What We Learn from Ebert About Teaching
A key feature of good learning is accessibility.
A fundamental belief of our society is that all are entitled to a good education. Sadly, this promise is not always fulfilled for all Americans. Our work as teachers should also be accessible. Our students should be able to understand what we as teachers are trying to accomplish. Our intent and goals should be transparent.
When I was getting my doctorate in history, one of my professors bemoaned the lack of accessibility on the part of academic historians to the American public. He noted that most best-selling, non-fiction works are written by non-academics. He placed the blame on the "ivory tower," and upon a higher education system that incentivizes scholars digging down to such narrow sub-categories in their research and writing that their work fails to capture popular attention.
Just think about how Bill O'Reilly (no offense, but he is hardly a scholar) has stayed high on the charts with some of his popular (and engaging) histories about the killing of Lincoln and Kennedy. Jared Diamond is the rare scholar who tries to pull large and disparate amounts of historical evidence together to form grand theories about the development of human society (Guns, Germs, and Steel and Collapse ) and does not put his reader to sleep.
Thinking big and remaining accessible is thus a difficult task for any thinker and writer. That is why I am particularly sad about the recent passing of Roger Ebert. Growing up, Siskel and Ebert exposed me to the world of cinema, but also to a world of ideas. In an entertainment culture that often went to the lowest common denominator to make a profit, these two critics raised the stakes. They called out terrible films and celebrated the good ones. They weren't telegenic and probably would never get hired today to do television, but they provided substance to debates about movies.
In the process, they also provided commentary on our society and culture. Watching these two critics joust over the meaning of movies modeled critical thinking and critical analysis. Moreover, they made it fun. My senior year in high school, I had to do a research project on a writer and I chose Roger Ebert. I got a book of his reviews and pored over it. Through studying his writing, I believe I learned how to think critically and write. I learned how one can tell a story while at the same time going deeper and arguing a point. I am sad he is gone, and I wish there were more writers like him.
A fundamental belief of our society is that all are entitled to a good education. Sadly, this promise is not always fulfilled for all Americans. Our work as teachers should also be accessible. Our students should be able to understand what we as teachers are trying to accomplish. Our intent and goals should be transparent.
When I was getting my doctorate in history, one of my professors bemoaned the lack of accessibility on the part of academic historians to the American public. He noted that most best-selling, non-fiction works are written by non-academics. He placed the blame on the "ivory tower," and upon a higher education system that incentivizes scholars digging down to such narrow sub-categories in their research and writing that their work fails to capture popular attention.
Just think about how Bill O'Reilly (no offense, but he is hardly a scholar) has stayed high on the charts with some of his popular (and engaging) histories about the killing of Lincoln and Kennedy. Jared Diamond is the rare scholar who tries to pull large and disparate amounts of historical evidence together to form grand theories about the development of human society (Guns, Germs, and Steel and Collapse ) and does not put his reader to sleep.
Thinking big and remaining accessible is thus a difficult task for any thinker and writer. That is why I am particularly sad about the recent passing of Roger Ebert. Growing up, Siskel and Ebert exposed me to the world of cinema, but also to a world of ideas. In an entertainment culture that often went to the lowest common denominator to make a profit, these two critics raised the stakes. They called out terrible films and celebrated the good ones. They weren't telegenic and probably would never get hired today to do television, but they provided substance to debates about movies.
In the process, they also provided commentary on our society and culture. Watching these two critics joust over the meaning of movies modeled critical thinking and critical analysis. Moreover, they made it fun. My senior year in high school, I had to do a research project on a writer and I chose Roger Ebert. I got a book of his reviews and pored over it. Through studying his writing, I believe I learned how to think critically and write. I learned how one can tell a story while at the same time going deeper and arguing a point. I am sad he is gone, and I wish there were more writers like him.
Not only was his writing accessible to any reasonably intelligent person, but he was also adaptable in his efforts to reach a broader audience. He understood early on that the internet and social media promised new ways of getting his ideas out. This probably came from a life-time desire to learn: something we need to promote to young people. I love his quote:
"What I believe is that clear-minded people should remain two things throughout their life-times: curious and teachable."
© 2023 Colorado Academy
