Part 1: Why Some Teachers Hate Big Bird

We Know that “Sesame Street” encourages children to love school if school is like “Sesame Street.”  Which is to say, we know that “Sesame Street” undermines what the traditional idea of schooling represents.

Neil Postman from Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business

Sesame Street is beloved by millions of children and parents worldwide.  Its enduring popularity is nothing short of a cultural phenomena.  But what is Postman implying when he indicates that it “undermines” traditional notions of schooling?  Is it possible that educators could dislike, or even hate Big Bird?

My last statement may be a bit hyperbolic, but educational entertainment has disrupted the way we perceive and think about teaching and learning.  I believe that there are 3 things that distinguish “Sesame Street” from traditional school-based education.

1. The majority of children enjoy it.
2. It recognizes that presentation is key (it is engaging for its target audience).
3. A lack of accountability.

Let’s address my first observation.  Sesame street is fun and children look forward to it.  They can sit and watch it for hours (this is purely anecdotal mind you, reflecting my personal experience growing up as well as my interactions with niece).  Some students enjoy traditional schooling as well, but I think many younger children would rather watch it than sit in a classroom.  This ties into my second point, the production value of Sesame Street is incredible compared to the average classroom lesson.  It is polished, slick and flashy.  I am not sure how to qualify this statement but I present the following clip about the number 12 as evidence.

Lastly, Sesame Street does not actually have to teach children anything.  It follows no set curriculum, assesses no outcomes, and does not have to publicly account for its performance.  How do we know that Sesame Street actually teaches anything?  Will students be tested or quizzed on what they have learned?  Will they have to take the skills that they’ve learned and apply them in a different context?  How effective is Sesame Street in actually teaching children to count, read, and comprehend?  Furthermore, who is the show responsible to?  Sesame street characters are heavily merchandised which in my opinion is a bit problematic (particularly given that HBO now has the broadcast rights).

Part 2 It’s Not Actually About Sesame Street

In our case Sesame Street is analogous to the smart phones, devices, and myriad of audio visual educational tools besieging classrooms.  With this in mind I would like to revisit my previous statements.

Children (and for that matter adults) enjoy using cell phones and applications.  As Valeska noted in her group presentation audio visual technologies are engaging to use and generate sustained interest.  According to Chey and Pav (a pair of Canadian educational podcasters) students who engage with technology gain a significant advantage over their peers who do not.  Whether we like it or not, many students are living out their lives through their devices.  These students do not see the reality of their day to day lives reflected in the way they are being taught.  Capturing the attention of students has always been an uphill battle for teachers, and resisting (or ignoring) the ways in which they communicate will not help.  There is certain degree of irony when I hear my colleagues complain about students constantly using their devices as they thumb through their cell phones in the staff room.

The dynamic and frantic nature of cell phone applications and social media is at odds with the traditional model of schooling.  Students are being sent a constant stream of notifications and affirmations from their devices.  Contrast this with an English essay that takes 3 weeks to get marked.  How can the slow feedback of classroom instruction compete with this?  Citing the work of Richard Mayers, Gilbert noted that multimedia learning follows multiple pathways into long term memory.  Are teachers taking advantage of this by denying the technologies that surround us?  It reminds me of a snippet of dialogue from The Simpsons (see below).

Finally, just like Sesame Street, audio visual technologies, and applications lack any sort of accountability.  As Bart argued many educational stakeholders (particularly the companies developing said technology) have motivations that are at odds with the goals of public education.  As he pointed out the Ed tech industry both commodifies students personal data, and justifies its own existence by prescribing technological interventions to every teaching woe.  Scott Widman was also skeptical of technology in the classroom noting its benefits were debatable, but ultimately unavoidable.  Teacher concerns over devices in the classroom are valid, as it is they who are often called to account, rather than tech companies, when a child fails to perform on a math test.

Part 3 The Grander Implications

Up to this point it might seem that traditional schools are just laggards resisting change.  In answer to this I would like to revisit the earlier quote by Neil Postman, by including some text that preceded it.

“Parents embraced “Sesame Street” for several reasons, among them that it assuaged their guilt over the fact that they could not or would not restrict their children’s access to television. “Sesame Street” appeared to justify allowing a four- or five-year-old to sit transfixed in front of a television screen for unnatural periods of time. Parents were eager to hope that television could teach their children something other than which breakfast cereal has the most crackle. At the same time, “Sesame Street” relieved them of the responsibility of teaching their pre-school children how to read—no small matter in a culture where children are apt to be considered a nuisance…

Are we integrating technology into the educational space, simply because we are too lazy to recognize its harmful effects?  Is resistance too much work?  By utilizing applications and devices within the classroom are we relieving and dampening our own guilt over how negatively they have impacted society?

Earlier I made the argument that teachers are failing to speak the language of their students (tech).  Students are constantly using devices, so why not teachers?  Is it not easier to give them what they want?  This reminds me of something I learned in a private art lesson as a child.  My instructor was pushing me to use oil paints and water colours to depict landscapes.  I wanted to do nothing but draw cartoons in ink.  He finally got frustrated and told me, “How will you ever improve and grow as an artist if you only work on your strengths, and never address any of your weaknesses?”  This applies to both students and teachers.  How will students ever gain patience and deep knowledge if they always get information in bite sized entertaining snippets?  How will teachers ever evolve and grow their practice if they cling to the same lesson plans from 20 years ago?  Both groups will have to move outside of their comfort zones in order to grow.

Part 4 Old Man Yells at Cloud

Image generated by Frinkiac

As a parting thought I think whenever we talk about the technology and change in the classroom we should avoid sweeping statements and the impression of false consensus.  For example in Sunder’s article he boldly proclaimed the following:

“It is a universal fact that children learn best by observing and copying the behaviours of adults”

Says who?  A definitive statement such as this should be followed by a raft of citations which are conspicuously absent.  How is he defining what is “best.”  If everyone in the field of educational research field agreed on this then why are we still investigating learning and teaching to this day?

Wideman makes similarly sweeping statements by stating that “we” (implying all teachers and educators) know three truths about technology.  Not four, not one, but three.  It is not that I necessarily disagree with his arguments, but the implication is that his ideas are universally accepted and not up for debate.  If I have learned anything from this course thus far it is that everything seems up for debate.

Have a wonderful day folks.