I recently read the article “Randy Bass and Bret Eynon: Still Moving From Teaching to Learning” in the Chronicle’s Wired Campus Blog. In this interesting article the authors reference Michael Wesch’s new essay at the Academic Commons that proposes that the new academic curriculum rethink “subjects” and consider “subjectivities”. This quote from the blog was particularly interesting - “It implies that our earnest but often fragmented efforts at thinking about our curricula are not sufficiently broad to live up to our aspirations about the way the pieces should all fit together. It also implies that technologies built around isolated “courses” may ultimately be of limited value in a learning paradigm.”
Working at a liberal arts college that is currently going through a transformation through strategic planning and a new administration, this concept struck me as particularly relevant to our university’s current climate. As an instructional technologist not only do I want to consider how I can encourage faculty to consider literacy in a more broad sense to include media/visual literacy but also to consider how this concept of broadening “subjects” is at the heart of a liberal arts education. While it may be feasible to convince some faculty to consider expanding the idea of literacy and the ability of digital media to enhance problem solving, critical thinking, and making meaning, but to be truly effective, a change at the college curriculum level is needed. Anyone who works at a university realizes this is a daunting task. We’ve all heard that “changing a curriculum is harder than moving a graveyard”(Rudolph, 1977).
Another challenge is to consider that some faculty dismiss this information and argue that the system from which they learned worked and is therefore still relevant. If we intend to create exception learning environments, enhance faculty and student engagement, create life long learners, and foster community both at and beyond the campus community, how can we not reconsider our methods?