[This post originally appeared on create. connect. question.]
It’s a term, and nothing more. Here is what I think is most important: IT IS NOTHING NEW.
“edupunk is student-centered, resourceful, teacher- or community-created rather than corporate-sourced, and underwritten by a progressive political stance. . . . Edupunk, it seems, takes old-school Progressive educational tactics–hands-on learning that starts with the learner’s interests–and makes them relevant to today’s digital age, sometimes by forgoing digital technologies entirely.”
-definition provided by Stephen Downes
I have seen it discussed in flurries on Twitter. I have read Jim Groom’s original post, where he coined the term. I have followed some of my favorite bloggers’ posts about the term, and found some new ones, too. I saw a student’s take on it (insightful, as usual) and I have seen the much discussed stub on Wikipedia. I’ve done my research. I was even invited to share all the best “edupunk” ideas I use regularly (though I had to respectfully decline). I’ve seen all the hype and I just can’t shake the feeling that we have seen this all before.
With all respect to Andy Rush — I know, I know, maybe I shouldn’t take it all so seriously. After all, Jim Groom just seems like a crazy dude with a love for technology and learning. But here’s the thing: lots of other educators (and students) out there ARE taking it seriously. And it’s turning into a bunch of hoopla.
Good educators have been creating “student-centered, resourceful, teacher- or community-created rather than corporate-sourced” learning experiences for centuries. It is JUST GOOD PRACTICE. Let’s assume we are all well-read, well-versed educators who have studied the theory as well as had the experience. We have all read Piaget, Skinner, Postman, and Montessori. We have been teaching our students (maybe even through trial and error? God forbid!) and we have learned what works best. We know that “hands-on learning that starts with the learner’s interests–and makes them relevant” is the best — whether that includes digital technologies or not. So why do we need to label it something other than what it is already? It is already GOOD PRACTICE. To paraphrase Tina Turner (who definitely was not punk): What’s punk got to do with it?
I agree with Warlick when he says:
The term is important . . . because it associates with people’s images of themselves and what they do. . .
Edupunk as Portal comments, in reply to Stephen Downes
And although Warlick thinks it’s a good term because it gets people’s attention, we have to recognize that perhaps “punk” is not how all educators see themselves and what they do. This is, I think, what Mrs. Durff was getting at in her comment about it being a “distasteful” term. If I do all the things that are considered “edupunk,” why do I have to be called this? Can’t I just be called a creative teacher? I don’t feel “punk” and I don’t really want to be “punk,” for that matter. I just want to be a good (if not great) educator who does what’s best for her students and their learning.
Like Gardner Campbell, I am skeptical of this term. I agree with him when he says,
There was DIY long before punk, and long after.
Yes, it has sparked some interesting discussion, but will it change anything? David Gran thinks all this debate is furthering our understanding of eduators’ relationships to the global community via technology. I can’t agree with that. I think my understanding of relationships to and within the global community will continue to be fostered and developed without this misnomer. I fear this new term will be the measuring stick for our future educational endeavors. Will we be asking ourselves at every new lesson, assessment task, or faculty meeting, “Are we edupunk enough?” Do we really want this?
I can understand and take into consideration the true spirit that the term embodies, and I can see the creative vibes that it originated out of. That’s all fine and good — and perhaps Jim Groom never intended it to go this far. But I’ve already decided that I don’t really want the term “edupunk” to be how I am described as an educator, for reasons I’ve outlined above. Nevertheless, I do have a few genuine questions:
Insightful Question #1:
I have to wonder if the reason why this term gained such ground in the post-secondary edublogosphere is because post-secondary institutions traditionally have not been hotbeds of ultra-progressive, uber-hip, pedagogically sound teaching and learning. (FLASHBACK: I can count on one hand the number of professors I had who actually were good teachers. I distinctly recall one professor who gave entire lectures standing in one spot, reading from the textbook, pausing between pages to look at the ceiling — we all wondered if he was signalling to the mothership.)
This situation, that is the lack of effective teaching in universities, is of course changing. Many university professors are now actually (gasp!) certified teachers with B.Ed.s and the like. But I wonder how many university professors (outside of the Faculty of Education) have spent time in a kindergarten classroom? That’s where the REAL D.I.Y., hands-on, teaching and learning happens, ladies and gentlemen — we all have MUCH to learn from these very talented KG teachers, and I daresay more high school and university educators would benefit by spending some time in their classrooms.
