My posting has been sparse the last couple of days, but I’ve been thinking about something for several weeks as I struggle with the “just tell me what I need to know” attitude that I get from teachers. This is not something new. I’ve been hearing it for years and across a variety of contexts. The problem is one of skill development and what I think of as “voice.”

I’m no MFA like my friend Donal (Learning Aestetics) but it seems to me that every artist has a “voice” — that is the unique characteristic that makes his/her work identifiable as theirs. Ansel Adams’ photography. Georgia O’Keefe’s paintings. Ernest Hemingway’s novels. Monty Python’s animation.

Don’t we each have a similar voice in teaching? My style and techniques are certainly not those of, say, Dr. Miller. We use a lot of tools and techniques in common, but how we approach, develop, and use them is unique. Not just what we say, but how we say it. It’s the idea of “voice.”

The problem and the struggle that all artists face is the development and evolution of voice. Picaso’s “blue period” and Matisse’s “gouaches découpés” are examples of shifts in voice. In the case of Matisse, literally changing media while maintaining a unique voice. So how do we deal with this in teaching?

I hesitate to use the term because of the negative connotations it has in this cognitive space, but the idea of ‘professional development’ is the key. The problem is that — in the case of the artists — that professional development happened alone and without the support of organizational bolsters over a rather extend period of time — weeks and even months. Perhaps that’s the secret to effective professional development. Most “professional developments” happens over a ridiculously short period of time and in too little depth to promote understanding. In a two hour professional development activity, where is the time for practice, reflection, adoption, and adaptation? How can anybody even find out whether a particular tool or technique might be applicable — except in the most trivial and superficial manner in anything less than a day.

Oh, sure, you can get an idea that something might be interesting. You can get a feel for perhaps how it might be used. Your expectations and perceptions are going to be colored by your preconceived notions but you can perhaps become intrigued enough to pursue it later and on your own. That’s what kids do. That’s what artists do. It’s actually what scientists do. But it’s seldom what teachers do. The most common response I get when introducing a new tool or technique to teachers?

“I don’t have time for all this detail. Just tell me what I need to know!”

The problem is that just teaching Matisse how to hold a pair of scissors wouldn’t have resulted in his Blue Nudes or Jazz. Just showing you how to set up a blog or aggregator won’t result in your incorporation of these technologies in your practice using your own “voice.” Only you can do that, and it’s going to take time.

This entry was posted on Saturday, September 15th, 2007 at 9:41 am and is filed under Education. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.