Actionable Project: ‘Turning Down the Radio: an Immersion into Urban Mindfulness’: A 2-day Workshop for Faculty and Students in Higher Education
By Remington Cooney
April 3rd, 2016
‘Turning Down the Radio: an Immersion into Urban Mindfulness’: a 2-day workshop for faculty and students in higher education
Pre-Workshop
Mindfulness, a meditation technique often used within contemplative education settings, is now beginning to permeate mainstream education culture. The practice of mindfulness meditation itself is an ancient one dating back 2500 years to the 5th century when Siddhartha Gautama – The Buddha – was teaching his followers various meditation techniques to help relieve mental and physical suffering. One such type of meditation was ‘Mindfulness’, a derivative of the original pali term, Sati, which translates literally as “to remember [the present].” (Bodhi, 2011, p. 22). In the late 1970’s, Jon Kabat-Zinn created a secular framework that allowed such a practice of Mindfulness meditation to be taught at a secularized, institutionalized level through the development of the Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction Program (MBSR). Since then, Mindfulness’ popularity has increased exponentially (Kabat-Zinn & Williams, 2011, p.2), due to its development through corporate and educational programs based on the MBSR. I feel my role as a Mindfulness teacher, is to support the growth of secular Mindfulness in the institutionalized world, but in a way that does not lead to its losing touch with its authentic roots in the wisdom tradition of Buddhism. How this can be done is my key question of inquiry as I now officially embark on the journey of Mindfulness teacher in higher education.
Inspired by how Mindfulness meditation has helped me in my life, I have committed much of my research in contemplative education to the investigation of its use in enhancing student learning and well-being. Therefore, it seemed fitting that my actionable project for this course be an experiential inquiry into this area of research. In light of this, I designed a two-day workshop to be taught to both staff and students in higher education. The objective of the workshop is to verse participants thoroughly in both the experiential and theoretical elements of Mindfulness. Such elements include: defining Mindfulness meditation and understanding how it differs from other forms of meditation; understanding the benefits of Mindfulness practice as well as potential dangers; learning basic breathing and focusing techniques to help establish a successful practice, and learning how to take Mindfulness into daily activities (i.e walking, speaking, listening etc). The main objective is to give participants a deep enough understanding of the practice to support complete integration of Mindfulness daily academic life. My hope is to spark in the participants, life-long engagement with mindfulness, but in such a way that I am not proselytizing the practice itself. The aim of these workshops is not to ‘sell’ Mindfulness as the newest tool or technique for increasing productivity and focus. Instead, I want to give a clear, non-biased explication of the practice so that educators can experience for themselves how it works; this, ultimately, allows them to make decisions through subjective inquiry into how Mindfulness might (or might not) benefit their students. An appropriate analogy is that I am merely planting the seed of Mindfulness within participants; whether or not they decide to cultivate growth of that seed, remains up to them.
The project itself is based on a curriculum that covers theory and exercises linked to three types of Mindfulness meditation: Open Monitoring (type 1); Focused Attention (type 2); and Compassion Practice (type 3) [See Appendix: p. 18]. The layout is to present the participants with, first, a theoretical lecture elucidating how to practice each particular type of meditation (1,2,3); afterwards, I follow through with a series of experiential exercises, which hone technique, and address questions and queries that may arise. Key activities included in the curriculum are: seated mindfulness meditation, sensory anchor exercises, mindful stretching, silent eating, walking meditation, and mindful drawing/colouring. The curriculum activities cover traditional types of Mindfulness practice, such as Mindfulness of breath and sound, as well as the more modern interpretations of mindfulness as exemplified in the artwork exercises. The contemplative element to all these exercises is the process of uniting mind, body, and spirit through the action of “paying attention, in a particular way, to the present moment, on purpose, non-judgementally” (Kabat-Zinn & Williams, 2011, p.1). This latter definition is the working definition unanimously used in the current industry of modern, secularized Mindfulness.
The key element linking the workshop exercises together is that they are secular, and thus, could potentially be brought into the classroom of the university at a practical level. If the primary goal is sparking life-long engagement with Mindfulness practice, the secondary goal is encouraging integration of mindfulness at a curricula level into the university classrooms and lecture halls. I hope to accomplish the instigation of such goals through my workshop series at Taylor’s University in Kuala Lumpur. Taylor’s has already expressed interest in integrating Mindfulness meditation into their holistic curriculum as a compulsory exercise for those students who are participating in what is known as the SHINE Award: a secondary transcript that supports students in their development of emotional intelligence and well-being. If Taylor’s can adopt the practice of Mindfulness and integrate it into their curriculum in such a way that Mindfulness remains secular, but does not lose touch with the inherent wisdom of the tradition it stems from, I will consider my overall long-term goal accomplished; for now, the short-term goal is just to simply spark interest and initial engagement with the practice.
Curriculum:
Turning Down the Radio: An Immersion into Urban Mindfulness
Venue: Taylor’s University
Dates:
· Session 1: 18th – 19th March 2016 (Leadership Team)
· Session 2: 24th – 25th March 2016 (Faculty)
· Session 3: 26th – 27th March 2016 (Students)
Abstract:
These mindfulness workshops will work in a retreat like format run over the course of 2 days.
They will be run from 9.00 am - 3.00 pm; there will be three 50 minute blocks (A,B,C,) in the morning, and two in the afternoon (D,E). The lunch break will begin with 30 minutes of silent eating, and finish with 30 minutes of free time.
The working definition of mindfulness that these workshops are based on is:
“Paying attention, on purpose, to the present moment, non-judgementally. “ – Jon Kabat-Zinn
Materials Needed:
Day 1 –Morning:
Block A
9.00 – Introduction
Block B
10.00 – Practicing type 1 meditation technique: Open Monitoring
Block C
11.00 – Going deeper into Open Monitoring (type 1)
11.50 – Discussion/Q&A (10 mins)
12.00 - Lunch Break
Day 1 - Afternoon:
Block D
13.00 - Practicing type 2 meditation technique: Focused Attention
13.50 – Exercise debrief
Block E
14.00 – Walking Meditation (20 mins)
14.20 – Combining type 1 and type 2: Open monitoring and Focused Attention
14.45 – Q&A/Discussion (15 mins)
15.00 – End
Day 2 – Morning:
Block A
09.00 – Mindfulness practice & Neuroscience Lecture
Block B
10.00 – Going deeper into Focused Attention Practice (type 2)
10.50 – Silent Break
Block C
11.00 – Practicing type-3 meditation technique: Compassion practice (Loving Kindness)
11.50 – Reflective Journaling (10 mins)
12.00 – Lunch Break
Day 2 - Afternoon:
Block D
13.00 - Combining all 3 types of meditation: Open Monitoring; Focused Attention; and Compassion Practice (Extended Meditation)
13.50 – Reflective Journaling (10 mins)
Block E
14.00 – Group exercises (20 mins)
14.20 – Closing Talk – ‘Integrating Mindfulness Practice into Higher Education’ (20 mins)
14.40 – Discussion/Q&A (15 mins)
14.55 – Closing meditation (5 mins)
15.00 - End
Suggested Reading
Post-Workshop
“What kind of attentiveness will enable us to see a true whole?”
- Arthur Zanjonc (The Heart Of Higher Education)
After teaching the first workshop to the academic leadership group (March 18th-19th), I was able to gauge the parts of my curriculum that were successful, and the parts that could be removed. Timing was an issue, as many of the exercises took longer than expected, which meant that some of the activities had to be dropped. I will need to make the necessary amendments to the curriculum in preparation for the next two workshops to better adjust the timing of the exercises. The majority of the experiential exercises – seated, walking, and eating meditation – received a positive, enthusiastic response, whilst seemingly still pushing participants into places of minor emotional discomfort. Going to these places of emotional discomfort indicates to me that the participant is experiencing some emotional growth, due to stepping outside of a comfort zone existent within habitual patterns of mind. This assumption was later verified in the debrief discussions when participants shared how they were often initially uncomfortable with certain activities, but later became more and more at ease with their discomfort, being able to observe it non-judgementally. The parts not as well received were the artwork exercises, and some of the more extensive lecturing on the history of mindfulness and its religious roots. My feeling is that the professors and deans, being seniors, were less enthusiastic about artwork exercises because these seemed like juvenile forms of contemplative practice; the drawing and mindful colouring activities will, I predict, be better received by the student group.
