|
Myths in education
by Marcus Harmes, Henk Huijser
and Patrick Alan Danaher (Palgrave,2014).
Voorstelling boek door prof. Fred
Dervin
At bottom, the intellectual, in
my sense of the word, is neither a pacifier nor a consensus-builder, but
someone whose whole being is staked on a critical sense, a sense of being unwilling to accept
easy formulas, or ready-made clichés, or
the smooth, ever-so-accommodation confirmations of what the powerful or conventional have to say, and
what they do. Edward Said ( 1996: 23)
The idea of myths, but also of
acolytes such as imaginaries and even hoaxes, has been central in
my work (Auger,
Dervin & Suomela-Salmi, 2009;
Dervin, 2012). Many myths from
the field of education are reflected in the titles of my books and articles:
the myth of the native speaker, myths around the notion of the intercultural,
myths about study abroad and myths about Finnish education, among others.
What the
editors and the
authors propose corresponds
to what I
would like to
call Mythologies of Education ,
in reference to
a book by
Roland Barthes, published
in 1957. In this collection of essays Barthes examines myths of
bourgeois culture and dissects
their functioning in everyday practices.
Barthes (ibid.)
shows how myths naturalize certain norms and prevent
people from being reflective about them. In other words myths can easily become
ideologies. Some of his analyses resonate with many arguments made
by the volume
authors: For Barthes
(ibid.) certain myths remove history thus giving the impression that
something simply exists and does not need to be questioned; myths allow the
mere statement of fact to emerge and thus a certain idea of unquestionable
Truth. Based on these two examples, one can easily see how dangerous myths can
be for education.
Now let
us examine how
the Mythologies of
Education are enacted
in the volume. The
editors, Marcus K. Harmes,
Henk Huijser and
Patrick Alan Danaher,
justify rightly the need for such a volume by explaining that Given this diversity of myths concerning contemporary
education, it is
timely to interrogate a selection of
them, with a view to elucidating
their origins and composition,
their effects and implications, and appropriate
ways of engaging
with them. Some chapters deconstruct, challenge but also and
that is very important propose alternative ways of thinking, doing and
researching. Interestingly some chapters consider myths to be very powerful
and productive, especially
in didactical terms.
This is, I
believe, another stimulating vista for future research.
The list of topics (read myths)
covered in the volume corresponds to a very up-to-date carnival of myths. The
volume opens with
myths about teaching
and learning: Learner-centredness vs. Teacher;
Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation
; Curriculum on paper vs. the observed teaching practice and implementation
of staff. The reader will
no doubt recognize
these old but
still topical myths, which need to be revisited again and again.
I found the second part of the
volume to be so exciting that I could not put the volume down. It deals with
the much-hyped context of digital and
online education. In all the countries I have visited recently everyone
seems obsessed with jumping on the digital bandwagon. In
my own department for
example we
have been urged
to create Massive Open Online
Courses (MOOCs). I remember asking the person who made this suggestion
what MOOCs were
he had
no idea but
said Americans are producing many !
The authors of this section cover
the following myths in relation to digital and online education: The rhetoric
that surrounds digital literacy); Social, organisational, instructional and technological myths
Myths about online
education.
Two sub-myths that appear in
many chapters are, in my opinion, essential. The first myth concerns the idea of Digital natives (as opposed to
Digital migrants). I was born in 1974 and
owned my first
computer at the
end of the
1980s .. Does this make me an immigrant when I have owned a computer
nearly my whole life? Using such labels in research and practice can give the
impression of newness and innovation (yet another mythical term). As such the
Academy of Finland is currently sponsoring a project under the label Newvisions
of learning and teaching which centres on Digital Natives. When one reads the description
of the project,
the term is
not questioned but
basically accepted as true:
(the researchers) are currently
studying the development
of the mind and
brain of a generation they call digital natives. These are the young people
who were born and who
have grown up
surrounded by new
technology and communications.
(The research leader) says that a
gap is now opening up between earlier generations and the children and young
people of the digital age. If we go back to Said (ibid.), is this the work of
someone whose whole being is staked on a critical sense, a sense of being
unwilling to accept easy formulas, or ready-made clichés, or the smooth, ever- so-accommodation
confirmations of what the powerful or conventional have to say, and what they do? Another
important sub-myth that
appears in the chapter repetitively relates
to the idea
that the internet is
a panacea for the issues
of increasing costs of higher education and increasing demand by
students for authentic and
interactive learning
opportunities .
The authors also suggest many
ways out of myths in education. Barbara A. H. Harmes confirms my
previous comment on
Mythologies when she asserts It is
only by understanding these myths
and by interrogating the research relating to them that positive action can
be taken to address them. In a similar vein, Adriana Ornellas and Juana Sancho
explain Deconstructing mythical thinking, in this case about the use of digital ICT
in education, seems fundamental to promote critical thinking,
construct sound knowledge and
prevent ignorance-based mistakes.
For Federico
Borges and Anna Forés myths as
pockets of belief or understanding (that) require clarification, or revision.
The two scholars also propose a model for analysing myths which is
intriguing and deserves
exploring. They propose
to categorize myths
into out-dated myths, over-optimistic myths,
drawback myths, and confronted myths (where there
are two sides
to the same myth, an overstatement and an understatement). These are just examples of
ways of examining myths, all the other chapters represent a minefield which
will no doubt lead to more research on myths in education.
To conclude I would like to
insist on the fact that research and practice need to be more political and less politically
correct today. Deconstructing myths
thusattacking truths
and beliefs can be
painful for both
the listener and
the utterer. However this is
more and more necessary.
Research on education is full of myths that still
require our attention. My next targets are
already decided (in
order of irritation):
overreliance on Bourdieu,
the idea of social justice, and the concept of
communities of practice. Like this volume, lets now take myths seriously
|
