Archive for the 'university' CategoryPage 3 of 10

To Listen, and Not To Speak

Published
by
michael lee
on 20 March 2008
in emerging church and university
. 25 Comments

This week is Spring Break at APU. I know some of you went to heathen and ungodly places for your education, where Spring Break was nothing more than a week-long episode of “Girls Gone Wild”. At APU, our students spend the week either in prayer and fasting for the peace of the world, in Mexico helping homeless children knit foot warmers for stray dogs, or practicing viola for their Senior Recitals.

A handful of students stick around on campus, usually working to finish up projects or prepare for recitals. It’s another one of those weeks between, those egalitarian times when I’m not “The Professor”, and I can have conversations with students that aren’t transactional. Everyone has a little more time, and breathes a bit easier.

In talking with students, I’m trying to practice the habit of just listening. To listen, and not to speak, until they are done speaking. To allow them room to develop their ideas while I provide simply an attentive silence. To demonstrate restraint when I want to advise, correct, cajole, or critique.

I’ve found myself in a few conversations recently where a student is working through some problem that is miles outside of my experience or knowledge. I think sometimes they believe that I have some secret fountain of wisdom that I can draw on to pour into their lives and situations. The only secret fountain I have access to is the faculty bathroom, and the only wisdom to be found there is on the sign warning you not to poop, because their is no ventilation fan. And, while that is some very valuable wisdom, I just don’t find it widely applicable.

“I got a call to play a 4 month tour, but I’ll have to miss finals and probably come back for another semester to finish school. Should I do it?”

Does the tour bus have poop-ventilating technology?

“My boyfriend is really pressuring me to get cranked on meth with him, and go killing hobos. I really prefer smack. What should I do?”

Well, don’t use the faculty bathroom to get your junk on, because there’s no fan to cover the noise.

So, as you can see, the options for application are rather narrow.

It’s intoxicating to feel like you have this secret well of wisdom to draw on, but I don’t, and so I’m left with two other things of value that I can give them. First, I can share with them my own doubts and fears, when applicable. I get to draw them further in to adulthood, and show them that striving for success in music, and in life, is not a process of silencing doubt and fear, but of overcoming it, of progressing in spite of it. That’s a valuable perspective that I get to share with them.

But, I think the more valuable thing I can give them is a few minutes of attentive silence. Not silence while I wait for them to finish so I can jump in with my own thoughts, not silence while I formulate counterarguments, or plan my day, or fidget anxiously. Simple, attentive, silence. The kind of attentive silence you give to someone when they are communicating important ideas. And, of course, to treat someone’s ideas as important is to treat that person as important.

I know this is a simple idea, and most of you have probably nodded off, or headed off to more interesting blogs. But for me, it is a very difficult thing to remember, and to do. I live in an academic world that has such clearly drawn lines of respect and authority, and the impulse to raise up a student (in their eyes) to “my level” by respecting their ideas, it doesn’t come easily. It takes a measure of humility that I’m still struggling to grow into.

So, in conclusion, shame on you all for clicking on the “Girls Gone Wild” link, and don’t poop in the faculty bathroom.

Special Guest

Published
by
michael lee
on 27 February 2008
in art and culture, audio and university
. 9 Comments

So, guess who is coming to talk to my Production Techniques class about how to write and record a song? Charlie Peacock.

You know, the guy who produced albums for Switchfoot, Isaac Slade (The Fray), Nichole Nordeman, Leigh Nash, Amy Grant, David Crowder Band, Audio Adrenaline, Sara Groves, Ladysmith Black Mambazo, Al Green, CeCe Winans, Brent Bourgeois, Twila Paris, Sarah Masen, Susan Ashton, Avalon, Philip Bailey, Margaret Becker, Michael Card, Bob Carlisle, Eric Champion, Steven Curtis Chapman, The Choir, Michael English, Béla Fleck, Steve Green, Cheri Keaggy, Phil Keaggy, Scott Krippayne, Kevin Max, Cindy Morgan, Out of the Grey, Ginny Owens, Chris Rice, the 77s, Sixpence None The Richer, Michael Tait, Steve Taylor, and about 2 dozen more.