Despite participants initial reservations – many of which were due to the their varying religious orientations (Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist) – by the afternoon of the first day, mostly everyone was partaking openly in the prescribed Mindfulness activities and reporting back their upcoming thoughts and feelings. They documented their progress through reflection notes and ‘tuning-in’ charts’ (see appendix 1: p. 20). This process led to a contemplative ‘container,’ as I call it, being formed: a vessel that surrounds the somewhat magical feeling of the dissolving of the self-constructed barriers we place between each other, so that we can, ultimately, become more emotionally intimate with one another. In the wake of this, the meditation hall began to shift into a contemplative space in which many of the participants became quieter, warmer, gentler and more openhearted. I often could observe this through their body language: less uptight postures, more calm smiles shared between one another, and, for the most part, less fidgeting. The opening Mindfulness exercises earlier that morning were met head on by these deans and professors with their fiercely intellectual personas; after each experiential exercise they would attempt to deconstruct the practice I was offering through analysis and objective-based methods. Constantly, I had to remind them that this was an experiential workshop and for them to park their intellectual minds of expertise at the door and bring ‘beginner’s mind’ into the room. For as Zen teacher Shunryu Suzuki says, “in the beginner’s mind there are endless possibilities, in the expert’s mind there are few” (1987, p.1); needless to say, this quote soon became our workshop motto.
One dean described after one of the first mindfulness meditations, how he had felt some peace of mind: he asked, “How do I recreate that sense of peace I felt?” When I responded that this takes time and practice to develop this kind of emotional equanimity, he replied, “isn’t there some sort of quick-fix method?” This Engineering dean showcased perfectly the objective-based and results-orientated mind-set that many of us have internalized, as a result of a world governed by neoliberalism. Within our “knowledge-based economy” (Smith, 2006, p. 90) – a direct result of neoliberalism – “education is linked to the language of tradable goods and services” (Smith, 2006, p. 84), and thus, knowledge is packaged into “product-based measures…to serve the needs of global industrial competitiveness” (Smith, 2006, p. 84). Packaging knowledge into a “tradable good” has led to commoditized knowledge systems that cater to this ‘quick-fix’-type knowledge formula this very participant was requesting. My response to this is, Mindfulness meditation should not be reduced to another commoditized knowledge system that garners value through its economic worth as a “tradable good.” And yet, Mindfulness is already beginning to fall into this reductionist trap through its instrumentalization by particular institutions, such as the U.S. Army and corporations like General Mills and Monsanto (Stone, 2014, para 1). Such institutions create reductionist models of Mindfulness to minimalize a whole wisdom tradition into a bare-bones ‘meditation’ technique, manipulating it for exploitative, capitalistic purposes. In the corporate world this is exemplified in money-saving schemes where Mindfulness is implemented to cut down on employee health benefit costs (Purser, 2013, para. 14). In the U.S. military, it is now being taught as a technique to improve soldiers’ concentration and resilience during battle (Stone, 2014, para. 8).
The drawback of teaching such a short workshop to educators who are fairly fixated on business-model schemes is that they may similarly try to reduce Mindfulness merely into a technique that solely hopes to increase student production. In my opinion, to do this would be to detract from the original ethical framework that the Buddha created around Mindfulness consisting of the Four Immeasurables: these qualities – loving-kindness, compassion, empathetic joy, and equanimity – put the focus not on self-gain, but on the benefit of all beings, and encourage well-being in our communities. The Four Immeasurables are the wisdom qualities inherent in the practice and teaching of Mindfulness. To use the practice in a way that goes against these Immeasurables is to commit what the Buddha called “wrong mindfulness” or miccha sati (Purser, 2013, para. 8). I see it as my responsibility in these workshops to demonstrate samma sati – right mindfulness – as best I can. To me, this means reiterating that the measurable, technique-based methods of Mindfulness must be balanced with the immeasurable, ethical framework that traditionally surrounded the practice. Furthermore, in order to implement Mindfulness within a university like Taylor’s, those who are embedding it into the curriculum should also be practitioners of it themselves. Hopefully my suggesting this will propagate a healthy germination of the seeds of mindfulness that I have now sown within the higher education system over here in Kuala Lumpur.
Works Cited
Bodhi, B. (2011). What Does Mindfulness Really Mean? A Canonical Perspective. Contemporary Buddhism, 12:01, 19-39, DOI: 10.1080/14639947.2011.564813
Kabat-Zinn, J. & Mark G. Williams, J. & (2011) Mindfulness: diverse perspectives on its meaning, origins, and multiple applications at the intersection of science and dharma, Contemporary Buddhism, 12:01, 1-18, DOI: 10.1080/14639947.2011.564811
Palmer. P & Zajonc, A. (2010). The Heart Of Higher Education: A Call To Renewal. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
Purser, R. & Loy, D. (2013). Beyond McMindfulness. Huffington Post. n.p. Web. August 31st 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ron-purser/beyond-mcmindfulness_b_3519289.html
Smith, D. (2006). Trying To Teach In A Season of Great Untruth: Globalization, Empire, and the Crisis of Pedagogy. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Stone, M. (2014). Abusing the Buddha: How the U.S. Army and Google co-opt mindfulness. SALON. n.p. Web. 17th March 2014 http://www.salon.com/2014/03/17/abusing_the_buddha_how_the_u_s_army_and_google_co_opt_mindfulness/
Suzuki, S. (1987). Zen Mind Beginner’s Mind. Boston, MA. Shambhala Inc.
Pre-Workshop
Mindfulness, a meditation technique often used within contemplative education settings, is now beginning to permeate mainstream education culture. The practice of mindfulness meditation itself is an ancient one dating back 2500 years to the 5th century when Siddhartha Gautama – The Buddha – was teaching his followers various meditation techniques to help relieve mental and physical suffering. One such type of meditation was ‘Mindfulness’, a derivative of the original pali term, Sati, which translates literally as “to remember [the present].” (Bodhi, 2011, p. 22). In the late 1970’s, Jon Kabat-Zinn created a secular framework that allowed such a practice of Mindfulness meditation to be taught at a secularized, institutionalized level through the development of the Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction Program (MBSR). Since then, Mindfulness’ popularity has increased exponentially (Kabat-Zinn & Williams, 2011, p.2), due to its development through corporate and educational programs based on the MBSR. I feel my role as a Mindfulness teacher, is to support the growth of secular Mindfulness in the institutionalized world, but in a way that does not lead to its losing touch with its authentic roots in the wisdom tradition of Buddhism. How this can be done is my key question of inquiry as I now officially embark on the journey of Mindfulness teacher in higher education.
Inspired by how Mindfulness meditation has helped me in my life, I have committed much of my research in contemplative education to the investigation of its use in enhancing student learning and well-being. Therefore, it seemed fitting that my actionable project for this course be an experiential inquiry into this area of research. In light of this, I designed a two-day workshop to be taught to both staff and students in higher education. The objective of the workshop is to verse participants thoroughly in both the experiential and theoretical elements of Mindfulness. Such elements include: defining Mindfulness meditation and understanding how it differs from other forms of meditation; understanding the benefits of Mindfulness practice as well as potential dangers; learning basic breathing and focusing techniques to help establish a successful practice, and learning how to take Mindfulness into daily activities (i.e walking, speaking, listening etc). The main objective is to give participants a deep enough understanding of the practice to support complete integration of Mindfulness daily academic life. My hope is to spark in the participants, life-long engagement with mindfulness, but in such a way that I am not proselytizing the practice itself. The aim of these workshops is not to ‘sell’ Mindfulness as the newest tool or technique for increasing productivity and focus. Instead, I want to give a clear, non-biased explication of the practice so that educators can experience for themselves how it works; this, ultimately, allows them to make decisions through subjective inquiry into how Mindfulness might (or might not) benefit their students. An appropriate analogy is that I am merely planting the seed of Mindfulness within participants; whether or not they decide to cultivate growth of that seed, remains up to them.
