As my goofy title implies, it was another week playing ‘with’ and ‘at’ rhizomatic learning. My path this week is sort of through cheating and sort of through enforced independence. It was mostly through acknowledging that the community is the curriculum.
And the hero? The lowly 3X5 card.
Our larger curriculum goal this week has been to write and revise a summary of Steven Johnson’s “Watching TV Makes Us Smarter”. I admit to over-scaffolding this week because the assignment is part diagnostic and part deliberate practice. I don’t think of these activities as particularly rhizomatic. There isn’t much enforced independence (well, perhaps in the discussion and analysis of the article) and a little bit of ‘cheating’–we are using a template for reading and writing the summary based upon a very widely used text from Behrens and Rosen. Templates are widely acknowledged theft of ‘organization’ which, for some reason, is not considered plagiarism. So I would have to say that much of my playbook this week is a default toward a teacher-centered learning hierarchy.
But there was a notable difference and it involved the use of the humble 3X5 card. I think of it as a crowbar to prise open a window to somewhere else–the rhizone.
Every day in this university-level comp class I give students a 3X5 card to write on. I ask them to write down what their expectation(s) are for the day on one side of the card at the beginning of class. I ask them to leave a little space on the same side because at the end of class I ask them write down whether the expectations were met in whole, in part, or not at all.
Also, at the end of class I ask them to write down what their expectations are for the next class meeting. I change this question sometimes. For example, next class meeting when they turn their papers in I will ask them to tell me what their expectations are for the paper (grade, time to get paper back, room for improvement, whatever).
This is my way of getting at the feedback and feedforward loops that live in the community of writers in these classes. And the whole idea would fail if I did not take their expectations with complete seriousness. It follows that if community is curriculum (or at least a major function of it) then learner hopes must be taken seriously
It takes surprisingly little time to sit down and type up the text from these cards afterwards. I have discovered at least for me that this transposing step is critical to getting down and dirty with what my learners overtly claim that they want. The final step is to take some time (think of it as an investment in community) in the next class to show how you have ‘aggregated’ their expectations and to talk about the ‘data’. For example, I noted in passing some of their specific expectations. Note that I did not overtly judge those who had general expectations. This led to a short discussion about how we are more likely to meet specific objectives than general ones. And that led into more discussion into feedback and feedforward. None of this took much time and all of it arose from the Dave Cormier’s rhizomatic idea–community is curriculum.
Here are a couple of sample 3X5 cards
In the top one, a very strategic student makes clear what her expectations were and that they were met. There is a lot to read in between the lines, but the added comment about the checklist is very good feedback and potential feedforward for other writings we will be doing.
The bottom one is subversive as all ‘get-out’. I read here a profound intelligence that doesn’t like to be boxed in, yet I also read someone who is willing to play the game if you will allow him to make a game of it. I think he hints that he might like to make a game of it. And isn’t that a damned fine idea.
Problems for me during the week
1. Still feeling like I am scaffolding too much. Feels like a necessary compromise that is inspired by my limitations and blindspots.
2. Some strategic student pushback. I know from feedback that some students were upset at first by my relative lack of scaffolding in beginning the summary assignment.
3. Noting in myself and learners a ‘tendency toward the default’. For example, in our peer reading of the summary papers I had to work hard to prepare students for the idea that, as a community, we needed to value how we can help each other. I introduced them to the enlightened self-interest of the “baker’s dozen” and the Biblical notion of “bread on the water”. I also had them watch two videos: one on what peer learning really looks like and the other on what it means to lower the barriers we put up to each other when we try to engage. This was a powerful lot of unlearning to do and I am not convinced that we succeeded. My default is, of course, the lone scholar mode. I have fought and fought hard against it in myself, but I find that I revert to default when stressed. We need to use rhizomatics to justify deviation from the default and use it to deviate. So be it.
Lessons taken and shared?
1. The expectations game with 3X5 cards works for me as I try to internalize the theory that community=curriculum. Practice feeds back into theory and theory feeds forward into practice.
2. There is always a saving remnant who are willing to consider another way. Cultivate them and play the game with them, too.
3. Keep on! I am going to continue my little 3X5 experiment in community and look for other ways to play the rhizomatic game in the class. I think that I will have them share each other’s expectations next week. I will let you know how that went (an example of feedforward–promising to share.) 4. Are there other games I can play to help the community become the curriculum? Perhaps one is acknowledging as a teacher/learning concierge that the community needs to be in flux and approaching the curriculum all the time. Asymptotic, always approaching, never quite getting there.
There is always the danger of imposed simplification, of discovering a lower case “t” truth and mistaking it for the “T”ruth. This simplification certainly makes me feel less anxious. Hell yes, I have the key to reality., but… such is the bad ol’ way of “best practice” as a formula for failure. Best practice (good intentions/road to hell aside) does not consider conditions on the ground. In fact it stamps them out in favor of a global, expert system. That is why every generalization needs to have stamped on it “YMMV”. Indeed it should be “YMWV”–your mileage will vary. L
Let me know about any practice you have had in incorporating Rhizomatics into your class. I will happily tap your expertise, but you better believe that my local community will still be on top. I would expect no less from anything you might learn here from me. Learning communities on top. Always. Another rhizomatic lesson?