How can we better capture these? And importantly, how can we better bridge the gap between ivory tower research and classroom practice? In this blog series, we will present examples of transfer from high-tech environments and ivory tower research that can support teachers in their efforts to teach in 21st century classrooms.
Watch this space! Editor's Note: This is the first in a four-part blog series on the assessment of 21st century skills. We specifically focused on five dimensions of authenticity when reviewing the large-scale assessments: Assessment task: The activities and tasks are similar to those that would be carried out in the real world, with respect to the required knowledge, skills, and attitudes.
Social context: Social processes involved in the task should resemble the social processes that are likely to occur in a real-life situation. This does not mean all tasks need to be undertaken with others; however, if the skill requires collaboration, then the tasks should allow for collaborative interactions. Assessment result: The output should be similar to the kind and amount of output that students would be asked to produce in the real world, for example, a presentation of the work.
Therefore, a range of behavioural and linguistic patterns reinforces and justifies these distinctions. For example, it leads to the use of specialist language in order to exclude the other from knowledge and to create a barrier which strengthens social divisions.
The intellectual in the ivory tower is often seen as a theorist or even an idealist disconnected from the real world. This conception of the bearer of intellect, of human reason, demonstrates a further issue of current capitalist societies. It is linked to an economic system where practical realism is structurally opposed to the values, ideals, complexities and critical issues potentially explored by the intellectual.
In capitalism, the realist has to act solely according to economic principles, not according to any other principles an intellectual might take into consideration. But this is an issue in itself: Why should we be content to live in a society where economic realism and general human reason, economic necessities and universal values are systematically placed in opposition to each other?
The privileged inhabitants of ivory towers have also adopted a self-perpetuating habit of trying to outdo others. In this sense, however, the university is giving up its ivory tower status more and more. Academic publishing, for example, has become such a large business that it is not unusual today that academics receive spam-emails advertising publishing opportunities. The privileged inhabitants of ivory towers have to a large degree also adopted the behaviour and logic of the market economy: competition instead of collaboration, research according to its academic market value, not its intrinsic interest.
This is, indeed, a necessity for those looking for jobs in this competitive environment. When those in permanent positions retain the same market-oriented behaviour, which is frequently the case, it becomes a self-perpetuating habit or a continuation of trying to outdo others. Academics regularly present themselves as tirelessly working, coffee-addicted enthusiasts for research on social media, little thinking, it seems, of the effect such self-images can have on considerations of working hours and a sensible work-life balance within academia, as well as how such self-presentations can add to stress and anxiety felt by those who struggle to keep up such self-perceptions or -projections.
Internal competition for funds and resources and, for those waiting to enter the ivory tower, a struggle for recognition and for jobs often create an atmosphere of competition and anxiety instead of cooperation and self- trust.
Internal hierarchies and power structures, formal ones as well as informal ones, such as a more or less implicit patriarchalism, make the ivory tower itself a mirror of socio-political orders at large. There is a lack of democratic decision-making processes and there are institutional as well as personal positions of power, sometimes hard to understand or to appeal to: a top floor governing the tower, the routes to which are often hidden.
This makes it harder for more sensitive or self-doubting and less conformist personalities to climb, or even get a first foothold on its career ladders. This increasingly leads to serious psychological problems amongst post-graduates. The university is much less a space for the development of critical, let alone idealist, intellectuals than a place for pragmatists adapted to the status quo and ready to compete for success.
Employability is not something universities can transfer to students, but it is something ultimately decided by the job market. However, much as universities may try, in this sense they remain an ivory tower: employability is not something universities can transfer to students, but it is something ultimately decided by the job market.
A graduate may be knowledgeable and skilled—if there is no market demand for their particular skills, they may still be in theory employable but unemployed. The unpredictability of markets makes it hard to advise which skills and which subjects may be needed, and in which fields saturation may already have been reached. How can we help people like this find hope, confidence, opportunity and respect? I think part of the answer is to develop new ways of collaborating and engaging with the residents of these communities.
We need to create opportunities for those who are part of our universities to work personally and directly with community residents, to share knowledge, to listen to their creative ideas and to work together on projects that have practical applications within the community. Universities understand the importance and power of collaboration. We practice it daily with academics at other universities and with our partners in government and the business community.
We need to broaden our collaborative networks to more actively include those who doubt us the most, but know us the least. The neighbourhood is urban, multicultural and poor. A quarter of adults have little education. Its residents live, on average, a decade less than those in the more affluent parts of London. We are a world-leading university, but apparently we have nothing to offer them. Our staff and students now spend a lot of time listening to our neighbours to better understand their needs, and work with them to address those needs.
This has already produced some exciting results. Ramona Williams is a local mother who was born with significant visual impairment. She asked whether Imperial could design a pushchair for people with sight loss using sensors and navigation technology. It is impossible for her to use a cane and push a chair at the same time. She is now an official Imperial supplier and has catered numerous college events, including our open day, when thousands of potential students and their families visited.
In addition to listening, we are investing in initiatives like the Invention Rooms. It offers a model for regaining trust with left behind communities.
We want to forge genuine partnerships with the people of White City. Within the Invention Rooms, we have built a Reach Out Makerspace that provides local young people hands-on experience in designing and prototyping. The space includes cutting-edge equipment such as 3D printers, laser cutters and wood and metalworking machinery, with a range of programmes designed to help young people gain a sense of excitement about turning an idea into a tangible product. When you build something, even a small bookcase made from particleboard, you feel a sense of attachment to it and value it, because you made it.
0コメント