The project itself is based on a curriculum that covers theory and exercises linked to three types of Mindfulness meditation: Open Monitoring (type 1); Focused Attention (type 2); and Compassion Practice (type 3) [See Appendix: p. 18]. The layout is to present the participants with, first, a theoretical lecture elucidating how to practice each particular type of meditation (1,2,3); afterwards, I follow through with a series of experiential exercises, which hone technique, and address questions and queries that may arise. Key activities included in the curriculum are: seated mindfulness meditation, sensory anchor exercises, mindful stretching, silent eating, walking meditation, and mindful drawing/colouring. The curriculum activities cover traditional types of Mindfulness practice, such as Mindfulness of breath and sound, as well as the more modern interpretations of mindfulness as exemplified in the artwork exercises. The contemplative element to all these exercises is the process of uniting mind, body, and spirit through the action of “paying attention, in a particular way, to the present moment, on purpose, non-judgementally” (Kabat-Zinn & Williams, 2011, p.1). This latter definition is the working definition unanimously used in the current industry of modern, secularized Mindfulness.
The key element linking the workshop exercises together is that they are secular, and thus, could potentially be brought into the classroom of the university at a practical level. If the primary goal is sparking life-long engagement with Mindfulness practice, the secondary goal is encouraging integration of mindfulness at a curricula level into the university classrooms and lecture halls. I hope to accomplish the instigation of such goals through my workshop series at Taylor’s University in Kuala Lumpur. Taylor’s has already expressed interest in integrating Mindfulness meditation into their holistic curriculum as a compulsory exercise for those students who are participating in what is known as the SHINE Award: a secondary transcript that supports students in their development of emotional intelligence and well-being. If Taylor’s can adopt the practice of Mindfulness and integrate it into their curriculum in such a way that Mindfulness remains secular, but does not lose touch with the inherent wisdom of the tradition it stems from, I will consider my overall long-term goal accomplished; for now, the short-term goal is just to simply spark interest and initial engagement with the practice.
Curriculum:
Turning Down the Radio: An Immersion into Urban Mindfulness
Venue: Taylor’s University
Dates:
· Session 1: 18th – 19th March 2016 (Leadership Team)
· Session 2: 24th – 25th March 2016 (Faculty)
· Session 3: 26th – 27th March 2016 (Students)
Abstract:
These mindfulness workshops will work in a retreat like format run over the course of 2 days.
They will be run from 9.00 am - 3.00 pm; there will be three 50 minute blocks (A,B,C,) in the morning, and two in the afternoon (D,E). The lunch break will begin with 30 minutes of silent eating, and finish with 30 minutes of free time.
The working definition of mindfulness that these workshops are based on is:
“Paying attention, on purpose, to the present moment, non-judgementally. “ – Jon Kabat-Zinn
Materials Needed:
- Wireless mic – preferably a hands-free lavalier microphone that I can clip on
- PA system – for mic and music to be projected through
- Chairs – preferably with wheels for easy mobility to change seating positions
- Yoga mats (x30) – or another soft type of mat for reclined breathing exercises
- Yoga blocks (x30) – or if we cannot get blocks, just a small cushion for each participant
- Packet of Raisins and a chocolate bar – enough to divide between 30 pax
- VGA/HDMI cable to connect Mac Computer to Power Point Screen
- Screen and projector for power point presentation
Day 1 –Morning:
Block A
9.00 – Introduction
- Introductory meditation (5 mins)
- Lecture: defining mindfulness and workshop objectives (30 mins)
- Mindful Mingling exercise (25 mins)
Block B
10.00 – Practicing type 1 meditation technique: Open Monitoring
- Lecture: ‘Tuning the Radio’ – how to practice open-monitoring (20 mins)
- Awakening the body: Sequence of gentle stretching and breath work, conducive for classroom/office environments (20 mins)
- Awakening the senses – exercises include paying close attention to: (20 mins)
- Visual awareness – Mindfulness of images (eyes open meditation)
- Kinaesthetic awareness – Mindfulness of sensations (body scan)
- Olfactory awareness – Mindfulness of smell (essential oils)
- Auditory awareness – Mindfulness of sound (white noise/music)
Block C
11.00 – Going deeper into Open Monitoring (type 1)
- Gustatory awareness – Mindfulness of taste (10 mins)
- Mindful eating exercise
- Check to see if participants have allergies to either chocolate or raisins
- Reflective journaling on ‘awakening the senses’ exercise (10 mins)
- Supine Meditation – Mindful body scan lying down (30 mins)
- Yoga/soft mats will be needed for this exercise
11.50 – Discussion/Q&A (10 mins)
12.00 - Lunch Break
- Silent mindful eating (30 mins)
- Free time (30 mins)
Day 1 - Afternoon:
Block D
13.00 - Practicing type 2 meditation technique: Focused Attention
- Lecture: ‘Turning Down The Radio’ – how to practice Focused Attention (20 mins)
- Focused Attention techniques – Cultivating Concentration (20 mins)
- Attention to posture: how to position the body
- Attention to sight: eyes open vs. eyes closed
- Attention to breath: how to breathe
- Attention to concentration anchors: counting methods & visuals
- Guided visualization (20 mins)
- Meditation led by myself with visuals to help anchor breath, body and mind
13.50 – Exercise debrief
Block E
14.00 – Walking Meditation (20 mins)
- ‘Rainbow Walk’ exercise
- Counting sounds exercise
14.20 – Combining type 1 and type 2: Open monitoring and Focused Attention
- Extended Meditation Practice (25 mins)
- Open monitoring of sound & sensations
- Focused Attention on breathing
- ‘Riding the Wave’ of body sensations
14.45 – Q&A/Discussion (15 mins)
15.00 – End
Day 2 – Morning:
Block A
09.00 – Mindfulness practice & Neuroscience Lecture
- Introductory meditation & debrief (20 mins)
- Reviewing yesterday’s terminology: (10 mins)
- ‘Tuning the Radio’ (Open Monitoring)
- ‘Turning Down the Radio’ (Focused Attention)
- Lecture: ‘The (Brain) Science Behind Mindfulness’ (30 mins)
Block B
10.00 – Going deeper into Focused Attention Practice (type 2)
- Awakening the body: gentle stretching and breath work exercises (20 mins)
- Further exploration of type 2 meditation methodologies (30 mins)
- ‘Breathing Emotions’ labelling exercise
- ‘Watch the gaps’ exercise
- Belly Breathing
- Objects of meditation
10.50 – Silent Break
Block C
11.00 – Practicing type-3 meditation technique: Compassion practice (Loving Kindness)
- Lecture: ‘Broadening the Radio Signal’ – how to practice mindful Compassion (15 mins)
- Guided mindful Compassion practice (20 mins)
- Partner exercises/pair work (15 mins)
- Eye Gazing exercise
- “just like me” exercise
11.50 – Reflective Journaling (10 mins)
- Participants document personal challenges, breakthroughs, and questions
12.00 – Lunch Break
- Silent mindful eating (30 mins)
- Free time (30 mins)
Day 2 - Afternoon:
Block D
13.00 - Combining all 3 types of meditation: Open Monitoring; Focused Attention; and Compassion Practice (Extended Meditation)
- Guided Visualization Meditation: type 1, type 2, and type 3 (20 mins)
- Walking meditation break (10 mins)
- Non-guided Meditation (20 mins)
13.50 – Reflective Journaling (10 mins)
Block E
14.00 – Group exercises (20 mins)
- Drawing/Artwork exercises
14.20 – Closing Talk – ‘Integrating Mindfulness Practice into Higher Education’ (20 mins)
14.40 – Discussion/Q&A (15 mins)
14.55 – Closing meditation (5 mins)
15.00 - End
Suggested Reading
- Mindfulness On the Go – Jan Chozen Bays
- Mindfulness In Plain English – Bhante Gunaratana
- Mindfulness Survival Kit – Thich Nhat Hanh
- Contemplative Practices in Higher Education – Daniel Barbezat & Mirabai Bush
Post-Workshop
“What kind of attentiveness will enable us to see a true whole?”