I think we might need to erect police barricades to keep kids from stuffing his pocket full of demos.

An Ethical Gamble

Published
by
michael lee
on 19 February 2008
in philosophy and university
. 28 Comments

This morning, I’m making a $100 bet that my students are ethical.

I got to class early, as I usually do, and left my things on the front table, again, like normal. I pushed my phone and wallet to the edge of the table, until the wallet fell to the floor, and the cash fanned out. A crisp $100 is there for the taking.

I’m curious about who will be the first to walk in the room and see it. I’m certain that none of them would actually take it, but depending on the person, they might really think about it.

We’re talking about Virtue Ethics today, my favorite way of thinking about ethics. Virtue Ethics denies the presumption that ethics is primarily about actions - this action is right, this action is wrong. Instead, it says that ethics is primarily about the virtues people hold. The right action is determined by acting in character with deeply held virtues. In this case, I think most of the students will say that they didn’t take the money because … well, they’re honest. They possess that virtue.

They didn’t do some complicated math about greater benefit to human happiness, they didn’t stop and consider God’s commands, they didn’t pull out their handy notes on Kant’s categorical imperative to only act in ways that are can be reasonably made universal. Instead they acted out of habit. Out of virtue. Out of a learned and cultivated perspective that values integrity.

We’ll see. I may be $100 short, and a little less idealistic, in about 10 minutes.

Lunch with Nicholas Wolterstorff

Published
by
michael lee
on 12 February 2008
in groupthink, philosophy and university
. 8 Comments

Nicholas Wolterstorff is coming to APU. He’s a very distinguished Professor of Philosophy, most recently teaching at Yale. He’s written extensively on religion and reason, on the rationality of Christian faith, and on the possibility of aesthetics in art. He’ll be giving two lectures, tonight and tomorrow night, both in Munson Chapel, starting at 7PM. Tonight’s lecture is titled “Speaking up for the Wronged”, and tomorrow night is “Love and Justice.” Come if you’re interested.

But the thing I’m really excited about is happening tomorrow at noon. I’m having lunch with Wolterstorff. Well, me and the rest of the music faculty, but I’m still gonna pretend that the two of us are on a date. He’ll see by my eager smile and witty repartee that the rest of these people are mere distractions, and the two of us will escape away together to a pine-covered hillside, where we’ll talk for hours about realism in art, epistemology and religious experience, universals and their implications for ethical norms, just the two of us …

… did it just get awkward? Why the uncomfortable silence, everyone?

Anyway, I’m throwing this out to our wide reading audience, those of you who troll by the RSS feed and keep tabs on us from afar. I know many of you have read Wolterstorff’s writing. In fact, it was a reader here who first introduced me to his writing. If you were sitting down to lunch with him, what would you ask? Any burning questions about ethics, art, religious knowledge, any of those kinds of things?

I promise to dutifully report back to you every sparkling gem of wisdom that falls from his hand. And to leave out the awkward intellectual man-crush stuff.

Reticent Technology Learners

Published
by
michael lee
on 7 February 2008
in groupthink, technology and university
. 25 Comments

I teach a course at Azusa Pacific University called Introduction to Music Technology. It’s a required course for all music majors; at some point, all of our students have to come sit in front of me for 15 weeks and struggle with the content of the course.

reticent technology learnersSome struggle more than others. With any subject matter, there are some students who, by virtue of intelligence, experience, or motivation, are better able to navigate the ideas and make them a useful part of their body of knowledge. There are others who struggle through the same content, and frequently either abandon the field of study, or scrape together just enough competence to pass, and then never use that knowledge again.

