This clip appeared in the “Recommended for You” category on the default YouTube page and I’ve just spent the last 15-minutes watching it. It’s a truly fascinating clip – in part due to its snapshot of the sociology and emphasis on gender roles of the era in which it was made (1947), but most significantly due to the similarities the “don’t” section (beginning to 8:00) bears to contemporary teaching practices.

In my view, given this video was produced in 1947 – that’s 62 years ago – the fact the same classroom dynamic remains largely intact to this day is a travesty for learning and is a clear indication of how firmly rooted the industrial model has become in education. The degree to which control and discipline overshadows a nurturing learning environment; the power struggles between an apathetic, largely unified student cohort with a single instructor; the singular flow of information from one to many; the threats and detention as a perverse, yet unsuccessful, means of maintaining student attention; the lack of personal relevance to the student – all of these struck a familiar chord.

Sociology, educational culture and technology

In terms of the significance that overarching social elements and culture play in the success or failure of the introduction of technologies or new ways of working to the classroom, this clip provides several significant implications. In the context of elearning, it highlights the idea that throwing a collaborative or reflective technologies into a classroom environment such as this is to virtually ensure its failure. The prevailing atmosphere, mood and social dynamic is diametrically opposed to open discussion and mutual respect; and a nurturing ecosystem where students feel empowered to stretch their own comfort levels or areas of understanding simply does not exist.

Upon what basis, then, can we expect that a medium that operates in a paradigm of free-flowing dialogue, interactivity and networked learning will succeed, when the same dynamic is completely absent offline?

The “Great” Debate

Some argue that new technologies fail to produce tangible learning outcomes because they lack any educational value. Articles such as the Chronicle’s “Web 2.0 Classrooms Versus Learning?” for example, points to the debate about technology and new media, which “…has led some professors to ban laptops. It has led others to argue that Web tools make the classroom a more productive place.”

In my view this debate is merely a sub-point or symptom of a wider, more fundamental issue, in which an educational system based upon an industrial model has produced a prevailing culture that has become so ingrained in the walls of the academy – in both practice and policy – that many no longer recognise its existence, the fact it is just one way of structuring education, and especially fail to question whether it is still relevant.

As a recent EDUCAUSE article points out:

“In this discussion, the elephant in the room is the industrial model of education. The industrial model, which emerged in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, aimed to improve efficiency and to prepare young people for factory jobs requiring repetitive tasks. As a consequence, intended or not, the industrial model tended to preserve the status quo. The industrial model was further characterized by strict rules and regimented behavior, identical curricula and expectations for all students, and an emphasis on basic skills of literacy and numeracy.”

In saying all this I’m not trying to suggest that technology is in fact the savior of learning and will prove successful in all circumstances – ultimately it’s dependent on a variety of factors and contexts. What I am suggesting is that the education system itself needs to be examined using the same rigorous inquiries, critical assessments and evaluations that it subjects its students to. We need to be asking whether the structure of the system – and the model upon which its based – is aligned with holistic, contemporary needs, and then evaluate the degree to which it is achieving them. If we determine there are deficiencies – major or minor – I would suggest we need to seriously consider the prospect of doing things differently.

Let’s hope this clip isn’t still representative in another 62 years.

References:

• “How To Maintain Classroom Discipline – Good And Bad Methods Training Educational Video” (1947). Producer: McGraw-Hill Films; Creative Commons license: Public Domain. Accessed 24 April 2009 from YouTube.
• Long, Phillip D.; Holeton, Richard (2009). “Signposts of the Revolution? What We Talk about When We Talk about Learning Spaces.” EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 44, no. 2 (March/April 2009): 36–49
• (2009) “Web 2.0 Classrooms Versus Learning?” The Chronicle of Higher Education, April 6, 2009.