- Arthur Zanjonc (The Heart Of Higher Education)
After teaching the first workshop to the academic leadership group (March 18th-19th), I was able to gauge the parts of my curriculum that were successful, and the parts that could be removed. Timing was an issue, as many of the exercises took longer than expected, which meant that some of the activities had to be dropped. I will need to make the necessary amendments to the curriculum in preparation for the next two workshops to better adjust the timing of the exercises. The majority of the experiential exercises – seated, walking, and eating meditation – received a positive, enthusiastic response, whilst seemingly still pushing participants into places of minor emotional discomfort. Going to these places of emotional discomfort indicates to me that the participant is experiencing some emotional growth, due to stepping outside of a comfort zone existent within habitual patterns of mind. This assumption was later verified in the debrief discussions when participants shared how they were often initially uncomfortable with certain activities, but later became more and more at ease with their discomfort, being able to observe it non-judgementally. The parts not as well received were the artwork exercises, and some of the more extensive lecturing on the history of mindfulness and its religious roots. My feeling is that the professors and deans, being seniors, were less enthusiastic about artwork exercises because these seemed like juvenile forms of contemplative practice; the drawing and mindful colouring activities will, I predict, be better received by the student group.
Despite participants initial reservations – many of which were due to the their varying religious orientations (Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist) – by the afternoon of the first day, mostly everyone was partaking openly in the prescribed Mindfulness activities and reporting back their upcoming thoughts and feelings. They documented their progress through reflection notes and ‘tuning-in’ charts’ (see appendix 1: p. 20). This process led to a contemplative ‘container,’ as I call it, being formed: a vessel that surrounds the somewhat magical feeling of the dissolving of the self-constructed barriers we place between each other, so that we can, ultimately, become more emotionally intimate with one another. In the wake of this, the meditation hall began to shift into a contemplative space in which many of the participants became quieter, warmer, gentler and more openhearted. I often could observe this through their body language: less uptight postures, more calm smiles shared between one another, and, for the most part, less fidgeting. The opening Mindfulness exercises earlier that morning were met head on by these deans and professors with their fiercely intellectual personas; after each experiential exercise they would attempt to deconstruct the practice I was offering through analysis and objective-based methods. Constantly, I had to remind them that this was an experiential workshop and for them to park their intellectual minds of expertise at the door and bring ‘beginner’s mind’ into the room. For as Zen teacher Shunryu Suzuki says, “in the beginner’s mind there are endless possibilities, in the expert’s mind there are few” (1987, p.1); needless to say, this quote soon became our workshop motto.
One dean described after one of the first mindfulness meditations, how he had felt some peace of mind: he asked, “How do I recreate that sense of peace I felt?” When I responded that this takes time and practice to develop this kind of emotional equanimity, he replied, “isn’t there some sort of quick-fix method?” This Engineering dean showcased perfectly the objective-based and results-orientated mind-set that many of us have internalized, as a result of a world governed by neoliberalism. Within our “knowledge-based economy” (Smith, 2006, p. 90) – a direct result of neoliberalism – “education is linked to the language of tradable goods and services” (Smith, 2006, p. 84), and thus, knowledge is packaged into “product-based measures…to serve the needs of global industrial competitiveness” (Smith, 2006, p. 84). Packaging knowledge into a “tradable good” has led to commoditized knowledge systems that cater to this ‘quick-fix’-type knowledge formula this very participant was requesting. My response to this is, Mindfulness meditation should not be reduced to another commoditized knowledge system that garners value through its economic worth as a “tradable good.” And yet, Mindfulness is already beginning to fall into this reductionist trap through its instrumentalization by particular institutions, such as the U.S. Army and corporations like General Mills and Monsanto (Stone, 2014, para 1). Such institutions create reductionist models of Mindfulness to minimalize a whole wisdom tradition into a bare-bones ‘meditation’ technique, manipulating it for exploitative, capitalistic purposes. In the corporate world this is exemplified in money-saving schemes where Mindfulness is implemented to cut down on employee health benefit costs (Purser, 2013, para. 14). In the U.S. military, it is now being taught as a technique to improve soldiers’ concentration and resilience during battle (Stone, 2014, para. 8).
The drawback of teaching such a short workshop to educators who are fairly fixated on business-model schemes is that they may similarly try to reduce Mindfulness merely into a technique that solely hopes to increase student production. In my opinion, to do this would be to detract from the original ethical framework that the Buddha created around Mindfulness consisting of the Four Immeasurables: these qualities – loving-kindness, compassion, empathetic joy, and equanimity – put the focus not on self-gain, but on the benefit of all beings, and encourage well-being in our communities. The Four Immeasurables are the wisdom qualities inherent in the practice and teaching of Mindfulness. To use the practice in a way that goes against these Immeasurables is to commit what the Buddha called “wrong mindfulness” or miccha sati (Purser, 2013, para. 8). I see it as my responsibility in these workshops to demonstrate samma sati – right mindfulness – as best I can. To me, this means reiterating that the measurable, technique-based methods of Mindfulness must be balanced with the immeasurable, ethical framework that traditionally surrounded the practice. Furthermore, in order to implement Mindfulness within a university like Taylor’s, those who are embedding it into the curriculum should also be practitioners of it themselves. Hopefully my suggesting this will propagate a healthy germination of the seeds of mindfulness that I have now sown within the higher education system over here in Kuala Lumpur.
Works Cited
Bodhi, B. (2011). What Does Mindfulness Really Mean? A Canonical Perspective. Contemporary Buddhism, 12:01, 19-39, DOI: 10.1080/14639947.2011.564813
Kabat-Zinn, J. & Mark G. Williams, J. & (2011) Mindfulness: diverse perspectives on its meaning, origins, and multiple applications at the intersection of science and dharma, Contemporary Buddhism, 12:01, 1-18, DOI: 10.1080/14639947.2011.564811
Palmer. P & Zajonc, A. (2010). The Heart Of Higher Education: A Call To Renewal. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
Purser, R. & Loy, D. (2013). Beyond McMindfulness. Huffington Post. n.p. Web. August 31st 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ron-purser/beyond-mcmindfulness_b_3519289.html
Smith, D. (2006). Trying To Teach In A Season of Great Untruth: Globalization, Empire, and the Crisis of Pedagogy. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Stone, M. (2014). Abusing the Buddha: How the U.S. Army and Google co-opt mindfulness. SALON. n.p. Web. 17th March 2014 http://www.salon.com/2014/03/17/abusing_the_buddha_how_the_u_s_army_and_google_co_opt_mindfulness/
Suzuki, S. (1987). Zen Mind Beginner’s Mind. Boston, MA. Shambhala Inc.