Insightful Question #2:
If “edupunk” is anti-establishment and anti-corporation, does that mean a true Edupunk does not use any tools provided by large-scale companies? So does that mean no Google? no Flickr? no QuickTime? Alas - these are all tools provided by corporations. Does my using them mean I am succumbing to corporate interests? What about my association with and work for the IBO? They are a non-profit organization but still a recognized “brand.” Yet they are an organization that I believe represents learning needs and goals of students around the world, in the most open-minded way possible.
Image credits:
- Too much information by Violator3 licensed under CC 2.0.
- question con 3 by svilen001 under image license agreement.
8 responses so far ↓
Great post. You have written much of what I was thinking as Edupunk invites swept through Twitterland.
“If ‘edupunk’ is anti-establishment and anti-corporation, does that mean a true Edupunk does not use any tools provided by large-scale companies?” I was wondering how any new” -ism” can be anti-establishment. I was thinking that would be a paradox, especially Edu-Punk-ism because it spread so quickly and became so firmly solidified as a philosophy in our online environment.
Still thinking, yet I have been of the opinion that it is the “radical middle” that really describes what many stand for within the education “zone of proximity”. The middle stands for itself while taking from the left and right philosophies, as well as the corporate and open source communities.
We can use the -ism, but not be part of them.
Thanks again for this thoughtul post;D
@Sheryl,
I think you are right about the radical middle being the zone of proximity. I had never thought about it that way but you have stated it so succinctly here.
Maybe we should coin a new term for this and start an edu-meme about the power of the mid-standing Edu-rads?
This passage points to one of the problems with the metaphor; it makes easy the circulation of the notion that one must be anti-establishment and anti-corporate rather than critical of establishments, authority, and corporations. By focusing on the rejectionism absorbed by the meme, we perhaps lose sight of the value of the critical stance towards the way things are “done” in higher education that lay behind the genesis of the term.
“Edupunk,” in my view, originated as a reaction against a single entity (Blackboard, LLC) that encapsulates many of the broader problems existent at the intersection of commerce and education. BB’s dominance challenges progressive notions of teaching and learning, and many of us are trying to answer how best to combat the trend. The notion of a movement of folks who approach these questions in a way sensitive to all of the forces at play is appealing. “Edupunk,” whether or not it’s the “right” term, got those folks talking to one another, and that’s a good thing. It’s a bad thing, I think, that we’re all trying to understand what a punk is and whether or not we want to be one. That, I fear, is a distraction.
All this said, some of the tools you cite are central to the “mission,” because they empower teachers and students. That, I think, is the ultimate goal of edupunks like Jim Groom. The overthrow of capitalism is second. A close second. But second.
Hi Luke,
Thanks for stopping by and taking the time to comment. So you agree that the metaphor creates problems, notably the one that people latch onto about having to be anti-establishment and anti-corporate. That, in essence, is why I do not like the term — it uses the word PUNK. What does punk mean?
This from Wikipedia’s entry on Punk Ideologies:
In its original nature, the punk culture has been primarily concerned with individual freedom, which tends to create beliefs in concepts such as individualism, anti-authoritarianism, anarchism and free thought. Punk ideologies have often included a critical view of the world; seeing modern day societies as placing extensive limits on humanity. Punk ideologies are usually expressed through punk rock music, punk zines, independently-published literature and spoken word recordings.
Hopefully, after reading this definition you can understand why the term “edupunk” is inaccurate. You are talking about being critical of establishments, authority, and corporations. (an aside: And really, what teacher isn’t?) But the term “punk” implies something that goes farther than being critical.
The notion of a movement of folks who approach these questions in a way sensitive to all of the forces at play is appealing.
I agree. But I don’t think that movement should be labelled edupunk. It is a misnomer. And it’s not a distraction to discuss what a punk is and whether we want to be one because it’s part of the definition of the term!
Instead, let’s be those folks who question the authority, the corporations, and the establishments. But please — by doing so, don’t call us anything other than creative and forward thinkers. To attach the word “punk” to this kind of thinking is inaccurate at best.
And you inadvertently answered Insightful Question #1, btw, when you said, “By focusing on the rejectionism absorbed by the meme, we perhaps lose sight of the value of the critical stance towards the way things are “done” in higher education that lay behind the genesis of the term.” (emphasis mine)
The way things are often “done” in higher education is not the same as in primary and secondary education. I appreciate that you mentioned the genesis of the term in this manner, because that is one of the things I have been wondering about, and the reason why I posed Insightful Question #1 above.
