I am listening to a CBC program asking "Is classical music obsolete today?" What strikes me as interesting is its relation to school curriculum. If I was to ask the members of this class: Name 5 pieces of classical music you have studied in your school years. Or, for that matter, Name 5 works of art you have studied. -- how would you respond. Probably "nothing"? Yet we can all name the works of literature we studies, or the periods of Canadian history, or the topics of Math and Science that we took.
The arts have indeed been almost eliminated. And when they are taught, I wonder if the focus becomes production: choir, band, performance. Similarly in art or drama.
Indeed, I wonder if in my own field of technology we focus on the production side, the skill side -- wikis, i-Movies, blogs, etc. but not the culture side.
As I think back to this course, we can safely say that we did study works of art and music and cinema. Perhaps inadertently, but we did it nevertheless.
A case in point was last class analyses of Norman Rockwell's "The connoisseur" and Colville's "horse and train".
Both are fascinating works, which I would argue, thinking hypertextually, can be considered an integral component of how we think about curriculum, or at least as "texts" with "curriculum potential". What a wonderful term that one has turned out to be.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Monday April 7: Last Class
Final thoughts
April 7, 2008
First, I would like to remind you of some of the major course themes:
1. Curriculum is messy. There is no one way; there is no correct model.
2. The three major modes of curriculum, Aoki suggests, are technical/practical/critical. The technical needs standards and absolute clarity. The practical focuses on stakeholders. The critical attempts to delve into root interests.
3. The multiple readings were chosen to guide you into different curriculum explorations. What are some of the critical terms I hope you will take away with you?
5. Is there a model for curriculum development? Yes, but not just one. The moment you choose a model for curriculum development, you are limiting yourself. You are closing the doors. You are closing down the conversation. Some contributions from this course towards a curriculum development model might be the following:
a. Tyler’s four questions, even though posed in 1949 still provide one of the most useful frameworks of all:
c. Schubert’s over-riding comment: "What knowledge is most worthwhile? Why is it worthwhile? How is it acquired or created? These are three of the most basic curriculum questions. "
d. Applebee’s structure, not often used, asks us to examine whether a curriculum has quality, quantity, relatedness (context) and manner.
e. I like Aoki, because he provides focusing questions for technical practical and critical models. If you are developing or evaluating a technical curriculum, he asks you to look for efficiency, goals, objectives, and congruencies. If you are developing a program with “practical” (situational interpretive) focus, you are directed to examine the role of parents, teachers, administrators, content experts, etc. If from a critical perspective, then you look for root interests, root assumptions, unintended and intended biases, gaps, and world views.
Two corollaries:
1. When you move into a master’s program, you become a scholar. You are no longer looking only to become a skilled administrator or teacher. That happens from a combination of things … from practice, from professional workshops, from on-the-job experience. Here, you step outside, even if only briefly, and you become a scholar. Being a scholar is not better than being a teacher or an administrator; it is different. If you are a student in an academic university program, you have selected a particular direction towards not just practice, but you become a scholar. When you go back to what you do on a daily basis, if this course has any value to you at all, then Applebee’s question, “Is this course geared to help you enter into the curricular conversation?” is critical.
2. So what happens now when you go into your own curriculum meetings? My hope is that you will be able to ask questions that perhaps you never thought of asking. My hope is that you will not immediately fall into the technical model, but examine all sides, all possibilities.
...
And then there was Marshall McLuhan. McLuhan’s Wake did several things. First, it re-focused attention on the contemporary world – a world of all-at-once happenings. A world turned upside down by information overload. McLuhan presents the contemporary world via Edgar Allan Poe’s Descent into the Maelstrom. Technology is not the only contributor to our technological society, but it is an important one. The nature of knowledge is changing. Today there are new ways of knowing. The internet really does change everything. Twenty-first century curriculum is still an unknown quantity. We … you … need to be a part of that determination.
.....