Critical Responses
Critical Response #1: Runaway World and Scared Sacred
In our first weekend together our cohort discussed Velcrow Ripper’s documentary Scared Sacred and Anthony Giddens’ lecture series A Runaway world. Our discussion led to the conclusion that privileged cultures must learn how to ‘bear witness’ to the sacred stories of marginalized cultures. Bearing witness is a method by which we openly observe the stories of others, without injecting our own personal narrative into those stories. We can do so through the act of ‘deep listening’ and ‘beholding’ (deeply seeing) another’s story – “a way of hearing [and seeing] in which we are fully present with what is happening in the moment without trying to control it or judge it” (Barbezat & Bush, 2014, p. 137). In this way we are listening with our heart, and not just with an analytical mind that looks to solve or manipulate the story being told. Through this process of deeply listening and deeply seeing we provide a platform for the ‘other’ to be truly heard, in a way that offers them freedom from repression and marginalization. In other words, the process of bearing witness can give power to the voice of the marginalized ‘other’.
In the documentary Scared Sacred, Velcrow Ripper does exactly this: by recounting the stories of individuals from marginalized third world cultures, and screening it through a medium that provides global recognition, Ripper elevates them up onto the world stage; a platform that Sociologist Anthony Giddens calls the “global arena” (Giddens, 1999, Globalization). In our globalizing world we now have the technological capability and capacity for dialogue, between the privileged and less so, to occur both ways within this global arena. Yet, it is rare to hear the voices of marginalized communities up on the world stage. Instead, it is more likely to hear their stories through first-world cultural interpretations of these marginalized voices, via the media and politicians. To elaborate, privileged Western cultures have become the loudspeakers that dominate this global arena. Which is why: “to many living outside Europe and North America, [Globalization] looks uncomfortably like Westernization or perhaps Americanization” (Giddens, 1999, Globalization). The interpretation of the voice of the ‘other’ is a type of domination: so long as this domination of one voice over another is occurring, more privileged cultures are not bearing witness to the voices of marginalized ones; for, as stated earlier, interpretation of another’s story as its been told, is injecting a personal narrative or commentary on top of the ‘other’s’ narrative. In this way, the storyteller is no longer being deeply listened to, or seen for who they truly are. Rather, they are being seen and heard exclusively through the lens of one’s biased cultural perceptions. This type of ‘interpretative witnessing,’ as I would term it, removes the sacredness of the voice of the marginalized ‘other,’ whereas bearing witness reinforces this sacredness.
Ripper, through his documentary, is trying to retain the sacredness of the repressed voice; he successfully does so, by the way he structures his interviews and commentaries: his own voice remains secondary, so as to not overshadow the voices of the interviewees who remain in the foreground throughout. Ripper ensures that his own Western lens (which inevitably creates some bias) does not detract from the voices being documented. This element is crucial in Ripper’s success of bearing witness to the stories of those that he films.
Another key point of discussion among the cohort was about whether globalization creates ‘winners and losers’; the class consensus was indeed it does: for globalization in its current form does not aim to promote the overall general good of all populaces. In contrast, it has led to the nation state being superseded by corporate powers. Such corporate powers control global capital and exploit marginalized communities by using them in unequal ways that help corporations develop economically. In other words, globalization has led to greater economic developments at the expense of human rights.
Nevertheless, in Runaway World, Giddens (1999) presents an optimistic view of the potential behind globalization, stating: “I see globalization as a whole new possible world.” (Tradition). Such possibility is existent in Giddens’ idea of a “transnational democracy” (Giddens, 1999, Democracy) – a democracy that expands beyond the boundaries of the nation state, and thus, functions at the level of the global arena. He argues that only a democracy that rules above the nation state can compete with the global corporate powers. Such a democracy would reinstate freedom of expression for all people, including minorities, by ruling over the transnational corporate powers that currently exploit marginalized third world cultures (Giddens, 1999, Democracy). Subsequently, Giddens version of a transnational democracy would ideally reinstate the sacred voice of those who are marginalized within this global arena. This could potentially end some of the exploitation that globalization reinforces.
Conclusively, in Ripper documenting the marginalization of third world cultures through the transnational medium of film, he empowers the repressed voice of the ‘other.’ In doing so, we are able to hear first-hand what the voices of the repressed and oppressed consider as sacred in their cultures. Perhaps these are the types of activities that are helping define the “transnational democracy” that Giddens calls for. The creation of films and projects such as Scared Sacred promote the human rights that are being quelled in a globalizing world. This, in turn, allows us to once again recognize the sacredness of the ‘other’ and other cultures.
Works Cited
Barberzat, D. & Bush, M. (2014). Contemplative Practices in Higher Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Giddens, A. (1999, April 7th) A Runaway World. The Reith Lectures Archive @ BBC Radio 4 Podcast. Podcast retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00gw9s1
In our first weekend together our cohort discussed Velcrow Ripper’s documentary Scared Sacred and Anthony Giddens’ lecture series A Runaway world. Our discussion led to the conclusion that privileged cultures must learn how to ‘bear witness’ to the sacred stories of marginalized cultures. Bearing witness is a method by which we openly observe the stories of others, without injecting our own personal narrative into those stories. We can do so through the act of ‘deep listening’ and ‘beholding’ (deeply seeing) another’s story – “a way of hearing [and seeing] in which we are fully present with what is happening in the moment without trying to control it or judge it” (Barbezat & Bush, 2014, p. 137). In this way we are listening with our heart, and not just with an analytical mind that looks to solve or manipulate the story being told. Through this process of deeply listening and deeply seeing we provide a platform for the ‘other’ to be truly heard, in a way that offers them freedom from repression and marginalization. In other words, the process of bearing witness can give power to the voice of the marginalized ‘other’.
In the documentary Scared Sacred, Velcrow Ripper does exactly this: by recounting the stories of individuals from marginalized third world cultures, and screening it through a medium that provides global recognition, Ripper elevates them up onto the world stage; a platform that Sociologist Anthony Giddens calls the “global arena” (Giddens, 1999, Globalization). In our globalizing world we now have the technological capability and capacity for dialogue, between the privileged and less so, to occur both ways within this global arena. Yet, it is rare to hear the voices of marginalized communities up on the world stage. Instead, it is more likely to hear their stories through first-world cultural interpretations of these marginalized voices, via the media and politicians. To elaborate, privileged Western cultures have become the loudspeakers that dominate this global arena. Which is why: “to many living outside Europe and North America, [Globalization] looks uncomfortably like Westernization or perhaps Americanization” (Giddens, 1999, Globalization). The interpretation of the voice of the ‘other’ is a type of domination: so long as this domination of one voice over another is occurring, more privileged cultures are not bearing witness to the voices of marginalized ones; for, as stated earlier, interpretation of another’s story as its been told, is injecting a personal narrative or commentary on top of the ‘other’s’ narrative. In this way, the storyteller is no longer being deeply listened to, or seen for who they truly are. Rather, they are being seen and heard exclusively through the lens of one’s biased cultural perceptions. This type of ‘interpretative witnessing,’ as I would term it, removes the sacredness of the voice of the marginalized ‘other,’ whereas bearing witness reinforces this sacredness.
Ripper, through his documentary, is trying to retain the sacredness of the repressed voice; he successfully does so, by the way he structures his interviews and commentaries: his own voice remains secondary, so as to not overshadow the voices of the interviewees who remain in the foreground throughout. Ripper ensures that his own Western lens (which inevitably creates some bias) does not detract from the voices being documented. This element is crucial in Ripper’s success of bearing witness to the stories of those that he films.
Another key point of discussion among the cohort was about whether globalization creates ‘winners and losers’; the class consensus was indeed it does: for globalization in its current form does not aim to promote the overall general good of all populaces. In contrast, it has led to the nation state being superseded by corporate powers. Such corporate powers control global capital and exploit marginalized communities by using them in unequal ways that help corporations develop economically. In other words, globalization has led to greater economic developments at the expense of human rights.
