Moving at the Speed of Creativity - Thoughts on “Postmodern Pedagogy: Teaching and Learning With Generation NeXt”

Thoughts on “Postmodern Pedagogy: Teaching and Learning With Generation NeXt”

Published by Wesley Fryer in edtech, literacy on July 31st, 2005

Hello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic.

Dr. Mark Taylor’s Spring 2005 article “Postmodern Pedagogy: Teaching and Learning With Generation NeXt” includes several suggestions for higher education faculty wanting to connect and engage today’s college students in authentic learning.

Key among his observations is the idea that “our colleges do not exist to provide instruction; we exist to create learning.” I would probably adjust that slightly, to be “our colleges do not exist to provide instruction; we exist to create opportunities for learning.” This ideas are not, of course new– John Dewey led the charge for student-centered instructional pedagogy in the early to mid twentieth century. The Brazilian educator Paulo Friere carried this banner as well throughout the world, additionally championing the potential for education to liberate and transform the outlook and prospects of those living in poverty. Taylor’s article is, for many practical purposes, similar ideas and arguments to the theses of Dewey and Freire placed inside a “postmodern” wrapper. This is what Taylor terms Postmodern Pedagogy or “PMP” for short.

While university faculty, like K-12 educators, are constrained somewhat by a prescribed curriculum, often there is much more autonomy and freedom in the higher education environment. In both cases, the types of ASSIGNMENTS the instructor creates and offers to students is a key ingredient of the educational recipe. Just like a highly skilled chef must select ingredients based not only on what is desired but also what is available and of high quality, so too must the modern day teacher craft assignments based not only on the demands of the curriculum but also on the ideas, resources, dispositions and interests of the students.

Taylor’s suggestion that faculty work up “educational taxonomies” (using Bloom’s taxonomy) to engage students in higher order thinking is right on target. At both the K-12 and higher education levels, far too much of instruction and assessment is based on knowledge-based materials. Students in fact become highly conditioned, by the time they reach college, to expect and even demand a “banking model” approach to education. Their questions can focus primarily on: What is on the test, what is on the test, what is on the test, and is this for a grade?

Taylor’s assertion that “Being sought out by actively learning students is “the holy grail” for many faculty” sounds wonderful, but I question how true this idealistic view is at many institutions? I suspect many faculty are much more comfortable with students remaining largely passive agents in the classroom, rather than actively seeking to engage and question the material while looking to the faculty member as a resource. I certainly agree that this ideal is one that we hope exists and hope faculty can personify. It is a two way street, and expectations of performance play a large role in the interactions which do or do not take place between instructors and students in all cases I suspect.

The ideas in this article are sound, but they were sound before anyone ever heard of the term “postmodern.” Yes, we need to engage students in more active learning, get them to set goals and have a concrete stake in both the learning objectives and activities of the classroom environment. Yes we need students to engage in higher order thinking rather than mere fact regurgitation. Preach on, Brother Taylor. But these ideas have been with us for decades. Dewey and Freire are but two examples of articulate evangelists for the engaged and authentic instructional pedagogy– yet how widely implemented are their ideas today?

Cast with a new label of “postmodern pedagogy,” will these instructional methods win a wider audience? Interestingly, I think the power to change lies more with the students than it does with the faculty. Just as K-12 students and parents “vote with their feet” concerning their local public school system when they choose to home school or attend private school, so also can university students make choices which can theoretically impact professors.

We have a general perception that young people today are these “postmodern learners” not satisfied with traditional instruction, and while that may be true in some cases, I think the vast majority of our high school graduates are still emerging from VERY traditional educational environments where the emphasis remains on content absorption and regurgitation on cue. To expect these students to come to the university and expect/demand “postmodern pedagogy” may be a bit of a stretch. The more K-12 instruction can be “non-traditional,” the more our high school graduates will be conditioned to expect and demand a “non-traditional” (or a postmodern pedagogic) university environment.

Unfortunately, I don’t see the pendulum swinging much in that direction right now on a national level.