Institutional and social constraints that are applied to keep people “in check” have far-reaching consequences when it comes to education and learning. Generally, these constraints set certain standards that do not augur well with the process of learning. In essence, what matters more in a system subject to institutional and social constraints is adherence to the rules of the game and not freedom for self-identity and interests. In her work “Selections from: Reading Lolita in Tehran,” Nafisi Azar presents, from the experience she had with her students in the Islamic Republic of Iran, some of the strong social constraints that had even been institutionalized and became part and parcel of learning institution like The University of Allameh Tabatabai.
…show more content…
As Nafisi Azar notes, the requirement for women to wear the chador and not to talk to members of the opposite sex (Nafisi 283) were some of the institutionalized social constraints that had found their way into The University of Allameh Tabatabai. These social constraints limited the ability of students to share knowledge and learn collectively. However, as noted by Davidson, collective learning is an essential element of today’s digitally connected students. For example in the IPod experiment at Duke University, “students who had grown up connected digitally gravitated to ways that the IPod could be used for collective learning.” (Davidson 52). But evidently, social constraints like barring students from interacting freely, i.e. stopping female students from talking to their male counterparts, and banning others who associate with dissent religious organization, limits this interconnection and sharing of knowledge hence it hinders learning. In support of the need for interconnectivity and interactions as a healthy condition for learning, Nafisi states that “the freedom to talk and think together in small groups, in the context where the ideas raised and the topics of conversation are not determined in advance, is the litmus test for a true democracy” (Nafisi 278). In essence, the interplay of social and …show more content…
Her student Manna, after several lessons in her house where they were not under the social and institutional constraints of school, “made poetry out of things that people cast aside” (Nafisi 280). Even Nafisi’s teaching changed under the context of her house. Previously while working for the university, she states that the institution minded more about her hair and color of her lipstick than the quality of her work. This means that the focus of such an institution and its officials was on maintaining the standards and social constraints than laying emphasis on creativity and other strategies for achieving high standards of learning. Hence these social and Institutional constraints work in conjunction to limit creativity both on the part of teachers and students thereby lowering standards of learning. Although social and institutional constraints hinder creativity, the environment and societal expectations influence student’s level of creativity. At Duke University, the exposure of an iPod to students made them develop more applications on it. In Alberta, Mrs. Davidson’s students use what is at their disposal like maps to be creative and identify other places called Mountain View in different parts of the
As Nafisi Azar notes, the requirement for women to wear the chador and not to talk to members of the opposite sex (Nafisi 283) were some of the institutionalized social constraints that had found their way into The University of Allameh Tabatabai. These social constraints limited the ability of students to share knowledge and learn collectively. However, as noted by Davidson, collective learning is an essential element of today’s digitally connected students. For example in the IPod experiment at Duke University, “students who had grown up connected digitally gravitated to ways that the IPod could be used for collective learning.” (Davidson 52). But evidently, social constraints like barring students from interacting freely, i.e. stopping female students from talking to their male counterparts, and banning others who associate with dissent religious organization, limits this interconnection and sharing of knowledge hence it hinders learning. In support of the need for interconnectivity and interactions as a healthy condition for learning, Nafisi states that “the freedom to talk and think together in small groups, in the context where the ideas raised and the topics of conversation are not determined in advance, is the litmus test for a true democracy” (Nafisi 278). In essence, the interplay of social and …show more content…
Her student Manna, after several lessons in her house where they were not under the social and institutional constraints of school, “made poetry out of things that people cast aside” (Nafisi 280). Even Nafisi’s teaching changed under the context of her house. Previously while working for the university, she states that the institution minded more about her hair and color of her lipstick than the quality of her work. This means that the focus of such an institution and its officials was on maintaining the standards and social constraints than laying emphasis on creativity and other strategies for achieving high standards of learning. Hence these social and Institutional constraints work in conjunction to limit creativity both on the part of teachers and students thereby lowering standards of learning. Although social and institutional constraints hinder creativity, the environment and societal expectations influence student’s level of creativity. At Duke University, the exposure of an iPod to students made them develop more applications on it. In Alberta, Mrs. Davidson’s students use what is at their disposal like maps to be creative and identify other places called Mountain View in different parts of the