[MD] 42

[ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR]

[Dan]
I see it the same way and that was pretty much the gist of my remarks and the thrust of my questions. It appeared to me that Phaedrus was learning right along with his class but that did not obviate him from being the instructor. Quite the contrary... he seemed to motivate his students in ways they'd never before experienced.

[Arlo]
First, Dan, I'm not trying to be difficult here, educational reform is a very big area of interest to me. There are many legitimate concerns over the present way we educate; pedagogical, functional, structural, economic, etc., and legitimate concerns over establishing privilege and cultural hegemony (see Paulo Freire, for example). So I'm genuinely concerned here to hear what you (and others) think (1) is wrong (specifically and generally), and (2) "what would something better look like". 

In the above, and in your previous post, you reiterate the idea that the instructor is a motivator. Andre has said "I think that Phaedrus' expertise in pedagogy was very valuable (as a guide)". So far, content expertise has not been mentioned at all (only referred to in the sense that the instructor and students 'learn together'). Let me ask explicitly, in this model, do you think an instructor needs any content expertise/knowledge, or should teachers/instructors be skilled only in pedagogy (how people learn) and motivational coaching. Assume for a moment that I have expertise in educational pedagogy, and that I am a pretty motivational coachy kind of guy, would you think that I would have been better, worse, or comparable as an instructor in Pirsig's rhetoric class? Could I teach a course in in molecular biology here at Penn State as adequately (or better, or worse) than the content experts currently teaching this course (let's assume they are also good motivators and knowledgeable about pedagogy/andragogy).

Finally, as DMB mentioned, Granger's ideas are exemplary here, and I'm not trying to skip over citing his work. In fact, I think Dewey brings a strong voice into what I personally feel is deep in the roots of the our educational dilemma; and that is we lack a coherent answer to the question "why do we educate?". What is the purpose of public education? What is the purpose of college? Interestingly, vocational and trade schools (in what I hope is taken in a Pirsigian sense, I'd include schools like the Julliard School in this category) often have the most articulate answer to this question.