One Teacher, Many Roles

Last semester, I was asked by a professor to illustrate my opinion of the role of a teacher in a classroom through an analogy.  After thinking about it for a few minutes, I decided to draw a complicated city with a friendly tour guide standing in the foreground.  This guide was my analogy, for I saw the world of information as the object of student learning, and thought that it was my responsibility to guide my students through an overwhelming and unending wealth of information, calling attention to what's important, novel, and enduring.  This semester I've been asked to give a similar analogy, but thanks to George Siemens, my picture looks a little different.

In his article, Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age, Siemens argues for a shift in the way we view learning.  Specifically, he calls attention to the fact that in today's age of digital information, "the pipe is more important than the content within the pipe."  Simply put, "our ability to learn what we need for tomorrow is more important than what we know today."  With the exponential growth of information and the consequently decreasing size of information's half-life (length of time between the gaining of new information and the point at which it becomes outdated), "the ability to synthesize and recognize connections and patterns" emerges as one of the primary goals of modern education.

In light of this new Connectivist theory, I think that the analogy of a tour guide is insufficient.  Today, the content we teach is not as important as our students' ability to adapt and learn.  As Siemens puts it in his video, The Changing Nature of Knowledge, "the network becomes the learning."  Since people rarely rely on themselves as the sole source of knowledge, or even as the primary source (how many times have you Googled something today?), our ability to connect to other sources of information including people, computers, news feeds, etc., has become paramount.  As teachers, it is our responsibility to establish this skill in our students.

So back to the analogy.  What on earth can I find that performs similar duties as a teacher in light of Connectivist theory?  Whatever it is, it must:

• assess the current state of its subjects (which can be infinitely different)
• predict what its subject will need in the future (which may be unknown)
• develop those qualities in its subject (in this case, the ability to connect and adapt)

Is there anything, human or nonhuman, that handles such a difficult task?  I don't think so.  But, for the sake of finding something to compare us to, how about the entire coaching staff of a professional football team? 

Recruiters will assess players' current abilities and what potential they may have.  A team of several coaches will look to future games and identify what the team needs in order to be successful.  Trainers will help the players develop these skills, which in a football game is more than physical ability--players must also learn to adapt to new and varying conditions while they work cooperatively to achieve common goals.  In the same way that the coaching staff focuses on the means of winning, the teacher should focus on the means by which students will succeed.

Siemens says that "learning and knolwedge rests in a diversity of opinions."  So does the success of a football team in a game. 

Siemens says "the capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known."  So it is with a football organziation over the course of a season.

Siemens says "nuturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning."  So it goes with the development of a franchise team over the course of a decade.

While many may find fault with my new analogy, I think many will find it useful as they (like any competent educator) continue to consider new perspectives, draw connections, and adapt themselves to a changing playing field of information.  Altering your perspective on which team to root for, however, is a different story altogether...