There is an interesting book by Lord Kenneth Clarke published in 1969 called CIVILIZATION. It was simultaneously a TV mini-series, one of the first of its kind. Ten programs, examining ten aspects of “civilization.” In the first chapter he writes
And then, Kenneth Clark does something else. He says cannot define his subject; he recognizes it. So then he adds a subtitle to his book: Civilization: A personal view. This course is like that too. In retrospect, I would like to call it: Theory and Practice of Curriculum design and development: A personal view. It is very much a personal view.
Over the past years, I have kept track of some of the more interesting comments from your colleagues, other students who have taken this course. Here are some of your thoughts, showing an interaction with the content:
April 7, 2008
First, I would like to remind you of some of the major course themes:
1. Curriculum is messy. There is no one way; there is no correct model.
2. The three major modes of curriculum, Aoki suggests, are technical/practical/critical. The technical needs standards and absolute clarity. The practical focuses on stakeholders. The critical attempts to delve into root interests.
3. The multiple readings were chosen to guide you into different curriculum explorations. What are some of the critical terms I hope you will take away with you?
- Curriculum potential from Ben Peretz;
- The map is not the territory from Baurillard.
- Curriculum as conversation from Applebee
- Mode of address from Ellsworth. Who does this curriculum think you are?
- There is a unique Canadian discourse on curriculum (Chambers)
- Postmodernism. From everybody.
- Laws of media: McLuhan’s insistence that we look at impact from the four foci of enhancement, obsolescence, retrieval, reversal.
- Deconstruction as a way to read a text critically and analytically.
Note that this list of critical terms (and these are only a selected few) are unique to this course. I have not ignored mainstream terminology, but consciously tried to present concepts that you may not have heard in other courses and that may not be a part of your common vocabulary.4. Curriculum today is postmodern, and that means that it is full of contradictions. Slattery and Baudrillard push us in those directions.
5. Is there a model for curriculum development? Yes, but not just one. The moment you choose a model for curriculum development, you are limiting yourself. You are closing the doors. You are closing down the conversation. Some contributions from this course towards a curriculum development model might be the following:
a. Tyler’s four questions, even though posed in 1949 still provide one of the most useful frameworks of all:
- i. What educational purposes should schools seek to attain?
- ii. What educational experiences can be provided?
- iii. How can these experiences be organized?
- iv. How can we determine whether these experiences are being met? (evaluation)
c. Schubert’s over-riding comment: "What knowledge is most worthwhile? Why is it worthwhile? How is it acquired or created? These are three of the most basic curriculum questions. "
d. Applebee’s structure, not often used, asks us to examine whether a curriculum has quality, quantity, relatedness (context) and manner.
e. I like Aoki, because he provides focusing questions for technical practical and critical models. If you are developing or evaluating a technical curriculum, he asks you to look for efficiency, goals, objectives, and congruencies. If you are developing a program with “practical” (situational interpretive) focus, you are directed to examine the role of parents, teachers, administrators, content experts, etc. If from a critical perspective, then you look for root interests, root assumptions, unintended and intended biases, gaps, and world views.
Two corollaries:
1. When you move into a master’s program, you become a scholar. You are no longer looking only to become a skilled administrator or teacher. That happens from a combination of things … from practice, from professional workshops, from on-the-job experience. Here, you step outside, even if only briefly, and you become a scholar. Being a scholar is not better than being a teacher or an administrator; it is different. If you are a student in an academic university program, you have selected a particular direction towards not just practice, but you become a scholar. When you go back to what you do on a daily basis, if this course has any value to you at all, then Applebee’s question, “Is this course geared to help you enter into the curricular conversation?” is critical.
2. So what happens now when you go into your own curriculum meetings? My hope is that you will be able to ask questions that perhaps you never thought of asking. My hope is that you will not immediately fall into the technical model, but examine all sides, all possibilities.
...