Nevertheless, in Runaway World, Giddens (1999) presents an optimistic view of the potential behind globalization, stating: “I see globalization as a whole new possible world.” (Tradition). Such possibility is existent in Giddens’ idea of a “transnational democracy” (Giddens, 1999, Democracy) – a democracy that expands beyond the boundaries of the nation state, and thus, functions at the level of the global arena. He argues that only a democracy that rules above the nation state can compete with the global corporate powers. Such a democracy would reinstate freedom of expression for all people, including minorities, by ruling over the transnational corporate powers that currently exploit marginalized third world cultures (Giddens, 1999, Democracy). Subsequently, Giddens version of a transnational democracy would ideally reinstate the sacred voice of those who are marginalized within this global arena. This could potentially end some of the exploitation that globalization reinforces.
Conclusively, in Ripper documenting the marginalization of third world cultures through the transnational medium of film, he empowers the repressed voice of the ‘other.’ In doing so, we are able to hear first-hand what the voices of the repressed and oppressed consider as sacred in their cultures. Perhaps these are the types of activities that are helping define the “transnational democracy” that Giddens calls for. The creation of films and projects such as Scared Sacred promote the human rights that are being quelled in a globalizing world. This, in turn, allows us to once again recognize the sacredness of the ‘other’ and other cultures.
Works Cited
Barberzat, D. & Bush, M. (2014). Contemplative Practices in Higher Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Giddens, A. (1999, April 7th) A Runaway World. The Reith Lectures Archive @ BBC Radio 4 Podcast. Podcast retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00gw9s1
Critical Response #2: Discussions of Globalization and Integrative Education
In our second session, our cohort investigated articles on Globalization by scholar David Smith. A recurring theme in these articles was how a large human cost has resulted from viewing the world as a “knowledge economy” (Smith, 2006, 90). Smith argues that a major factor in the creation of Globalization is the revival of neoliberalism: a process in which goods, services, and people have been commoditized within the free global market exchange of a “new borderless world” (Smith, 2006, 84). Education is but one of many public services that have not escaped this commodification; as a result, knowledge can be bought and sold within the global economic market. This leads the author to question: How much is knowledge worth? And more importantly if knowledge is to be the “ultimate arbiter of [economic] worth” (Smith, 2006, 82) what is the human cost of this?
In my opinion, the economic benefit from the current corporatization of education overshadows the loss of true, genuine knowledge. To me, ‘genuine’ knowledge is a holistic kind, one that is of a more balanced quality: a knowledge that integrates an intellectual, objective and rational type intelligence, with an emotional, subjective, and contemplative type intelligence. Such ‘genuine’ or holistic knowledge, allows students to hold equally both technical job-related skills – such as arithmetic or coding – alongside the subjective qualities of reflection, contemplation and self-investigation. It is the latter qualities – qualities of “wider comprehension” (Smith, 2006, 90) – that are being removed from globalized education systems. As economic theorist John McMurty observes, “[as] education is increasingly stripped of its resources and bent to the demands of the global market, the only remaining institutional ground of human intelligence and reason is undercut” (Smith, 2006, 90). It is this “human intelligence” that I am speaking to when I refer to a holistic, genuine type of knowledge that integrates both the subjective and objective aspects of learning.
The qualities of subjective learning that I have mentioned – contemplation, reflection, and self-investigation – are imperative for us to adopt because they help us deconstruct barriers between others and ourselves. This, ultimately, allows us to “share horizons of understanding” (Smith, 2006, 94). David Smith (2006) elaborates how “true learning means breaking the barriers and chains of ignorance and entering a new world in such a way that I and the Other become understood as one” (94). By developing subjective learning qualities, one is more comfortably able to investigate the bigger questions of life and life’s meaning: Who am I? What is this life? What is my role in the world? Such investigations thrust us deep into our sense of human-ness and the human-ness of the Other, which can result in moving beyond fixed, single-narrative viewpoints of Self and Other. One can then more easily perceive the multiple narratives that compose the viewpoints of the Other, and subsequently, break down these so-called “barriers and chains of ignorance” (Smith, 2006, 94).
In our current neoliberal world, the subjective knowledge qualities that help students “share horizons of understanding” are, sadly, not often considered as monetarily beneficial within our knowledge-based economy. Alternatively, concretized, fixed knowledge qualities are more highly valued: knowledge that can be assessed in measureable facts and figures, logic and numbers. Those who master the latter knowledge qualities may become “monetary successful perhaps, but highly confused over the question of what it means to live well with others” (Smith, 2006, 91). In my opinion, in order for one to know how to live well with others, they must first know how to live well with one self. Learning about one’s ‘self’ requires subjective inquiry, a process which educationist Parker Palmer (2010) believes should be taught in all higher education institutions:
“Beyond academic and research excellence, universities have forgotten their main purpose, which is to help students learn who they are, to search for a larger purpose for their lives, and to leave college as better human beings” (3).
Students who only learn concretized, objective knowledge types – through memorization of facts and figures –are not being equipped with skillsets that lead to fluid, flexible and responses to a multi-narrative world. Living well with others means having the ability to see the multiple narratives that compose our globalized world.
Responding to Smith’s initial question, the “human cost” is an existential one: the lack of balanced, holistic knowledge approaches that incorporate subjective knowledge forms has led to an inability to adequately self-inquire. Such inquiry is greatly needed in order for a learner to develop the capacity to “share horizons of understanding” with the ‘Other.’ Consequently, the potential for one to break the barrier between Self and Other is greatly restricted. It is, instead, more concretized and objective knowledge forms feeding the “knowledge economy,” that dominates the current educational sphere. Ultimately, Neoliberalism has created an enormous deficit in the quality of learning because of a belief that subjective knowledge qualities – such as contemplation, reflection, and self-investigation – are not economically viable.
Works Cited
Palmer. P & Zajonc, A. (2010). The Heart Of Higher Education: A Call To Renewal. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
Smith, D (2006). Trying To Teach In A Season of Great Untruth: Globalization, Empire, and the Crisis of Pedagogy. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
In our second session, our cohort investigated articles on Globalization by scholar David Smith. A recurring theme in these articles was how a large human cost has resulted from viewing the world as a “knowledge economy” (Smith, 2006, 90). Smith argues that a major factor in the creation of Globalization is the revival of neoliberalism: a process in which goods, services, and people have been commoditized within the free global market exchange of a “new borderless world” (Smith, 2006, 84). Education is but one of many public services that have not escaped this commodification; as a result, knowledge can be bought and sold within the global economic market. This leads the author to question: How much is knowledge worth? And more importantly if knowledge is to be the “ultimate arbiter of [economic] worth” (Smith, 2006, 82) what is the human cost of this?
In my opinion, the economic benefit from the current corporatization of education overshadows the loss of true, genuine knowledge. To me, ‘genuine’ knowledge is a holistic kind, one that is of a more balanced quality: a knowledge that integrates an intellectual, objective and rational type intelligence, with an emotional, subjective, and contemplative type intelligence. Such ‘genuine’ or holistic knowledge, allows students to hold equally both technical job-related skills – such as arithmetic or coding – alongside the subjective qualities of reflection, contemplation and self-investigation. It is the latter qualities – qualities of “wider comprehension” (Smith, 2006, 90) – that are being removed from globalized education systems. As economic theorist John McMurty observes, “[as] education is increasingly stripped of its resources and bent to the demands of the global market, the only remaining institutional ground of human intelligence and reason is undercut” (Smith, 2006, 90). It is this “human intelligence” that I am speaking to when I refer to a holistic, genuine type of knowledge that integrates both the subjective and objective aspects of learning.
