It’s a term, and nothing more. Here is what I think is most important: IT IS NOTHING NEW.
“edupunk is student-centered, resourceful, teacher- or community-created rather than corporate-sourced, and underwritten by a progressive political stance. . . . Edupunk, it seems, takes old-school Progressive educational tactics–hands-on learning that starts with the learner’s interests–and makes them relevant to today’s digital age, sometimes by forgoing digital technologies entirely.”
-definition provided by Stephen Downes
I have seen it discussed in flurries on Twitter. I have read Jim Groom’s original post, where he coined the term. I have followed some of my favorite bloggers’ posts about the term, and found some new ones, too. I saw a student‘s take on it (insightful, as usual) and I have seen the much discussed stub on Wikipedia. I’ve done my research. I was even invited to share all the best “edupunk” ideas I use regularly (though I had to respectfully decline). I’ve seen all the hype and I just can’t shake the feeling that we have seen this all before.
With all respect to Andy Rush — I know, I know, maybe I shouldn’t take it all so seriously. After all, Jim Groom just seems like a crazy dude with a love for technology and learning. But here’s the thing: lots of other educators (and students) out there ARE taking it seriously. And it’s turning into a bunch of hoopla.
Good educators have been creating “student-centered, resourceful, teacher- or community-created rather than corporate-sourced” learning experiences for centuries. It is JUST GOOD PRACTICE. Let’s assume we are all well-read, well-versed educators who have studied the theory as well as had the experience. We have all read Piaget, Skinner, Postman, and Montessori. We have been teaching our students (maybe even through trial and error? God forbid!) and we have learned what works best. We know that “hands-on learning that starts with the learner’s interests–and makes them relevant” is the best — whether that includes digital technologies or not. So why do we need to label it something other than what it is already? It is already GOOD PRACTICE. To paraphrase Tina Turner (who definitely was not punk): What’s punk got to do with it?
I agree with Warlick when he says:
The term is important . . . because it associates with people’s images of themselves and what they do. . .
Edupunk as Portal comments, in reply to Stephen Downes
And although Warlick thinks it’s a good term because it gets people’s attention, we have to recognize that perhaps “punk” is not how all educators see themselves and what they do. This is, I think, what Mrs. Durff was getting at in her comment about it being a “distasteful” term. If I do all the things that are considered “edupunk,” why do I have to be called this? Can’t I just be called a creative teacher? I don’t feel “punk” and I don’t really want to be “punk,” for that matter. I just want to be a good (if not great) educator who does what’s best for her students and their learning.
Like Gardner Campbell, I am skeptical of this term. I agree with him when he says,
There was DIY long before punk, and long after.
Yes, it has sparked some interesting discussion, but will it change anything? David Gran thinks all this debate is furthering our understanding of eduators’ relationships to the global community via technology. I can’t agree with that. I think my understanding of relationships to and within the global community will continue to be fostered and developed without this misnomer. I fear this new term will be the measuring stick for our future educational endeavors. Will we be asking ourselves at every new lesson, assessment task, or faculty meeting, “Are we edupunk enough?” Do we really want this?
I can understand and take into consideration the true spirit that the term embodies, and I can see the creative vibes that it originated out of. That’s all fine and good — and perhaps Jim Groom never intended it to go this far. But I’ve already decided that I don’t really want the term “edupunk” to be how I am described as an educator, for reasons I’ve outlined above. Nevertheless, I do have a few genuine questions:
Insightful Question #1:
I have to wonder if the reason why this term gained such ground in the post-secondary edublogosphere is because post-secondary institutions traditionally have not been hotbeds of ultra-progressive, uber-hip, pedagogically sound teaching and learning. (FLASHBACK: I can count on one hand the number of professors I had who actually were good teachers. I distinctly recall one professor who gave entire lectures standing in one spot, reading from the textbook, pausing between pages to look at the ceiling — we all wondered if he was signalling to the mothership.)
This situation, that is the lack of effective teaching in universities, is of course changing. Many university professors are now actually (gasp!) certified teachers with B.Ed.s and the like. But I wonder how many university professors (outside of the Faculty of Education) have spent time in a kindergarten classroom? That’s where the REAL D.I.Y., hands-on, teaching and learning happens, ladies and gentlemen — we all have MUCH to learn from these very talented KG teachers, and I daresay more high school and university educators would benefit by spending some time in their classrooms.
Insightful Question #2:
If “edupunk” is anti-establishment and anti-corporation, does that mean a true Edupunk does not use any tools provided by large-scale companies? So does that mean no Google? no Flickr? no QuickTime? Alas – these are all tools provided by corporations. Does my using them mean I am succumbing to corporate interests? What about my association with and work for the IBO? They are a non-profit organization but still a recognized “brand.” Yet they are an organization that I believe represents learning needs and goals of students around the world, in the most open-minded way possible.
Image credits:
- Too much information by Violator3 licensed under CC 2.0.