Reticent Technology Learners

With technology, there is a particular kind of student who struggles. I’ll call them “Reticent Technology Learners”. They might excel in other areas, be intelligent and curious students, but when it comes to the field of technology, they have real and persistent barriers to learning that prevent them from mastering the tools.

I’ve noticed some common characteristics that these students share. I’m listing them here for comment, for you to consider and refine. Reticent learners aren’t just in school, they’re all over the place - some of you probably work with them, or live with them, or you might be one (hey Bobby!). I’d love your feedback on this list, and your help in expanding it where appropriate.

Here are some common characteristics of Reticent Technology Learners (RTLs):

1. A belief that technology behaves differently based on the user.

“I already tried that! It works for you, it just won’t work for me.”

The RTL believes that the same steps will produce different results based on the person doing them. If they encounter a problem, and someone else is able to fix it, they identify the solution with the person, and not the steps taken. This might manifest in phrases like “I’m just not a computer person”, or “Technology doesn’t like me.”

2. Low tolerance for risk and experimentation

“I didn’t try it, because I didn’t know if it was ‘right’ or not.”

Suppose you are using a slide presentation program (like powerpoint, or keynote), and you want to insert a new slide. In the menu bar, you see an icon with an image of a slide and a large plus sign. Most users would try clicking the icon, on the assumption that it is probably going to do what they intend for it to do, add a slide. The RTL will not take that risk - if they aren’t sure that something is “right”, they will not experiment with it. This low tolerance for risk and experimentation means that all new learning for an RTL must be the direct result of specific training.

3. Task/Step organization of ideas

“To attach a file to an email, I do these 6 steps.”

An RTL approaches technology as a set of tasks, and each task consists of a set of steps which must be perfectly executed in order. The result is a lack of conceptual learning. They may learn to follow 6 specific steps for attaching a file to an email, but this doesn’t translate into understanding the concepts of file location or reference.

The obvious problem, then, is that each new task requires a total relearning of all the steps. The concept of file location and reference doesn’t carry over into the new task of adding a photo to a flickr uploading program, they have to relearn it as 4 new steps that are unrelated to the steps in the task of “attaching a file to an email.”

4. An exaggerated presumption of malicious or faulty technology

“Well, my computer must have a virus.”

The paucity of conceptual understanding for the RTL means that most of technology is a mystery to them. They have an exaggerated tendency to fill this gap in with malicious or faulty technology. They tend to see viruses, online security fraud, and malicious code everywhere. Any recurring problem with their computer is a “virus” or a “bug in the software.”

Any encounter with actual malicious or faulty code reinforces this perception, while any solution to a problem that does not rely on fixing bugs or removing malicious code is seen as the exception.

5. A perceived fragility to technology

“I didn’t install the updates because I didn’t want to crash my computer.”

Many RTLs have reached a kind of antagonistic truce with the technology they’re forced to work with - they reach a point where they can be minimally functional with it, and they perceive this state of functionality as tenuous and fragile. They are unwilling to risk upsetting this delicate balance by installing security updates, upgrading software, or removing unneeded accessories.

6. A generally pessimistic expectation toward technology

This is no surprise, given the other 5 characteristics, but many RTLs have developed a pessimistic expectation toward technology; they don’t expect it to work, and when it does work they don’t expect it to be useful. As a result, they will usually choose the non-technical solution to a problem, even in situations where there is a clear advantage to the technical solution.

In Conclusion

In developing this list, with some input from Gretchen, Stick, and June, some additional questions kept popping up.

Do RTLs have these same characteristics in other learning environments (learning to drive, learning a new language, etc.)?

There is a perception that age might be an indicator of RTL tendencies, but I’m wondering if it’s really age, or if it’s better to think of it in terms of familiarity with technology?

And finally, and I think most importantly, are there concrete training tools that can transform an RTL into an avid learner, willing to take risks and able to learn conceptually about technology? I think there are, and if that’s true, it has significance for how I structure my class.