The qualities of subjective learning that I have mentioned – contemplation, reflection, and self-investigation – are imperative for us to adopt because they help us deconstruct barriers between others and ourselves. This, ultimately, allows us to “share horizons of understanding” (Smith, 2006, 94). David Smith (2006) elaborates how “true learning means breaking the barriers and chains of ignorance and entering a new world in such a way that I and the Other become understood as one” (94). By developing subjective learning qualities, one is more comfortably able to investigate the bigger questions of life and life’s meaning: Who am I? What is this life? What is my role in the world? Such investigations thrust us deep into our sense of human-ness and the human-ness of the Other, which can result in moving beyond fixed, single-narrative viewpoints of Self and Other. One can then more easily perceive the multiple narratives that compose the viewpoints of the Other, and subsequently, break down these so-called “barriers and chains of ignorance” (Smith, 2006, 94).
In our current neoliberal world, the subjective knowledge qualities that help students “share horizons of understanding” are, sadly, not often considered as monetarily beneficial within our knowledge-based economy. Alternatively, concretized, fixed knowledge qualities are more highly valued: knowledge that can be assessed in measureable facts and figures, logic and numbers. Those who master the latter knowledge qualities may become “monetary successful perhaps, but highly confused over the question of what it means to live well with others” (Smith, 2006, 91). In my opinion, in order for one to know how to live well with others, they must first know how to live well with one self. Learning about one’s ‘self’ requires subjective inquiry, a process which educationist Parker Palmer (2010) believes should be taught in all higher education institutions:
“Beyond academic and research excellence, universities have forgotten their main purpose, which is to help students learn who they are, to search for a larger purpose for their lives, and to leave college as better human beings” (3).
Students who only learn concretized, objective knowledge types – through memorization of facts and figures –are not being equipped with skillsets that lead to fluid, flexible and responses to a multi-narrative world. Living well with others means having the ability to see the multiple narratives that compose our globalized world.
Responding to Smith’s initial question, the “human cost” is an existential one: the lack of balanced, holistic knowledge approaches that incorporate subjective knowledge forms has led to an inability to adequately self-inquire. Such inquiry is greatly needed in order for a learner to develop the capacity to “share horizons of understanding” with the ‘Other.’ Consequently, the potential for one to break the barrier between Self and Other is greatly restricted. It is, instead, more concretized and objective knowledge forms feeding the “knowledge economy,” that dominates the current educational sphere. Ultimately, Neoliberalism has created an enormous deficit in the quality of learning because of a belief that subjective knowledge qualities – such as contemplation, reflection, and self-investigation – are not economically viable.
Works Cited
Palmer. P & Zajonc, A. (2010). The Heart Of Higher Education: A Call To Renewal. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
Smith, D (2006). Trying To Teach In A Season of Great Untruth: Globalization, Empire, and the Crisis of Pedagogy. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Critical Response #3: The Heart of Higher Education & Curriculum in A New Key
In our discussions of Ted Aoki’s Curriculum in a New Key, we began investigating the tension existent in those who dwell between the two curriculum worlds: “curriculum-as-plan” versus “curriculum-as-lived-experience” (Aoki, 2005, p.159). Curriculum-as-plan, much like the name suggests, is a pre-modelled and pre-meditated curriculum developed by first the Ministry of Education, then curriculum planners, and later, refined by teachers. It is designed to meet a specific set of curriculum statements: intent, interest, objectives, and evaluation, often at the expense of meeting the student’s individual needs (Aoki, 2005, p.160). The key flaw in this approach is that it attempts to meet the overall, collective needs of “faceless people” (Aoki, 2005, p.160), rather than individual learning personalities. That is, it designs a classroom experience around collective needs – the needs of the student-body as a whole – rather than individual needs of the students themselves. Curriculum-as-lived experience, on the other hand, encompasses the unique and intimate experiences that come forth in day-to-day classroom experience; that is, the experiences of student individuality, which the teacher must respond to one-on-one. Such intimate experiences are often overlooked in the planning room of curriculum “architects” (Aoki, 2005, p.160). The question stands: how does a teacher straddle both worlds? How does a teacher cater to individual student needs whilst still retaining a sense of overall structure, academic rigor, and competitive evaluation? This, perhaps, is the true challenge and art of teaching; it is this very challenge that, according to Aoki (2005), brings out the “aliveness” (p.162) within the tensionality of teaching: he states, “it is the tensionality that allows good thoughts and actions to arise when properly tensioned chords are struck” (p.162).
Whilst moderate pressure created from this “zone between” (Aoki, 2005, p.164) two curriculum worlds can be useful, the problem exists in the fact that there is an overload of pressure on teachers to fulfil the curriculum-as-plan. Such pressure results in an uneven balance in current classrooms between these two curriculum worlds. Increased class sizes and raised competitiveness caused by unrealistic academic expectations, leads to a teacher being pressured into a “total fidelity to an external curriculum-as-plan,” (Aoki, 2005, p.162) in order to meet collective’s needs, at the expense of the individual’s.
I believe, for an individual’s learning needs to be met there must be a certain spaciousness created: a “space-as-lived-experience” (Aoki, 2005, p.164) in the classroom. This is something that curriculum designers cannot factor in; in order to fully understand a student’s individual learning needs there must first be a pre-existing relationship with that student. Moreover, such learning needs change from day to day; this requires a constant re-modelling of the external curriculum, by the teacher, in order to meet these needs. It is only within moments of classroom spaciousness that the curriculum-as-lived-experience can be brought to the forefront, because there is room for the teacher’s “mode of being” (Aoki, 2005, p.160) to shine forth. By this, I am referring to the teacher’s essence – the heart of the “authentic” (Aoki, 2005, p.196) teacher, which Aoki (2005) refers to as “watchfulness, a mindful watching…that the good teacher sees” (p.196). Bringing forth this “mode of being” is, to me, the most fundamental aspect of teaching.
In current classrooms of public education systems, the “space-as-lived-experience” –the classroom spaciousness needed for a teacher to bring forth their “mode of being” – is being compromised by an overly dominant curriculum-as-plan. I question: why are curriculum architects filling in this precious space? Perhaps it is because the spaciousness resulting from the curriculum-as-lived-experience has the potential to give rise to, what I would term, a realm of the unknown – a place where vulnerability of both teacher and student has room to grow and flourish. For with such vulnerability comes, quite often, a certain discomfort and fear. This discomfort is a result of the emotional ‘growing pains’ that occur from placing oneself in vulnerable positions. Take, for example, the hypothetical situation of a teacher becoming side-tracked from the curriculum-as-plan, and entering into a more emotionally subjective or even philosophical discussion not laid out on the class criteria. By entering into this improvised zone, the teacher may get questions from students in which they no longer know the answer to. They may have to admit to students that they “don’t know” because the answers to what is being discussed do not exist on the syllabus. This, to some teachers, may be a vulnerable zone to enter: not knowing specific answers, and letting class conversation roam free, could make a teacher fear losing their position of authority over the class - some teachers I have spoken to have voiced this. However, as was discussed by our cohort, showcasing such vulnerability is something that will likely garner true respect from students, as it is demonstrating a teacher’s “mode of being” – this authentic heart of the teacher that showcases a full capacity to be human. True, entering this realm of the unknown more often increases the likeliness of classroom learning getting “messy,” (Palmer & Zajonc p. 88); conversations, at times, will be less black and white and clear cut. But as education philosopher Parker Palmer highlights, “it gets no messier than life itself” (p. 88).
In contrast, the curriculum-as-plan offers clear cut, black and white answers to planned questions raised in the classroom. As a result, the realm of the unknown that I have identified is narrowed, and with it, the potential for wider (lateral) emotional learning and contemplative inquiry. Aoki (2005) argues how taking a “singular-curriculum” (p.163) approach and teaching solely from curriculum-as-plan might be appealing to those coming from “simplistic and mechanical understandings of pedagogic life” (p.163) because this kind of pedagogy can be neatly compartmentalized. The great cost, however, is the loss of contemplative and emotional inquiry – the kind of learning that results form entering the realm of the unknown. The subsequent growing pains that come from this kind of learning are important for students to experience, as they adequately prepare them for the messiness and vulnerability of life outside of the four walls of the classroom.
