Brain Behavior Institute 2009 - Emergent Pedagogy and the Web

I am curious about the discussion this afternoon about using emergence as one approach within a whole variety of approaches to teaching.  Is a teacher that attempts to use teach a lesson through emergence one day a week, one class out of five, really engaging in emergent pedagogy?  Or does emergent pedagogy need to occur continuously over long periods of time in order to develop the deep questions and understandings that emergent pedagogy seems to suggest?  My instinct is that the only occasional use of emergent structured lessons and experiences does not really mesh with the theory of emergent pedagogy as I understand it. What do other people think?

I didn’t finish reading the material because I did not understand it.    However,  I found the discussion in class, with the different examples and scenarios, very interesting.  In 1990 I retired from the Philadelphia Public  School System after being a Music Education Teacher for approximately 20 years. I realized that in my teaching career we were the masters of not only our class rooms but the materials we taught.  We had a Curriculum Guide but we also had the freedom to execute what was in the teaching guide.  We actually had fun and entered a 110 voice SATB choir to sing with excellence while representing our school in the Music Festival.  I realized that many school districts have dropped music in the schools.  So, I am thankful that I am not teaching in the school system now.  Instead I now have a 30 voice auditioned adult choir which demands my attention and to which I am directing the knowledge from this class.

I think that emergent educaiton challenges the concept of the teacher's responsibility beyond the realm of school.  I believe that emergence fosters an idea that education and learning is lifelong, while the temporary education system tells teachers that they must ready students for college; that college professors must ready students for "life," which seems to say that there is no longer any need for learning in life.  I think that this concept is sorely mislead.  Learning should be a lifelong process, and our education system doesn't entirely encompass this ideal.  Perhaps emergence can start a new process: stress the development, stress the ideal of lifelong learning, with conclusions and right answers as a secondary, helpful addition.

From a student's point of view, I feel like tests that colleges require, such as the ACT, are geared toward telling students that they should pursue what they are good at rather than what they are interested in.  I am quite positive that colleges thought that I wanted to pursue a degree an english because I did so well on the english and writing section of the ACT.  I think that this underlying assumption of the test really discourages the need to explore.  I believe, then, that emergence can tend to foster interests rather than what students are "apt" or "good" at -- because, while I have always been praised for my english abilities, I have no interest in pursuing an english degree.  However, when classes are taught in an emergent fashion, I would be more interested in taking an english emergent course because I know that the discussions could include my own interests and I would not just be fed information.  This, to me, is particularly stimulating and makes me want to learn more.

-----------------

Blog Examples:

Brie

Emily