- question con 3 by svilen001 under image license agreement.
[This post has been cross-posted at Pockets Of Change.]
This is an interesting response- and much appreciated. I think you misread what I was saying though- you said:
“I think my understanding of relationships to and within the global community will continue to be fostered and developed without this misnomer”
It most certainly will, I agree- but I wasn’t referring to the term itself, I was referring to the debate around it – from the initial coining of the term, to Ken Carrol’s shredding of it to your response right here – that’s what I find fascinating. As I said in my post, whether the term stays or goes is irrelevant, and won’t have the smallest impact on my teaching. That being said, I do like the term ‘edupunk’ because it clarifies for me a difference between the practicality of ‘web 2.0’ as a business model and the ideology of web 2.0 as an interactive and open space for a free exchange of ideas. I don’t think it serves as a term useful for defining anything more than a characteristic of a larger pedagogical practice.
I doubt that you’d ever be in a situation where you would be evaluated for your ‘edupunkness’ (and institutionalizing anything classified as ‘punk’ would seem to be counterintuitive to its nature). However, I think that you might be overestimating the seriousness of this as anything more than a frame for discussing what is happening in educational technology.
You’re totally right though, its nothing new in concept- its just a new frame, which is why its useful- because it stimulates interesting discussions like this one. Thanks for your contribution to that.
@David
Thanks for the comment and for clarifying the quote of yours I referred to. I do not anticipate that even the debate will change my understanding of relationships within the global community and how I view Web 2.0 for learning. In fact, I’m finding the whole debate to be rather silly (and I say that knowing that I am, by posting this, participating in it. Then again, It isn’t be the first time I’ve participated in something silly! 😉 ). Perhaps naively, and perhaps unlike other educators, I have not really considered Web 2.0 in any way other than what you describe: an interactive and open space for a free exchange of ideas. I never followed, nor cared about, the business model Web 2.0. What’s punk about that? Punk implies some kind of rebellion, and I don’t think I’m rebelling against anything, which is why I am opposed to the term. It does not describe what I feel I do in teaching and learning — yet the definition does. Thus, the discomfort.
Frame, yes. Fine. But whether you call it a “frame” or a “label,” it still puts us in a box, and one I’m not very comfortable in.
As an educator, I’m rebelling against some things. In fact, certainly not enough things. While I’ve never given punk culture much thought at all before thinking about “edupunk”, I find I empathize with educators who feel angry when corporate influence in education goes too far. So in that sense I find “edupunk” to be a clever way to express that anger and the counteraction that often results.
I don’t really care if my actions are labeled as “edupunk”. If anything, I’ll take it as a compliment. In reality, I don’t take the term too seriously but find it clever and humorous.
@Peter,
I guess I’ve never felt that I was in a situation where corporate influence went too far. At times, corporate influence can be very beneficial. Other times, it’s not at all. I noticed that you didn’t really respond to the 2nd question I posed above, which is about this very thing — does to be “edupunk” mean that one cannot use any corporate tools?
“At times, corporate influence can be very beneficial. Other times, it’s not at all.”
And other times, clearly antithetical to education.
“does to be “edupunk” mean that one cannot use any corporate tools?”
I don’t know. I certainly don’t agree with such a view so if that’s what it means, I’m certainly not “edupunk”. With regard to software, there are two factors I consider. One, is the software client-side or SaaS? And two, is the software free or proprietary? The use of “Flickr” in contrast with “QuickTime” brings up different issues.
Rejecting all software because of any corporate involvement is as daft as stating that it doesn’t matter if the tools are free or proprietary.
@Peter
I wasn’t implying anything about free or proprietary software, though I do take your point. What I was getting at is that the “edupunk” term seems to imply that one who is “edupunk” must rise up against all corporate-ism. So, does that mean if it has some kind of corporate feel to it, or even a recognizable brand name, does that mean a true “edupunk” will not use it?
Do you understand what I’m getting at…? Not sure if I’m being clear. QuickTime is software made by Apple. Flickr is a service provided by Yahoo! Both are corporations. Does a true “edupunk” reject both corporations’ tools and create his own (which might do the same thing)?
Rising up against a corporation simply because it is a corporation is silly. Tweeting with Jim Groom (the founder of the term) the other day revealed that he doesn’t see “edupunk” as a complete rejection of corporations entirely. Obviously, in some cases corporate involvement should be rejected and in some cases it is fine.
There is nothing wrong with a “recognizable brand name” in and of itself. It depends what the brand is referring to and the context in which it is being promoted. But free vs. proprietary in the realm of software is fairly clear. For example, a good teacher (edupunk?) would encourage students to use something like VLC rather than the proprietary QuickTime player.
Here is a non-tech example where I feel corporate involvement is antithetical to education. If this was happening at my school I would ask questions and attempt to rally teachers and the admin to reject this corporate involvement.