And then there was Marshall McLuhan. McLuhan’s Wake did several things. First, it re-focused attention on the contemporary world – a world of all-at-once happenings. A world turned upside down by information overload. McLuhan presents the contemporary world via Edgar Allan Poe’s Descent into the Maelstrom. Technology is not the only contributor to our technological society, but it is an important one. The nature of knowledge is changing. Today there are new ways of knowing. The internet really does change everything. Twenty-first century curriculum is still an unknown quantity. We … you … need to be a part of that determination.
.....
There is an interesting book by Lord Kenneth Clarke published in 1969 called CIVILIZATION. It was simultaneously a TV mini-series, one of the first of its kind. Ten programs, examining ten aspects of “civilization.” In the first chapter he writes
What is civilization? I don’t know. I can’t define it in abstract terms – yet. But I think I can recognize it when I see it.Think about that. He can’t define it, but he can recognize it. I want to say the same about curriculum. Thirteen of you gave me thirteen definitions. There were some commonalities, but there were some significant differences. Narrow, value-laden, broad. You were intrigued that we could come up with thirteen variants.
And then, Kenneth Clark does something else. He says cannot define his subject; he recognizes it. So then he adds a subtitle to his book: Civilization: A personal view. This course is like that too. In retrospect, I would like to call it: Theory and Practice of Curriculum design and development: A personal view. It is very much a personal view.
Over the past years, I have kept track of some of the more interesting comments from your colleagues, other students who have taken this course. Here are some of your thoughts, showing an interaction with the content:
- “Thinking is messy.”
- “Schools train students to be employees and consumers, I want then to be leaders and adventurers.”
- “As I was reading this article, I felt very small, insignificant and even a little “dumb”
- “I came home from class that evening and truly felt like I “exercised my brain”. I was not able to sleep a wink. This feeling, of stretching what we know, what we think we know, and extrapolating to new uncharted ways of thinking is so exciting. I have learned that it is incredibly easy to accept ideas for what they are without thinking about them critically.”
- “It struck me as odd that Considering the strong push across the province towards an outcome based evaluation of student performance, how many of the class members had a more post-modern view of leaning, in regards to curriculum, perhaps without even knowing it.”
- “It does seem though that everything we do in this class makes me revisit and rethink the way I look at things. Which I’m sure is one of your major outcomes for the course!”
Sunday, March 23, 2008
March 24
This is the second last class.
It will be devoted almost entirely to an examination of pedagogic frameworks.
But first a poem that I read in Teaching at the University of Manitoba: A Handbook p. 3.4
THEN THIS...
Two weeks ago we began to explore the concept of pedagogic frameworks which focuses on the “front end” of curriculum design. A traditional curriculum design model is based on a Tylerian technical model. In class we examined extensions of this model, most notably that of Oliva.
From a purely practical perspective, a curriculum document is a concrete example of such an approach. Another concrete example, more common at the university level is the so-called “course syllabus.
The pedagogic framework model argues for the necessity to step back and to look at course development from three perspectives. These are a pedagogic framework, the educational setting and the organizational context.
Two readings by Goodyear anchor this approach. At least two additional papers might shed light on this process. Nunes and McPherson (2003) focus in some detail on distinguishing between Constructivism and Objectivism from a practical perspective, noting that “pedagogical models based on moderate constructivist approaches” may be the most useful. Note: Full text is available if you sign in as a UM student.
On the other hand, a salutary caution is illustrated by Ixer (1999) arguing that There is no such thing as reflection. (Full text also available if you sign in as a UM student). What he is arguing is that “reflection” has simply become another step on an outcomes-based model. This, of course, is contradictory. Reflection is not the same thing as propositional knowledge or behavioural skills. It is “tacit knowledge”. The word tacit means “implied without being stated.”
We began by dividing into several small groups of 3-4.
Your initial task was to take Edub7560 as an example and then follow the Goodyear framework. Essentially we will pick up on this task.