At the beginning, I questioned how a teacher could straddle these two curriculum words in order for them to co-exist. In my opinion, we cannot do away with either one: curriculum-as-plan gives the classroom structure, and curriculum-as-lived-experience, gives spaciousness. We need both. If teachers can dwell, in a balanced way, in the “zone between” (Aoki, 2005, p.164) curriculum-as-plan and curriculum-as-lived experience, they can then be role models of the vulnerability and aliveness that results from living within such tensionality. The answer, then, is “not so much overcoming the tensionality but more a matter of dwelling alright within it” (Aoki, 2005, p.162); that is, embracing that tensionality and allowing it to take oneself to a place of vulnerability. By role-modelling this toward the students, as a positive attribute, those students can learn too, how to come “alive” within the tensions that are created by the messiness of life’s lessons. This all begins with educators re-designing curriculum to incorporate balance between the two curriculum worlds so that there is no longer a dominance of one curriculum method over the other.
Works Cited
Aoki, T. (2005). Curriculum In A New Key: The Collected Works Of Ted Aoki. (Eds.) William F. Pinar & Rita L. Irwin. London: LEA publishing.
Palmer. P & Zajonc, A. (2010). The Heart Of Higher Education: A Call To Renewal. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
In our discussions of Ted Aoki’s Curriculum in a New Key, we began investigating the tension existent in those who dwell between the two curriculum worlds: “curriculum-as-plan” versus “curriculum-as-lived-experience” (Aoki, 2005, p.159). Curriculum-as-plan, much like the name suggests, is a pre-modelled and pre-meditated curriculum developed by first the Ministry of Education, then curriculum planners, and later, refined by teachers. It is designed to meet a specific set of curriculum statements: intent, interest, objectives, and evaluation, often at the expense of meeting the student’s individual needs (Aoki, 2005, p.160). The key flaw in this approach is that it attempts to meet the overall, collective needs of “faceless people” (Aoki, 2005, p.160), rather than individual learning personalities. That is, it designs a classroom experience around collective needs – the needs of the student-body as a whole – rather than individual needs of the students themselves. Curriculum-as-lived experience, on the other hand, encompasses the unique and intimate experiences that come forth in day-to-day classroom experience; that is, the experiences of student individuality, which the teacher must respond to one-on-one. Such intimate experiences are often overlooked in the planning room of curriculum “architects” (Aoki, 2005, p.160). The question stands: how does a teacher straddle both worlds? How does a teacher cater to individual student needs whilst still retaining a sense of overall structure, academic rigor, and competitive evaluation? This, perhaps, is the true challenge and art of teaching; it is this very challenge that, according to Aoki (2005), brings out the “aliveness” (p.162) within the tensionality of teaching: he states, “it is the tensionality that allows good thoughts and actions to arise when properly tensioned chords are struck” (p.162).
Whilst moderate pressure created from this “zone between” (Aoki, 2005, p.164) two curriculum worlds can be useful, the problem exists in the fact that there is an overload of pressure on teachers to fulfil the curriculum-as-plan. Such pressure results in an uneven balance in current classrooms between these two curriculum worlds. Increased class sizes and raised competitiveness caused by unrealistic academic expectations, leads to a teacher being pressured into a “total fidelity to an external curriculum-as-plan,” (Aoki, 2005, p.162) in order to meet collective’s needs, at the expense of the individual’s.
I believe, for an individual’s learning needs to be met there must be a certain spaciousness created: a “space-as-lived-experience” (Aoki, 2005, p.164) in the classroom. This is something that curriculum designers cannot factor in; in order to fully understand a student’s individual learning needs there must first be a pre-existing relationship with that student. Moreover, such learning needs change from day to day; this requires a constant re-modelling of the external curriculum, by the teacher, in order to meet these needs. It is only within moments of classroom spaciousness that the curriculum-as-lived-experience can be brought to the forefront, because there is room for the teacher’s “mode of being” (Aoki, 2005, p.160) to shine forth. By this, I am referring to the teacher’s essence – the heart of the “authentic” (Aoki, 2005, p.196) teacher, which Aoki (2005) refers to as “watchfulness, a mindful watching…that the good teacher sees” (p.196). Bringing forth this “mode of being” is, to me, the most fundamental aspect of teaching.
In current classrooms of public education systems, the “space-as-lived-experience” –the classroom spaciousness needed for a teacher to bring forth their “mode of being” – is being compromised by an overly dominant curriculum-as-plan. I question: why are curriculum architects filling in this precious space? Perhaps it is because the spaciousness resulting from the curriculum-as-lived-experience has the potential to give rise to, what I would term, a realm of the unknown – a place where vulnerability of both teacher and student has room to grow and flourish. For with such vulnerability comes, quite often, a certain discomfort and fear. This discomfort is a result of the emotional ‘growing pains’ that occur from placing oneself in vulnerable positions. Take, for example, the hypothetical situation of a teacher becoming side-tracked from the curriculum-as-plan, and entering into a more emotionally subjective or even philosophical discussion not laid out on the class criteria. By entering into this improvised zone, the teacher may get questions from students in which they no longer know the answer to. They may have to admit to students that they “don’t know” because the answers to what is being discussed do not exist on the syllabus. This, to some teachers, may be a vulnerable zone to enter: not knowing specific answers, and letting class conversation roam free, could make a teacher fear losing their position of authority over the class - some teachers I have spoken to have voiced this. However, as was discussed by our cohort, showcasing such vulnerability is something that will likely garner true respect from students, as it is demonstrating a teacher’s “mode of being” – this authentic heart of the teacher that showcases a full capacity to be human. True, entering this realm of the unknown more often increases the likeliness of classroom learning getting “messy,” (Palmer & Zajonc p. 88); conversations, at times, will be less black and white and clear cut. But as education philosopher Parker Palmer highlights, “it gets no messier than life itself” (p. 88).
In contrast, the curriculum-as-plan offers clear cut, black and white answers to planned questions raised in the classroom. As a result, the realm of the unknown that I have identified is narrowed, and with it, the potential for wider (lateral) emotional learning and contemplative inquiry. Aoki (2005) argues how taking a “singular-curriculum” (p.163) approach and teaching solely from curriculum-as-plan might be appealing to those coming from “simplistic and mechanical understandings of pedagogic life” (p.163) because this kind of pedagogy can be neatly compartmentalized. The great cost, however, is the loss of contemplative and emotional inquiry – the kind of learning that results form entering the realm of the unknown. The subsequent growing pains that come from this kind of learning are important for students to experience, as they adequately prepare them for the messiness and vulnerability of life outside of the four walls of the classroom.
At the beginning, I questioned how a teacher could straddle these two curriculum words in order for them to co-exist. In my opinion, we cannot do away with either one: curriculum-as-plan gives the classroom structure, and curriculum-as-lived-experience, gives spaciousness. We need both. If teachers can dwell, in a balanced way, in the “zone between” (Aoki, 2005, p.164) curriculum-as-plan and curriculum-as-lived experience, they can then be role models of the vulnerability and aliveness that results from living within such tensionality. The answer, then, is “not so much overcoming the tensionality but more a matter of dwelling alright within it” (Aoki, 2005, p.162); that is, embracing that tensionality and allowing it to take oneself to a place of vulnerability. By role-modelling this toward the students, as a positive attribute, those students can learn too, how to come “alive” within the tensions that are created by the messiness of life’s lessons. This all begins with educators re-designing curriculum to incorporate balance between the two curriculum worlds so that there is no longer a dominance of one curriculum method over the other.
Works Cited
Aoki, T. (2005). Curriculum In A New Key: The Collected Works Of Ted Aoki. (Eds.) William F. Pinar & Rita L. Irwin. London: LEA publishing.
Palmer. P & Zajonc, A. (2010). The Heart Of Higher Education: A Call To Renewal. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.