I'm doing some research this morning on long-term collective traumas...
So many people are saying to me that they feel like they're at a breaking point, along with everyone around them. That they feel worse, not better. I thought this @insidehighered piece captured this really well (thank you students).
@insidehighered This idea that while we're managing individual crises, that everyone around us seems to be too. The whole of this is greater than the sum of its parts. What do we know about collective traumas that can guide us through this?
This article from someone whose family was impacted by the 1918 flu pandemic has interesting insights: theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
"There’s something particularly difficult about losing someone in an epidemic. It’s often sudden and frightening, and it’s depersonalising. Your individual tragedy is just one of many and there’s little comfort in being a statistic."
This chart continues to fascinate and concern me, as it doesn't capture the length of the impact of a long-term pandemic. What happens when you're approach a two-year anniversary and you're also still experiencing the impact?
I am wondering if, god help us, the term "pandemic" has lost its meaning. I'm wondering if talking about this as a "disaster" might be one way to get through to people with ostrich syndrome?
SAMSHA has an entire section of their website dedicated to disaster management and resources: samhsa.gov/dtac
This poster feels important, and I wonder if sharing this with leaders/admin/everyone would help to open up some of these blocks (post-pandemic, back to normal) that we're seeing.
Of course, there's nuance to what gets defined as a disaster, and you can read more on that here: items.ssrc.org/covid-19-and-t…
This is all to say that there are no easy answers. But I continue to see this trend toward individualizing trauma reactions to COVID (not shocking), and I think we've got to push back on this and look at the collective impacts.
Whole is greater than sum of its parts.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I don't disagree with anything in this piece. What I find really interesting is the assumption that those of us who are advocating for caring pedagogy, grounded in a balance b/t support and challenge, have at any point become less rigorous.
And that to me is the mark of #ToxicRigor. When someone points to flexibility, humanizing, and support and says, "You're dumbing things down" or "You've sacrificed rigor," there's just no evidence of that, so something else is up.
"But now it’s just expected and understood: everyone is just one minor event away from snapping. COVID scares can trigger existential crises and then ripple effects. Why ask each other “How are you?” when nothing has changed in almost two years?"
Okay before I share any of this, for the record, I'm not actually critiquing HyFlex. HyFlex, bless its heart, is fine. What I'm critiquing is #HigherEd's continued reliance on garbage can decision making.
While there are some exceptions, I've yet to see any compelling data or argument that HyFlex is better than a well-designed, fully online course taught by an awesome online educator. And the costs in terms of faculty stress and the tech being poured into it continue to amass...
I'm going to try to use this thread to aggregate data on HyFlex. If you know of any, please chime in.
Of course, we already have oodles of data on what works for student retention and completion (wraparound support, supporting faculty in their pedagogy), but I digress...
I guess I'm wondering what problems we're actually trying to solve here, or if we have garbage can decision making at play (solutions seeking problems).
Is the problem declining enrollments? Is the problem a lecture-based model that disengages learners? Is the problem students lacking transportation to campus? Is the problem that rigid, solely in-person models make attendance difficult for working students, parents?
I went to bed last night really angry and frustrated that people are still forcing learners to be on camera...
At this point I wonder if the holdouts are people we can get through to, who are just in need of more support and information about the science of teaching and learning, or if they are committed to their own ignorance? Is it worth continuing the conversation?
Anyway, sometimes you continue the conversation not because you believe it will change someone's mind, but because of what will happen to you if you don't keep speaking your mind, I guess.