There are several statements within the 95th theses that seem to complement Wenger’s chapter on identity and are perhaps illustrative of the views of community from the authors we have read so far.
34. To speak with a human voice, companies must share the concerns of their communities.
This implies that there needs to be a level of common interests and regard for the people that create the community. In an education setting our focus needs to be on the students. We need to understand their perspective, their needs, their weaknesses, and how to navigate those concerns to enable and empower them to achieve greater things. We should put ourselves ‘in their shoes’ to understand their concerns. What do you want me to hear when I listen/observe/participate with you? How do you want this to inform me? Are you clear about your expectations of this communication? This is what I am hearing- was this your intention? What aren’t you telling me? What do you want me to do with this information? By understanding how they view education in our classroom, we can better educate them.
38. Human communities are based on discourse–on human speech about human concerns.
Human discourse is a powerful tool for the building of communities. It’s the association and communication of thoughts ideas, practices, and beliefs that draw people together to form communities. Wegner speaks of organizations fostering learning by sustaining communities of practice that make up the organization. Likewise, cluetrain talks of the need for companies to resist the urge of organizing from top down, but rather letting the community organize themselves and create their own practices.
95. We are waking up and linking to each other. We are watching. But we are not waiting.
Learning happens regardless of the structure we impose upon education. Wegner argues that learning happens as a result of participation in community, and that learning is not something that is separate from the “real world” or only happens during special time set aside for education. Along these lines, the cluetrain manifesto talks about the power of the communities formed of network connected people. Cluetrain is arguing for the power of participation in communities. We are constantly seeking out opportunities to engage in the kind of learning that makes us valuable to the communities we interact with. Engagement provides meaning through practice, practice informs perception, perceptions define experience and significance.
The glaring similarity and commonality between Gee, Wenger and the The Cluetrain Manifesto is the need to decentralize the creation of conversations that form community, identity, and design. All authors seem at first glance to argue for a need of a more egalitarian approach to not just learning and business but daily life. A closer look though may also lead one to conclude that they are not necessarily arguing for anarchy rather for more access to the creation process of the environment, a decolonization and a redefining of the roles. The question becomes whether or not such an egalitarian approach is possible? Can a the role of the teacher as an authority figure in the classroom ever really be eliminated? Can a community ever be a community if it does not have a leader? Lastly, can disruptive technologies fully be integrated into learning if their aim is to destroy the status quo and would they remain disruptive if integrated into learning?
Mark Brian Baker says
These are interesting questions you raise. The idea of breaking down barriers and encouraging active participation and collaboration is one of the fundamental building blocks of this course. Yet this philosophy is by no means a new one, neither is it dependent upon the use of technology. For example, your question “can the role of the teacher as an authority figure in the classroom ever really be eliminated?” reminds me of a school that opened around the beginning of the twentieth century in which the “teacher” literally had as much say in the curriculum as each individual student. Everybody had one vote. The author of the book in which I read this (which unfortunately I cannot recall) argued that this approach was a little too liberal–the students spent most of the time in recess. Nevertheless, this same philosophy gave rise to the creation of more moderate “kindergartens,” (children gardens) in which children are encouraged to grow, play, and discover the world for themselves. With the emergence of Disruptive Technologies, it is now possible to construct “kindergartens” for communities and students of all ages. For those of us with fond memories of the bygone days of sheer playing, learning, and socializing without the stresses of standardized tests, this may be an attractive alternative.
Chris Millet says
Mark – your comment abou the founding of kindergartens immediately made me think of the TED/Ken Robinson video one of our class teams showed during their synthesis presentation. It’s fascinating that the idea of kindergarten grew from the idea of allowing students to control the curriculum. At that point in their education, as you mention, students are encouraged to play and discover, or as Ken Robinson would say, they were encouraged to be creative. Unfortunately the kindergarten model is quickly discarded as students progress through their education, and thus goes the emphasis on student creativity and the opportunity for students to forge their own path. I can certainly understand the need for structure during the ensuing primary and secondary education. And to Team 3’s question, I doubt that the authoritarian role of the teacher would ever be completely eliminated. But I do like the idea of the teacher as more of a facilitator, where a certain level of chaos is ok and it is their role to shape that wildness into meaningful and productive activity. In that sense, the spirit of kindergarten could really be extended through all of a students’ schooling. I’d even suggest that it’s critical that this happens. As Wenger points out, learning is always happening when you are in a social environment, and meaning is a constant negotiation between peers and between peer and teacher. If you’re not putting students in a position where they’re actively engaging in this negotiation for meaning, it seems like you’d be missing a significant opportunity for learning.
