that they’re building robots that are replacing many of their jobs. So heavy on the emphasis on collective identity, that people commit suicide in groups, together. Factors in Japanese society have led to a drastic fall in birth rate, and their emphasis on “fitting in” has led to problems with immigration to bolster the population. I don’t think their system is sustainable over a long-term span of time. Hence my arguments for a new format to education.
So what is the goal of education? Well, it should be about becoming a more intelligent, well-rounded person. It should be about pushing beyond comfortable limits, exploring new ideas. It should be reading classic literature and mastering historical knowledge. But I’m in college to get a degree to get a job. I take classes that try to teach me about the world, but normally devolve into spit-backs of facts. But I think that there need to be classes for teaching me skills necessary for the workforce, I think we need to move to School 2.0, which should incorporate the best of School 1.0. But it needs to address the needs of the future, not the fuzzy nostalgia for the past.
Here’s the comic Jacquie posted. Be sure to hover your mouse over it to see an additional little tidbit!
I think that the Vulcan clip has some merit. It has been shown that some types of separation are positive for learning. The greatest example would be the separation between male and female students in a science class.
Studies have shown that men and women learn differently. Men, are more likely to rashly answer questions and women are more likely to answer only if they have the correct answer. When placed in the same classroom environment men usually scare women from answering, even though they have the correct answer.
Schools, such as NEST+m, have implemented separation of students based on gender to improve learning.
About Father Guido Sarducci’s clip: I feel that he points out some important facts about our education system as well. It is very true that a lot of students memorize facts only to take a test. What we learn in school doesn’t stick with us unless we use it often so I think that he expresses an unfortunate reality through his comedy.