Yes, I agree. The metaphor is problematic, because people are discussing what’s “punk” rather than the scholarship of teaching and learning. But if people “latch onto” the anti-ness of it, that’s ultimately on the “people,” not the term, isn’t it?
The definition of punk you cited is a little more nuanced, I think, than you give it credit for.
Being critical is not the same thing as being anti or rejectionist, and while tying “punk” to “edu” runs the risk of confusing pedagogues, we need to approach it in a way sensitive to the inherent conflicts… I believe it benefits from a more generous reading, a critical one. That’s more useful than tossing it completely out the window because one doesn’t want to be associated with punks, though one’s perspective intersects with the vague concept of “edupunk” in many ways.
Sure. You can name yourself anything you want. The mission still overlaps with some of what edupunks want. We’d all benefit from concentrating on the work, rather than the labels. This was a provocative and playful idea Jim put up on his blog (long-time readers of Bava know this), not a manifesto or a line in the sand. It should be treated generously and with humor.
Finally,
Not sure where you teach, but I’ve found in my experience that such teachers are the exception rather than the rule. Pleasant to find, indeed.
@Luke,
No, I don’t think so. I think it’s because the term creates the misconceptions. The term is inaccurate.
Look at the rest of the definition. You will see this: which tends to create beliefs in concepts such as individualism, anti-authoritarianism, anarchism and free thought. That’s the part I was getting at. I agree that being critical is not the same as being anti or rejectionist, and this is the VERY reason why I believe the term “edupunk” is inaccurate.
Perhaps, but the label is important. It is what names the concept. I go back to the quote I chose in my original post from David Warlick. The term is important.
You can find more information about me and my background on the About page. And, as I said earlier, perhaps this is because the majority of the teachers you’ve seen are in post-secondary institutions. I scanned your posts over at cac.ophony.org and from what I could tell, it looks as though your experience is limited to this division of education. The most progressive, critical, and creative teachers I have met are those who teach 4-, 5-, and 6-year-olds. So I very much have to disagree and say that the majority of teachers ARE critical of establishments, authority, and corporations. This is because we actively encourage our students to be critical thinkers, innovators, and problem-solvers, not rote-learners. Perhaps your experience, is different — like I said — related to the query I posted in Insightful Question #1, about universities (aside from within the Faculty of Education) not usually being on the cutting-edge of pedagogy.
It’s a metaphor… we can attack and reject it for the spaces where it fails to connect, or we can find whatever value there is in it and move on.
Emphasizing anti-authoritarianism (which I think can be healthy) and anarchy (which I think is useless) willingly neglects the other more obviously progressive aspects. I much prefer critical engagement and an approach that emphasizes common ground.
I’m also not sure whether you’re arguing that it’s “inaccurate,” that “it’s nothing new,” or both. My sense is that you have more in common with the ethos behind edupunk than you’d care to admit.
Yes, most of my reflection has been about higher education (which, after all, was the field about which the idea was originally written– the meme expanded it and detached it from its original context). But I have also worked in elementary education, have a child, and know much about student organizing and active participation research.
My point about teachers who raise questions about establishments, authority, and corporations wasn’t so much a criticism of teachers as a criticism of an inequitable, antiquated, and, in many cases, oppressive system of public education in this country. Yes, many teachers work against those problems and encourage their students to do so too. But, they tend to be exceptional.
@Luke
Both. The concept is nothing new, and the term is inaccurate.
I think you’ve misunderstood me. I confidently believe I have LOTS in common with the ethos behind the term, mostly because the ethos is what I’ve embodied for the last decade that I’ve been a teacher. I’m not ashamed to admit that — quite the opposite. I’m proud to admit that I connect to that ethos. It’s in my philosophy statement and is the reason I created this blog (as well as my other one). What I’m uncomfortable with is A) the ethos being re-packaged / re-labelled as a new concept, and B) it being mislabelled as something associated with “punk” — which is, as I’ve said before, a concept I do not identify with.
I guess I cannot agree or disagree with your statement about the system of public education in your country, because I’ve never taught in it, nor have I been a part of it in any way. But I suspect (based on my colleagues) that there are many innovative teachers out there, even in the USA, who are encouraging their students to be critical thinkers and who toss caution to the wind when it comes to NLCB, Blackboard’s re-packaging, and the like. Exceptional, I’m not sure — I have to say I don’t know enough to say, as my first-hand experience in education has not yet included America.
Leave a Comment