NICOLE ROSE OLCESE says
I’m glad that you brought up #34, regarding how companies should speak about the concerns of their communities. “We should put ourselves ‘in their shoes’ to understand their concerns” is an important idea, especially in education. An educator can be up to date on all the theory/classroom strategies that he/she can muster, yet still not establish a sense of community with his/her classroom. Without this, ideas of identify and participation, among others, can be called to question. Devoting time to establish and discuss with students, no matter the age, what it takes to construct a community in the classroom is conducive to collaboration, open ideas, and expression. The idea of modeling in education also helps perpetuate that sense of “in their shoes.” When a teacher participates in the activities and assignments outlined in the class, the meaningfulness (another Wenger term) of what is being done seems to be supported.
Outside of education, this prompts me to think about company advertisements that seem to target this sentiment – a company unified with its members or consumers. An example is the Domino’s commercial where members of the company share negative comments that Dominos has received from customers – i.e. “The sauce tastes like ketchup” and using it to fuel a campaign that it is trying to improve its product. The feeling that the customers concerns’ are so important that they are basing their efforts around those concerns helps establish the feeling that those customers really matter. The ads for the new PC operating system fall under this category, too.
Michelle Pasterick says
I think that you have asked some really intriguing questions. When you ask, “Can the role of the teacher as an authority figure in the classroom ever really be eliminated?”, I would say that, no, this probably cannot happen, but that the ways in which the authority is used can definitely be changed (and are already changing in many classrooms, I would argue). As Chris stated, the teacher can be more of a facilitator who shapes the classroom into something productive and meaningful. I have read several authors (including Fox & Diaz-Greenberg, 2006) who suggest that teachers should go from being a “sage on a stage” (the authoritarian expert) to a “guide on the side” (the facilitator). While this may not be a perfect metaphor it does get at the core idea that teachers should not be the only and final source of knowledge and control in the classroom.
I am curious about your question “Can a community ever be a community if it does not have a leader?” Why does there need to be a leader in order for there to be a community? If everyone has equal value (or at least has their own part to play) in the community, can everyone work together to accomplish its goals without one person having to be in charge? I don’t know. I guess maybe it might depend on the type of community that you are examining. Interesting question!
AARON D BILBY says
I really love the question of “Can a community ever be a community if it does not have a leader?”. I certainly believe so. Does a community need just one leader? Can everyone be leaders of the community? Throughout my college career I have participated in several functions where I was designated as the “leader” of the function. Anyone who knows me knows I like to experiment with different things so I decided to take one of the functions I was involved in while I was an undergrad. at Penn State, the Severe Weather Warning Committee, and instead of being the leader of the committee, I took a back seat role and let the members of the committee run the show. At times it seemed like there was very little community between the members of the comittee and I did have to step in from time to time to get the train back on the track, but in the end, without my presence as a leader of the group, the committee members accomplished more for the committee than what I could ever think of. The members often brainstormed together to come up with new ideas on how to improve the committee, how to enhance our services to our weather clients and how to bring more membership into the committee. When one member of the committee had a problem with the idea of another member, everyone sat down and worked out a solution. The sense of community in situations where everyone was working together was overwhelming to where I honestly felt I had no part of the committee even though technically I was still their “leader”. So yes, I believe that communities can be a community without a leader provided the community acts like a community for a common good.
Seunghee Sydney Jin says
I think you brought up the interesting question, “Can the role of the teacher as an authority figure in the classroom ever really be eliminated?”, at the last part of your response. As Michelle said in her comment, I understand that teacher’s role should go toward a facilitator rather than an authoritarian expert. However, I still feel threatened and unsecure by this changing circumstance which seems to take teacher’s place. In addition, if teachers are not the only and final source of knowledge, this might cause some confusion to students among lots of knowledge available to them. The idea is ideal but I doubt its applicability in a real classroom situation which has certain amount of curriculum in a limited time.
TRACY THOMPSON says
I, too, think that you raised interesting questions regarding leadership and authority. First, to address the role of the teacher, I think Mark had an interesting suggestion with the idea of kindergarten. One of my classmates in another course is writing her dissertation on User Designed learning environments, which is similar to what has been described here describing here – students determining what they learn and how. Her research has led to investigating Sudbury Schools, which operate on just that principle – “people decide for themselves how to spend their days. Here, students of all ages determine what they will do, as well as when, how, and where they will do it.” It’s an interesting model, and certainly drastically different from the typical model of American schooling. In this model, there are teachers and administrators, and they have authority, but there is also a democratic system of governance in which each person (student, teacher, admin) gets one vote. I can’t say how that all plays out, in that I haven’t seen it in action, but it’s still an interesting concept. Related to this environment, my classmate found an interesting post from a parent of a Sudbury student, who admitted discomfort with the idea of the student playing video games all day, but followed that with the admission that he realized that it was his (the parent’s) problem, not the student’s.
