Un-Symposium: Mercantile Assumptions of Learning
Of this week’s unlecture, I was once again quite surprised. Whereas I thought we were going to continue with the egalitarian symposium Q & A format, it seemed we reverted to the dictatorial system of information consumption that Adrian had protested so fervently against in the first lecture of the semester.
In any case, it was quite a worthwhile lecture in that it slightly changed my views on how universities should conduct themselves, and the assumptions I have (or had) about my claim to education.
Hypodermic Needle Theory. Source: Lessonbucket.com
A great deal of time was spent addressing a question I had asked similarly asked myself in the first and second weeks.
Why should we come to the lectures if the content is completely irrelevant?
Adrian presented a radical view – radical in that it was very much different to my own – which highlighted the deeply engrained assumptions I had about my pre-ordained “right” to education, and the expectations that I held about what roles lecturers and tutors were obliged to play in my education. Looking back, I can see it was almost arrogant of me to pre-allocate roles to educators, becoming frustrated and dismissive when the educational framework didn’t meet my longstanding expectations. I realise I had formed assumptions about what I had a right to expect from the education system.
Adrian labelled these “mercantile assumptions of learning”, and highlighted the passive quasi-hypodermic needle model of learning I’d attributed to my university experience. As far as I was concerned, I had a right to be given the opportunity to consume knowledge, and educators had a preordained role to play in my education, one that left little room for agency.
I’m happy to concede that I’ve pinpointed the problematic assumptions, and have broadened my scope in regards to educational frameworks and what learning formats might benefit me most, even if slightly unconventional at first.
[…] Victoria recognises the hypodermic theory of communication that was also woven in my comments about learning and retail therapy. This is the language that advertising used to sell itself when it first rose as a major industry. It’s rubbish as any communications book from post World War Two acknowledges. It’s also known as the “golden bullet” theory. If you get the message right, it will work instantly and perfectly. Never does, never will, except in regimes of extraordinary control (North Korea, Nazi Germany). […]