The reason for choosing Edub7560 is so that we all have a common framework. In all cases, you should be able to extrapolate to your own situation. The idea is not to evaluate the course, but rather to attempt to position it within a pedagogical perspective.
Goodyear provides the outline; you will fill in the details. The result should be a useful reflective analysis of the course. Of course this is an after-the-fact analysis.
Your task:
Use the Goodyear pedagogic framework graphic as a model and the Goodyear document starting at Section 2 (page 12) of the EDNER document and examine this course from the following perspectives:
1. Identify the apparent philosophic orientations based on Shuell’s four models
2. Examine the propositions of good teaching (Table 2.1)
3. Examine Table 2.2 on conceptions of teaching.
4. Determine how to place all of these in the graphic framework.
5. Explore table 2.3
6. Explore the issues on the right hand side of the pedagogical framework graphic titled educational setting. Identify (and relate) Edub7560 tasks, student activity and environment. Don’t try to capture all the course activities/tasks. That would keep you here all night. Instead, attempt to capture a sampling.
End Product for the evening: In a normal course of events, this data would be formulated into a formal paper. In this case, for the last 30 minutes of class time, starting at say 7:45-8:00, each group will have the opportunity to present to the entire class their findings. You do not need to attempt to overview the elements of the entire Goodyear document. Rather, to mix metaphors: attempt a broad brushstroke to see what “comes to the top” after such an analysis. What have you learned (a) about the course Edub756, but more importantly (b) what does this exercise say about developing and explicating a pedagogic strategy. Do you do this already for your courses? Does it help? Does it focus differently than the traditional course curricula provided by the department? What else?
Some thoughts:
1. The idea of pedagogic framework seems especially popular in programs that are introducing new technologies into teaching and learning. The argument is that we have too often introduced technologies without a pedagogic framework, and that is the reason they have been unsuccessful in the past. However, to me, technology is something natural and not forced. At no time in this course did I deliberately say to myself (nor I think to you) that “I am going to deliberately attempt to integrate technology into this course,” Instead, I believe it came naturally. We used video, and DVD and blogs and Nicenet and YouTube and CDs … none of this, on my part, was a conscious attempt to integrate media. It was simply a natural way to deliver or supplement or explain content, or to provide a framework for communication.
2. I am a little puzzled at the use of the phrase e-learning. Again going back to Goodyear (Sorry to overuse him so much this time) e-learning is “the systematic use of networked multimedia computer technologies to empower learners, improve learning, connect learners to people and resources supportive of their needs, and to integrate learning with performance and individual with organizational goals.” Hmmm… Isn’t that natural at this point? Is not all learning e-learning? Or, to say it the other way, do we need the e? Can we not just say learning? Then looking at the first part of Goodyear’s definition, (“the systematic use of networked multimedia computer technologies”) one has to wonder why restrict the modes of learning? It is like saying “learning to cook with a microwave”, instead of “learning to cook”.
3. I am clearly a radical when it comes to technology, because, although I agree that it is critically important (if only because technology is ubiquitous), I do not agree that specific technologies need to be selected out. Teachers need to understand the pedagogy of using technologies more than the technology itself. Nardi and O’Day in Information Ecologies: Using Technologies with Heart write : “We define an information ecology to be a system of people practices value, and technologies in particular local environment. In information ecologies, the spotlight is not on technology, but on human activities that are served by technology” Famously, and in the same vein, Martin Heidegger remarked that “the question concerning technology is nothing technological.”
4. Pedagogically we are getting and receiving mixed signals. On the one hand, we are told that constructivism is a model of teaching/learning that focuses away from telling and towards getting the learner actively (and authentically) involved. Yet we evaluate by a time-honoured technical model. Look at the University SEEQ evaluation and you will see that it is built on the assumptions of a behaviourist / technical model. So, as we have already begun to ask: What might a postmodern curriculum look like? Are we really moving towards a constructivist philosophy?
More later...