As for the question about community existing without a leader, I think that it can exist without a defined permanent leader. However, I am not so sure that it can exist without leadership. That leadership can come from multiple different members of the community, and at different times with different goals.
LI-HUAI CHANG says
I like the way you integrate Wegner’s article and some statements within 95 THESES. When I read #34 one, the following sentence came up to my mind, “To speak to a student, teachers must share the subculture of students communities.” It is important for teachers to identify themselves as different charaters, such as friends, advisors, consultants or coaches, based on the position they stand at that moment. Humans are resource to each other, so teachers and students can learn from each other. Learning is not happening only at school; it happens anywhere at anytime. We need to step out from our original circle to participate and explore new stuffs.
I am not worried about teacher authority being eliminated because there must be something that technology or machines can not replace. And what is the unsubstitute character? It depends on how teachers express their unique and how they identify themselves. Does the leader necessary for a community? I think it depends on what members there are and what aspect you judge the necessity. If referring to kids community, a leader as guidance is necessary, but it does not mean that learning only happens from the leader. About disruptive technology, I think as long as we see learning is everywhere, learning technology is kind of learning, not simply a tool for learning, then it will be disruptive all the time.
YUNJEONG CHUNG says
I like the questions you raised: “Can a community ever be a community if it does not have a leader? Lastly, can disruptive technologies fully be integrated into learning if their aim is to destroy the status quo and would they remain disruptive if integrated into learning?”
I think it depends on the type of communities if a leader is needed or not: some communities could be created without a leader and managed well by its members but there would be a certain type of communities that a leader is needed. They might need someone who solves problems, decides what and how to do in the community. In this case, the leader’s authority would be inevitable.
About the last question you raised, I think it will take some time for disruptive technologies to be fully integrated into learning and I doubt if it remains disruptive as you said. Disruptive technologies are disruptive because it’s new. If people becomes familiar with the use of it, it is likely to be considered as not disruptive. People might seek another one
which is new and disruptive to them and this would be a never-ending task.
Thus, for me, to integrate disruptive technologies into learning means not to destroy the status quo but to make it better.
Ken Roberts says
I would like to comment on “can the role of the teacher as an authority figure in the classroom ever really be eliminated?”..this questions have been looked on different approach by different philosophies involving teaching. It really depends on the situation. Teachers should not be inclined in following only what they think is right. Remember that they are dealing with humans and a human person can not be boxed because it is simply evolving and changing. Approach in teaching should be dynamic.Willing to try different approaches and testing which one would benefit both learner and educator.
MATTHEW J HEFFRON says
The argument against top down organization is interesting. Letting the community organize themselves seems to be the best way to communicate between people and businesses. If the businesses listen to the suggestions of the people they are more likely to be successful in the technology age. Effective use of new forms of communication will help businesses get the word out about their products and services.
DOLORES M BODER says
I don’t think that there needs to be a leader in order for there to be a community. However, in certain communities there is a need for a leader in order for that community to operate more efficiently. No matter how student-centered a classroom is made to be, there still needs to be a moderator to ensure that the students are developing a true understanding of core concepts. Along these same lines, the idea of letting the community organize itself from the bottom up may work in the business world but I’m not sure how well that would work in the educational system. Yes, we need to listen to our students verbal and non-verbal cues to determine how engaged they are in the lesson; and maybe listen to their suggestions as to how to make the class more interesting to them. But how much say should we allow students to have in their education? Where do we draw the line? I’m not sure…
LI-CHUN WANG says
The questions raised in the blog posting are really interesting. Personally, I don’t think it is necessary to have a leader in every community and it depends on the participation patterns of the community. However, I think there will be core active members as well as peripheral less active members. Though core active members may act like leaders because of their active participation that they may initiate practice so that other members can participate. But these core members may not serve as authority because other member do not have obliges to follow them. When Wegner give examples of social practice, we can see there are leaders in some of the examples while there are no leaders in the others.
Another interesting question, “Can the role of the teacher as an authority figure in the classroom ever really be eliminated?” Even in many literature we encourage teachers to be facilitators rather than knowledge giver with authorities, it’s really difficult that the role of the teacher as an authority figure in the classroom to be really eliminated. It could be less authoritative. But as for total elimination, I doubt we can do that. Even in a quite student-centered classroom, physical or online, instructors nevertheless have to be a moderator of learning. More or less, there will be chances that “moderators” to be authoritative even when giving advice, especially for younger learners.