Yours is the first blog I’ve ever spent time with, and the process has been exhilarating. I’m interested both because it feels like a highly promising approach for the “portrait of a Vermont town” course Diane, you, and I discussed and because it feels like an energizing next step with my own writing. So I’d like to share these first impressions of the blog as a medium, then offer a few thoughts about your educational outlook as it’s stated here.

I love the fluidity of this blog, in which the context of a particular posting is embedded in its content. If we’re really open to the process, or “braiding,” of our writing, we’ll be much more likely to produce something true to ourselves and valuable to others. As a teacher who’s always incorporated journals into classes and who values conversation much more than lectures, this approach feels like an exciting next step. Thank you for opening the door!

One reason for my not plunging into blogging before this has been a fear that the technology would prove distracting for me and/or my students. But with help from you and other tech-savvy friends I’m ready to go for it. Your references to Illich and Freire, among others, offer a useful philosophical framework, as well.

So thanks a lot for the inspiring example. I intend to make blogging central to both my class and my personal writing this fall, and will definitely stay in touch with you about that.

On to the question of how your own exemplary writing and teaching relate to a liberal arts college like, say, Middlebury. After 35 years here, and with just a couple of semesters left on this faculty, I definitely have some reflections to share with you. The first is that it’s great that you’ve made this break into a much more fluid role as a teacher. The energy of your voice makes the rightness of your choice totally clear. Many individuals and communities will profit from this new chapter of your work. At the same time, I want to offer a sense of the enormous value of a place like Middlebury. Not that I’m assuming you’d argue with anything I’m about to say, but simply to complement your points in this posting.

It’s true that credits, expense, specialization, competition, and professionalization are all deadly serious dangers to the playful and creative life of the mind that should be our goal. Students and faculty alike often operate under too many atmospheres of pressure to enjoy ourselves or do our best work.

I also have to say, though, that this pressure-cooker of a college has again and again turned out to be a place where the most memorable and nourishing conversations have taken place for me and my students. Exchanges where literature comes alive, and where we long to see each other and take the next step in our understanding and our delight in the world. There’s often a necessary feeling of defiance about this aspect of education within a traditional college–a willingness to jettison the syllabus or miss the next scheduled event.

But I feel that such tension–between what Dave Smith calls desire and dailiness–can itself itself intensify our awareness of what’s really important. Contrast-value can be essential to staying awake. When I think back to recent classes on “Michael” and “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner,” or to class trips to hear Jean Ritchie sing or to climb Mt. Abe, I feel grateful to Middlebury for offering an educational structure from which these experiences of a life-time blasted off.

I guess my conclusion is that, while traditional institutions and structures can be oppressive, they can (and must) also be enlivened. Curricula, theology, and law can slump into dead weights indeed, but when overtaken by discovery, grace, and compassion can start to breathe again. And to dance.

I’ll be trying to learn some new dance steps at Middlebury this fall, thanks to your own bold explorations as a teacher.

In friendship,
John

Thanks for your comments. Lanny, I love to be included in Groucho’s company, and I do think the notion of “an encore career” quite intriguing though I’m not sure I like the term. It seems a little like an afterthought, the after-the-main-event career rather than just the next step in a life. I don’t see myself changing careers at all, just daring to grow the career into something more inclusive of all the parts of my life and thinking, if that makes sense.

Sean, that article hit a nerve with a lot of people; I find it simplistic and obvious. many are writing about how they worry that their own ability to read deeply has been compromised. I wish people would use their common sense–I shut off the distractors when I need to concentrate, whatever they are, digital or not. To read a poem or a story or a novel necessitates focus, attention, presence of mind. It also takes practice and mindfulness and determination.

Matt,

Ah, you take me on here. I’m delighted! I agree with you that science has been one of the few subjects taught in a way that is “open, fluid, and pretty exploratory” but only relatively speaking. My own science education–from primary school through undergraduate biology courses was deadening. Not a single teacher contextualized the theory, the formulas, the facts within our everyday lives. My daughter-the physics-major felt her college science classes pretty stultifying. All kinds of people I know found science intimidating rather than welcoming or illuminating in school. Good teachers open the doors to the imagination and exploration and possibility no matter what the subject. But too many are burdened by numbers of students, requirements, curricula, and inert administrations.

As for Illich–my response to you will have to wait for a blogpost–too much to say on that score.

I do need to pick a bone with two of the people that you quoted. First of all – Brian Greene. Does he live in the same America that I do? I taught 8th grade Science for 2 years, and I can vouch that every Science standard I have ever read, even up to the national level, REQUIRES science teachers to teach science “in a way that allows students to integrate it into their lives.” And most Science teachers that I know also do that. I have never heard of that NOT happening, except in the few cases where teachers get tired of trying to force students to do hands-on learning (oh yeas, some students…. even entire classes… some how end up being utterly rebellious to the idea of hands-on learning. I had one class that just whined over and over again “can’t you just lecture to us? I hate thinking….”)

You have to be careful quoting scientists. There is this thing called “new science”…. which is basically the old creationism vs. evolutionism debate taken to a new front. When creationists were able to come up with sound logical arguments about evolutionism become a fact (because you can’t observe it happening), the evolutionists began to chunk scientific fact out the window. You no longer had to prove something true for it to be a fact – you had to prove that it is most likely “not false.” This is dangerous in real life, because by the time that you are taking that new headache medicine, you have probably hundreds of theories stacked on top of each other to prove that it is “most likely” not dangerous for you. But what happens when one of those theories beats the odds and does prove to be false? You get these major problems you hear about in the headlines.

So, when the “new” scientists ran in to the policy makers at schools saying “ummmm… you haven’t proven this as a fact because you haven’t observed it yet” they countered that by attacking what is being taught in schools. There isn’t really a problem, at least in Science, with what is being taught is schools. It has always been open, fluid, and pretty exploratory by nature. The problem was a political and ideological battle was raging – who cares about facts?

I also have to disagree with Illich. Neither school nor college put any fear of any of that in me. That statement is total rubbish in my experience. My teachers always taught me to learn, to grow, to question. I had to check that date on him to see if he had been watching too much Dead Poet’s Society, assuming all schools are like the one depicted there.

Also, I’ve read a few articles recently about schools that are offering degrees that let students design their own degree plan. Apparently, it is becoming a very popular option with school administrators. Unfortunately, it is also apparently failing to capture much student interest. That makes me wonder. I’ve also noticed that the EduPunk movement is much more popular with instructors than students. I hope that we just don’t end up with another Montessori debacle on our hands. Fluid, wandering classes have never proven to be popular with the students. I know – I was in one of those in high school. We called it “gifted and talented” back then. Boring. They even made the mistake of letting us design our own curriculum. What did we do? Watched the lasted hit movies for six weeks straight (until someone finally wised up and pulled the plug on us). “If there is a new way, I’ll be the first in line…. but it better work this time.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/books/27reading.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

That being said, after reading these posts I’m extremely interested in where you plan to go with these digital learning centers (and the multitude of ideas floating around in posts.) I don’t have the link, but the NY Times recently published an article discussing the pros and cons of the Internet when it comes to reading and absorbing information–this has apparently become a rather prominent issue, and I’ve read other articles about it as well. I have no idea where to begin searching for an equilibrium between the Internet and less recent sources of information, but needless to say I’m interested in where you plan to go in regards to digital learning centers and other assorted things.

- Sean