It will be devoted almost entirely to an examination of pedagogic frameworks.
But first a poem that I read in Teaching at the University of Manitoba: A Handbook p. 3.4
You encounter two bricklayers.Hmmm... We will begin by looking at this poem. (This is what we call examining technology as text, or hermeneutics.) If you are confused when I call poetry a technology, let me remind you that McLuhan considered language to be the greatest technology of all. I checked this out further, and came across the poet lauriate of the USA, Robert Pinsky. From an interview:
You ask each one what they are doing.
The first tells you he is just laying bricks.
The second tells you she is building a cathedral...
A grand structure that will seat 2000...
A building that will serve the community in many ways.
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Some people might find modern technology antithetical to poetry, even dangerous to the very personal art that poetry is, but you don't, do you?and elsewhere:
ROBERT PINSKY: Well, that's the conventional idea, but poetry is, itself, a technology. Verse is a very ancient technology designed for memory and that also achieves a lot of speed. It's a technology of the voice, of the grunts that a very resourceful primate makes.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/entertainment/april97/poet_4-2.html
The human appetite for memory and entertainment is so immense that we seem to want to add every new technology we can; the model of one technology (TV, movies, cyberspace, whatever) replacing older technologies (print, poetry, memorization, etc.) seems to me faulty--it underestimates our ravenous appetite for All of the Above.Sounds like I am way off the beaten track doesn't it? I hope a brief discussion at the beginning of the class will pull it together.
http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/aandc/trnscrpt/pinsky.htm
THEN THIS...
Two weeks ago we began to explore the concept of pedagogic frameworks which focuses on the “front end” of curriculum design. A traditional curriculum design model is based on a Tylerian technical model. In class we examined extensions of this model, most notably that of Oliva.
From a purely practical perspective, a curriculum document is a concrete example of such an approach. Another concrete example, more common at the university level is the so-called “course syllabus.
The pedagogic framework model argues for the necessity to step back and to look at course development from three perspectives. These are a pedagogic framework, the educational setting and the organizational context.
Two readings by Goodyear anchor this approach. At least two additional papers might shed light on this process. Nunes and McPherson (2003) focus in some detail on distinguishing between Constructivism and Objectivism from a practical perspective, noting that “pedagogical models based on moderate constructivist approaches” may be the most useful. Note: Full text is available if you sign in as a UM student.
On the other hand, a salutary caution is illustrated by Ixer (1999) arguing that There is no such thing as reflection. (Full text also available if you sign in as a UM student). What he is arguing is that “reflection” has simply become another step on an outcomes-based model. This, of course, is contradictory. Reflection is not the same thing as propositional knowledge or behavioural skills. It is “tacit knowledge”. The word tacit means “implied without being stated.”
We began by dividing into several small groups of 3-4.
Your initial task was to take Edub7560 as an example and then follow the Goodyear framework. Essentially we will pick up on this task.
The reason for choosing Edub7560 is so that we all have a common framework. In all cases, you should be able to extrapolate to your own situation. The idea is not to evaluate the course, but rather to attempt to position it within a pedagogical perspective.
Goodyear provides the outline; you will fill in the details. The result should be a useful reflective analysis of the course. Of course this is an after-the-fact analysis.
Your task:
Use the Goodyear pedagogic framework graphic as a model and the Goodyear document starting at Section 2 (page 12) of the EDNER document and examine this course from the following perspectives:
1. Identify the apparent philosophic orientations based on Shuell’s four models
2. Examine the propositions of good teaching (Table 2.1)
3. Examine Table 2.2 on conceptions of teaching.
4. Determine how to place all of these in the graphic framework.
5. Explore table 2.3
6. Explore the issues on the right hand side of the pedagogical framework graphic titled educational setting. Identify (and relate) Edub7560 tasks, student activity and environment. Don’t try to capture all the course activities/tasks. That would keep you here all night. Instead, attempt to capture a sampling.
