Examining the content of elementary school textbooks, one is convinced that the texts are written such that the child doesn’t get the chance to analyze them, grasp the main idea, to understand the arguments and counterarguments of the assertions.

But developing an analytical mind is very important for children today, who live in open media environments and must be able to at least logically analyze the proposed text-based content. It’s very important to begin this from elementary school.

The exercises and assignments that are supposed to stimulate debate are mainly conditioned by the preparedness and desire of teachers.

It’s noticeable that the structure of the proposed texts and the exercises attached to them don’t compel students, first, to discriminate between the primary and secondary thoughts and ideas expressed in the text, and then to shape and formulate their attitude and interpretation. Also, to understand what evidence the author puts forth and which sources they cite. This approach exists in the textbooks of neither elementary school nor the higher grades.

Basically, the children are not offered accentuated guidance to justify their thoughts. They are more so told to mechanically accept what’s written: to read and describe, read and recite… 

After all, textbook texts are not just samples of beautiful words or correct syntax; they must convey meaning, justify that meaning, and at the same time leave some free space for students to comment and discuss. 

As a result of not being prepared to analyze, children later very quickly fall into media traps and accept unsubstantiated texts without understanding that they’re not substantiated, not factual. That they’re even complete lies (which isn’t rare in the texts of some media outlets).

There are many instances when a child is trying to describe in words what they read, but the teacher forces them to return to the written text.

If there’s no uptake of the text, the content becomes unimportant, because what becomes important is identical verbal and written factual reproduction, as a direct and shorter route to getting [good] grades. But the consequence is that school is discredited as a legitimate source of obtaining valued knowledge.

The digital age generation is exposed to an enormous amount of information already from childhood. And it’s very hard to fit all those topics that interest children in school texts. It’s particularly difficult for Armenian language and literature teachers to breathe life into textbook material in the classroom. To do so in such a way that they won’t be cut off from real life, from where the children come and to where they return after class.

Of course there are teachers who try to get the children to discuss, but my observations prove that these are exceptional cases.

In class, children can ask a question or be prepared for discussion only when they expect to get an answer to their question. And often, when instead of complete and specific answers, they hear abstract remarks, they no longer ask questions.

They enter the school “game” and think, ok, I’ll do what is required of me (recite by heart, write the exercise, describe the lesson, and get a grade), but I won’t do more, since, all the same, I won’t get an answer.

Under these conditions, students hardly see the school as a place for discussion. Of course, there are exceptions, if teachers realize the classroom needs to be turned into a platform for more open discussion.

But mostly, teachers are constrained, since representing formal education, they, nevertheless, can’t initiate an honest discussion (especially on certain subjects).

There’s the impression that both sides have admitted that they should do only what is required of them by the program: assign grades and get grades. And as a result, school stops being considered a place for getting valued knowledge.

It’s surprising, but everyone hesitates to be honest, when the time comes for public texts and lessons.

In face-to-face and anonymous interviews, teachers may say one thing; in class, another; and before a public audience, something completely different; and heard from the stage at festivities will be “texts” that contradict the views expressed in everyday life and that sometimes reflect reality through distorted mirrors.

It seems as though a general line is expected from them and they’re forced to toe that line. Of course, in public places we don’t say all that we’re thinking (the audience somehow naturally edits the wording of speech), but we also cannot strongly contradict ourselves

And the children seemingly learn to live in this dual limbo.

In order not to fall into the “traps” of media texts, it’s important to convey to children a clear understanding of the connection between legend and reality, and develop the skills to analyze and draw conclusions from them.

As an example, let me describe one incident from those I’ve observed. A history teacher was talking about King Arshak (when he would place his foot on his homeland, he would gain strength and become brave, but when he pulled his foot away off the ground, he’d become weak), and one boy, surprised, asked, will you explain what is the difference in soil, since it has the same chemical compound?

I would like the reader to examine in their surrounding what the school suggests in such circumstances (this is just one example from numerous). How does the teacher “get out from under” this question? Does a discussion take place, or does she “silence” the child?

Another example: within the scope of the texts of language lessons, the children have to be taught the irreplaceability of their native home and at the same answer children’s “Well how is it that..?” questions (their fathers, friends, relatives are abroad, they’re preparing to leave the homeland, and so on).

The child who hasn’t yet managed to be full of typical structural clichés is always open to ask questions. If as an answer, the path chosen is to “silence” the child or maneuver discussion of the question, and the teacher gives neither a comprehensible nor humane explanation, then the child becomes accustomed to not asking questions.

We see that text clichés are created and propagate in different environments.

I’m now following the media reports on the April war. I’m not yet ready to draw a complete conclusion, but it’s noticeable that the more official the media, the more pompous the text. 

The journalist’s text and the soldier’s text are from completely opposite positions. The soldier personifies his deceased friend, describes what he liked, who he was as a person, outlines the environment. That is to say, the doer tries to explain the situation.

But in many media reports, as soon as the editorial text appears, highly abstract remarks and texts composed of familiar clichés come forward.

Satenik Mkrtchyan
Educational anthropologist

The views expressed in the column are those of the author's and do not necessarily reflect the views of Media.am.