Between the furtive glance and the furrowed brow of doubting practitioners, there hangs a word that many utilize to combat the trajectory of the new and fluttering ideas. Rigor. Administrators want the reputation for it, teachers are evaluated for it, and yet rigor seems to go largely undefined or thought of generally as how strenuously students are made to work. At least linguistically, I have found an irony in the way we are trying to incorporate the idea of "rigor" into what is meant to be a more flexible and exploratory mode of learning.
I think most educators today would balk at the idea that we need more "stiffness" in our classrooms, though the word itself seems to draw to the forefront more questions than answers about what education could and should be in the public classroom. If we are allowing more student freedom for exploration, are we losing the idea that we put our noses to the grindstone and do the hard and tedious work? Furthermore, if we want more flexibility of how students see and apply and integrate information, is there a place for the stiff, hard work that was characteristic of the strict old school? Is there a way to think about rigor in a new way, some new definition for our new pedagogical purposes?And it is in this conversation that we begin to unearth a wider point of conflict in educational philosophy among educators and with the public at large: is it the purpose of school to create obedient producers and consumers, or to set them free from the constraints of ignorance and a passive receipt of knowledge? I would suggest that the challenge for the next generation of teachers is to step forward and offer a vision for a hard-thinking, tenacious pedagogy that will not rely on fact collecting, but rather on the more challenging task of seeking truth in a flexible and mutable world of ideas.
On a personal note, I overhead a conversation of older teachers discussing the idea of rigor in the language classroom. There was a cynicism about projects and Common Core and the 21st century collaborative idea; it permeated the group, tainting the beating of beautiful idealism, covering it over like a tacky veneer, dismissing out of hand the possibility of a new way forward. Does the jadedness come with age and fatigue, or can enthusiasm and desire be kindled, our brittle bones seasoning like bundles of wood over the course of time?
If there are any practitioners who would respond, perhaps you might consider offering a picture of what rigor means in your discipline, and how it may or may not coincide with new ideas about collaboration and inquiry.
If what we understand by "rigor" is "strength" and "hardness" of thinking as well as hard accountability for making sure students are engaged in critically examining the world and learning how to interact with others, I think there is a lot of room for rigor in the more "alternative" routes for education being proposed in the 21st century skills map for language and often times in the CCSS.
ReplyDeleteFor example, there is nothing "loose" about collaborating with others to achieve a common goal. It's hard work to work WELL together. :) As a teacher, everyday I feel challenged to make sure I am keeping my groups of students moving, thinking, and working together. I feel this is not only a challenging role, but a duty if we want to see a better world in which people know how to work with others. I wish for this world everyday, and I want this world for my kid and students.
If, on the other hand, rigor means "numbness"... I would say I am tired of that, too. We do not need anymore of that.
Thanks for sharing, Dave! Keep up the good work.
Absolutely. It seems that we often take the idea to be too black and white, too either/or. The nuance makes all the difference in the undertaking of new and more free ideas of how classrooms can work. Can we be strong and hard by a new definition? It seems to me that your narrative for what rigor can be within the context of this new wave of policies and standards is what we need to make inroads with our colleagues.
ReplyDelete