End Product for the evening: In a normal course of events, this data would be formulated into a formal paper. In this case, for the last 30 minutes of class time, starting at say 7:45-8:00, each group will have the opportunity to present to the entire class their findings. You do not need to attempt to overview the elements of the entire Goodyear document. Rather, to mix metaphors: attempt a broad brushstroke to see what “comes to the top” after such an analysis. What have you learned (a) about the course Edub756, but more importantly (b) what does this exercise say about developing and explicating a pedagogic strategy. Do you do this already for your courses? Does it help? Does it focus differently than the traditional course curricula provided by the department? What else?
Some thoughts:
1. The idea of pedagogic framework seems especially popular in programs that are introducing new technologies into teaching and learning. The argument is that we have too often introduced technologies without a pedagogic framework, and that is the reason they have been unsuccessful in the past. However, to me, technology is something natural and not forced. At no time in this course did I deliberately say to myself (nor I think to you) that “I am going to deliberately attempt to integrate technology into this course,” Instead, I believe it came naturally. We used video, and DVD and blogs and Nicenet and YouTube and CDs … none of this, on my part, was a conscious attempt to integrate media. It was simply a natural way to deliver or supplement or explain content, or to provide a framework for communication.
2. I am a little puzzled at the use of the phrase e-learning. Again going back to Goodyear (Sorry to overuse him so much this time) e-learning is “the systematic use of networked multimedia computer technologies to empower learners, improve learning, connect learners to people and resources supportive of their needs, and to integrate learning with performance and individual with organizational goals.” Hmmm… Isn’t that natural at this point? Is not all learning e-learning? Or, to say it the other way, do we need the e? Can we not just say learning? Then looking at the first part of Goodyear’s definition, (“the systematic use of networked multimedia computer technologies”) one has to wonder why restrict the modes of learning? It is like saying “learning to cook with a microwave”, instead of “learning to cook”.
3. I am clearly a radical when it comes to technology, because, although I agree that it is critically important (if only because technology is ubiquitous), I do not agree that specific technologies need to be selected out. Teachers need to understand the pedagogy of using technologies more than the technology itself. Nardi and O’Day in Information Ecologies: Using Technologies with Heart write : “We define an information ecology to be a system of people practices value, and technologies in particular local environment. In information ecologies, the spotlight is not on technology, but on human activities that are served by technology” Famously, and in the same vein, Martin Heidegger remarked that “the question concerning technology is nothing technological.”
4. Pedagogically we are getting and receiving mixed signals. On the one hand, we are told that constructivism is a model of teaching/learning that focuses away from telling and towards getting the learner actively (and authentically) involved. Yet we evaluate by a time-honoured technical model. Look at the University SEEQ evaluation and you will see that it is built on the assumptions of a behaviourist / technical model. So, as we have already begun to ask: What might a postmodern curriculum look like? Are we really moving towards a constructivist philosophy?
More later...
March 17
More to follow:
Kala on Marsh
Focus on "cyberbullying."
The commentaries in the blogs by most of you are so thorough, that I have little more to add. That is why these last few entries have been quite minimalist, other than identifying the major foci. Even this seems to be hardly necessary, once the blog entries are examined. PLEASE do read each others blogs. They are insightful and make interesting reading as well.
Kala on Marsh
Focus on "cyberbullying."
The commentaries in the blogs by most of you are so thorough, that I have little more to add. That is why these last few entries have been quite minimalist, other than identifying the major foci. Even this seems to be hardly necessary, once the blog entries are examined. PLEASE do read each others blogs. They are insightful and make interesting reading as well.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
For Monday Jan 10
Reminder:
Ornstein presented by Francis will be moved up from March 17 to March 10.
Also, copy the papers noted in the last blog entry.
Denis
Ornstein presented by Francis will be moved up from March 17 to March 10.
Also, copy the papers noted in the last blog entry.