@Peter
Then I argue that the term is inaccurate, because punk implies rejection of corporations and establishments.
And I agree with your McExample as being one that is just plain McSilly and sending the wrong McMessages to students about lifelong learning. Not to mention, it shamelessly promotes a corporation that has nothing to do with education whatsoever. Not to say that McDonald’s is a “bad” corporation — it might be, it might not be, but its purpose on this earth and mission in the world has nothing to do with educating children.
“punk implies rejection of corporations and establishments”
Yes. But does it imply that *all* corporations and “establishments” should be rejected *no matter the circumstances*? I have never read any consistent literature suggesting that. Certainly, as you would agree, there is nothing wrong with “rejection of corporations and establishments” if it is warranted. If I’m living in the early 21st century and *not* rejecting *any* corporatism in this world then I’m certainly not a globally aware being. I’m a putz.
I prefer to think of the term “edupunk” as insufficient rather than inaccurate. Inaccurate implies that the entirety of *punk culture is aimed way off-mark when in reality, *punk truthfully suggests we take a closer look…that perhaps there are valid reasons why rebellion exists.
The anger and suspicion of antithetical corporate involvement in education (to name just one key part) is entirely justified in any good teacher’s mind. But the term “edupunk” is insufficient in that it requires a particular cultural understanding to fully grasp its connection to education. It’s a very _particular_ cultural reference and will therefore alienate some by its very nature. That’s not bad (the alienation is not intentional), but a sustainable movement through reliance upon punk (or pop) culture is not possible. If you want to spread a movement, that movement must be grounded in a much more universal idea and context.
When a particular cultural reference is made, it doesn’t mean a term lacks any utility or is necessarily fairly labeled as “distasteful”. Boxing “punk” as “distasteful” is like boxing “hippie” as irresponsible. Perhaps there is something to be wary of regarding each of those identities, but it would be wise to consider that each of those identities contains a historical energy of rebellion deserving understanding rather than dismissal.
I think the fear of being labeled “edupunk” is not grounded in reality. It might be silly, but there is nothing to worry about. Only the most neurotic of us would scurry from the term and actively argue against its use. There are plenty of distasteful things we teachers can be called, but “edupunk” ain’t even in the ballpark to those with their heads screwed on straight. And to those who get it? Well perhaps it has more value than meets the eye. Any cultural reference connected to questioning educational practice certainly can’t hurt. If “edupunk” inspires a reflective connection with some, then that’s laudable. But to even spend an ounce of energy fighting or disparaging the term is phobic.
By the way, the earlier post you made questioning the way agents are paid to recruit students to post-secondary schools…? That was very edupunk. 😉
p.s. Any “edupunk” who believes teachers should rise up against *all* corporations simply because they *are* corporations should watch this.
Peter,
Perhaps you are right when you say it is insufficient rather than inaccurate. But I am getting at how denotation and connotation work together to create meaning — of any term. And that is why I still maintain that the term is inaccurate.
Incidentally — please read carefully. I did not make the statement about it being a distasteful term.
You’ve mentioned something else, though, which bothers me about the term and its implications:
Cultural implications. I am uncomfortable with blanket statements about education that are culture-specific, because they are not all-encompassing and therefore they exclude some members.
And neurotic, perhaps. Phobic? That’s going a bit too far.
I will try and make this short and sweet. I see Edupunk as a label for a brand of teaching that looks to expose the hypocrisy of a corporate run world. I would like to think that we can actually use any and all tools to bring about this exposure. Similar to the idea of culture jamming. The whole Punk ethos, as I see it, is a way to make people uncomfortable with things they are trained to ignore. It is an in your face style of revealing truths of society.
Yes you are right this is good practice. So keep doing it and call it what you like, but try and plaster your work in as many places as possible to it can inspire others and shake up the status quo. That is all Edupunk is. But that is just my opinion and what do I know.
One more thing Tina Turner was the embodiment of Punk. Don’t put the term in a box. Like all words in can mean many things. Language is ambiguous and fluid. Hence the beauty of understanding and connection.
Thanks Jabiz. I am taking to heart what you’ve said here:
But I have to point out a strange contradiction here:
and
Yes, language is ambiguous and fluid, but denotation + connotation = constructed meaning. So, what do you mean? 😉
I guess I am saying that the conversation need not be so semantics based. Edupunk can and will mean different things to different people. That is okay. If it doesn’t work for you leave it alone. Post-modern mash-up language may make this formula denotation + connotation = constructed meaning a bit more ambiguous as well.
Jabiz, you may have a point, but language is still the basis for all spoken and written communication. (As an aside, our recognition of this value is the reason why schools and organizations like the NCTE strongly support language-across-the-curriculum to be embedded in learning at all levels from pre-K to university.)
And so, I do think that although “post-modern mash-up language” might be ambiguous, we need some kind of clarity for the sake of getting a message across. Without clarity of language, what is left? Answer: Mis-communication, if you ask me.