Denis
Thursday, March 6, 2008
What happened on March 3 ... and what to bring for Mar 10
Please find, download and print. And bring to class. This paper by Peter Goodyear is one of the current trends in curriculum design ...
Actually this one is somewhat better... But is 50 pages long...
Actually this one is somewhat better... But is 50 pages long...
March 3 class:
This class began with Slattery. Marc set the stage nicely, setting a postmodern perspective. Garry followed with what was arguably the most complex and least reachable paper in the entire set. I have a feeling that I did not do as good a job as I might have in preparing you to read Baudrillard. Some of you got it; others are more uncertain. I am looking very closely at your blog comments to gauge your reactions.
The key question has to be "Where is the curriculum in this." And, even more specifically, what has this to do with curriculum design. After all, Baudrillard is not an educator, nor a curriculum designer. He is a philosopher. He is the only non-curriculum person in our readings for this course. So what he has to say needs to be looped back into education, curriculum, and curriculum design.
It is easy of course to "cop out" by reminding you of McLuhan's view that everything is tied to everything, somehow and that you can find connections in the strangest places, if you only look. That was the philosophic position behind Douglas Adams' wildly popular "Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy" novels ... that is, the "interrelationship of all things."
So we need to revisit this basic question. I might add that Dr. Ralph Mason and myself are wrestling with the same idea, with hopes of writing a paper looking at Baudrillard as a fundamental way of looking at 21st century curriculum. But that is for another time.
There was more to the class. I tried to build on some of the ideas of Baudrillard such as reversability, and his relationship to McLuhan.
I presented three other examples of artists and scholars doing similar things.
First, Lewis Carroll, in The hunting of the snark wrote three verses that resembled Baudrillard's map:
He bought a large map representing the sea
Without the least vestige of land...
And the crew were much pleased when they found it to be
A map they could all understand...
The idea of an empty piece of paper representing something real is at least a little frightening.
Then I turned to artist Mark Tansey and his work "The Innocent Eye Test." It shows a cow looking at a painting of a cow, and the cow itself being observed by experts and critics. We, in turn are looking at the critics looking at the cow looking at the picture of the cow.
To me, Tansey's philosophy of painting can easily be changed to my philosophy of curriculum, by merely replacing a few words. Is that plagiarism? Or is it a new idea?
Finally, I tried to demonstrate through music that the medium really is the message. I presented a message in the form of a song text. Then we heard two versions. The first was by Gordon MacRae, a broadway singer of the 40s. He sang that traditional version of the song, which was essentially about building an army. Then we heard a version by Barbra Streisand. Not a word was changed but when we moved from male to female; from MacRae to Streisand, from March to cool jazz, from the 40s to the 70s, from a Broadway musical to a cabaret ... the entire message seemed to change. You decide for yourself whether it worked.
As usual, I had more to cover than time permitted. Perhaps next Monday...
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
March 3: How to read Baudrillard
We will carry over the issues from last class that we did not get to. In particular:
1. An "music" example of "the medium is the message"
2. A CBC blog from last Sunday Edition show.
In addition, two postmodern readings. I am not sure that I spent enough time on how to approach the Baudrillard article. Do not read it in the normal way. His style is radically different and you can easily throw your hands in disgust and confusion. Read holistically. Try to engage in his radical ideas. Better yet, be playful with this paper. It is considered a classic and is without doubt the most well known of the class readings. Indeed, if there is one paper you need to remember from this course, it is Baudrillard's.
1. An "music" example of "the medium is the message"
2. A CBC blog from last Sunday Edition show.
In addition, two postmodern readings. I am not sure that I spent enough time on how to approach the Baudrillard article. Do not read it in the normal way. His style is radically different and you can easily throw your hands in disgust and confusion. Read holistically. Try to engage in his radical ideas. Better yet, be playful with this paper. It is considered a classic and is without doubt the most well known of the class readings. Indeed, if there is one paper you need to remember from this course, it is Baudrillard's.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)