[MD] 42

[Dan Glover]

Arlo,

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 8:49 AM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:
> [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.

Dan:
As it should be for all of us. I'm not trying to be difficult either.

[Arlo}
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".

[Dan]
Educational reform is a big tail to wag and I'm not entirely sure I
have any answers that are worth your while. I suppose I can draw upon
my own experience with academics... but no, that isn't anything I care
to go into at this time.

You mention Freire:
"Freire’s praxis [Realizing one’s consciousness ("conscientization")
is a needed first step of "praxis," which is defined as the power and
know-how to take action against oppression while stressing the
importance of liberating education. "Praxis involves engaging in a
cycle of theory, application, evaluation, reflection, and then back to
theory. Social transformation is the product of praxis at the
collective level."] required implementation of a range of educational
practices and processes with the goal of creating not only a better
learning environment, but also a better world. Freire himself
maintained that this was not merely an educational technique but a way
of living in our educative practice." (Pedagogy of Freedom: Ethics,
Democracy, and Civic Courage)

Dan comments:
Years ago when I began writing I had one goal: to write something that
would make me a better person. Even if no one else ever read any of my
words, I'd still be better for the effort. Making the world a better
place is in my opinion an unrealistic goal. It is too big. However, I
can become a better person by developing a theory, applying it,
evaluating the results, reflect upon my own being, and go back to
theory once again.

It might be something as simple as smiling at people when I encounter
them. I theorize that my smile might lift their mood. Even though the
coffee tastes like day-old shite and she only fills my cup half way, I
smile as I tell the waitress with a scowl on her face thank you. I
notice she is cracking a small smile too as she walks away. As I drink
my wretched cup of coffee I reflect over my own work habits and how
difficulties that I come across often seem insurmountable. The next
day the coffee is fresh, which tends to bolster my original theory and
encourages me to continue.

Have I just educated the waitress? I spoke no more than two words. I
taught no lesson other than being polite. By developing a theory and
putting into practice, perhaps I've made one small corner of the world
a little better. I think this is probably over-simplistic to most
people... they're too busy with life to worry about a crappy cup of
joe or a surly waitress. But that IS life!

Now, translate that lesson to the classroom. Focus upon fundamentals.
For instance, I recall a book written by John Wooden, the basketball
coach at UCLA who lead the team to championship after championship. I
bought the book thinking how he would share profound secrets that
might lead to success in my own life. I remember eagerly cracking open
the book and beginning to read with great anticipation.

He wrote how he always began the year by teaching all his players the
proper way to wear socks. What?! What the heck does wearing socks the
proper way have to do with winning championships? He reasoned that if
a player pulled on his socks haphazardly, it would lead folds in the
cloth and ultimately create blisters on their feet and thereby affect
their performance on the court. By starting out with grounding his
players in fundamental practices, he provided a foundation for later
success. They all sat down, took off their shoes and socks, and Wooden
then demonstrated on his own feet the proper way to roll the socks on
without leaving wrinkles.

Parlay that into the classroom. School is far more than a student
learning from the instructor. Peer pressure to conform, social
hierarchy, fear of failure and fear of success not only on the
students' part the the instructors' as well, even bullying... these
all play an enormous role in learning. Perhaps making some sort of
applied ethics course mandatory for first-year students might be
analogous to learning how to roll their socks on the proper way.

Again, maybe I am being over simplistic here but doesn't it all start
with learning respect, not only for our own self and our body, but for
others too?

>[Arlo]
> 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 knowle
>  dgeable about pedagogy/andragogy).

[Dan]
My first reaction is no. You could not teach a class on rhetoric or
molecular biology without knowing the proper subject... without having
a degree to back up that knowledge. Could I teach a class on Russian
language skills without speaking Russian? Wouldn't it be necessary for
me to spend years attending classes and earning my degree before I
could attempt such a feat?

On second thought, perhaps it depends upon the type of person you are.
People have been known to obtain fake documents. I could purchase one
of those $299 online diplomas and maybe spend a couple hundred more
for a full transcript to back it up, lie my way into a teaching
position, and begin to teach Russian language skills to my students.

We will of course have to assume they don't know any more about
Russian than I do. If one or more of the students happen to know a
smattering of Russian, all the better. I can rely on their input to
bolster my own knowledge as the class progresses. Since I am
particularly astute I can learn right along with them and no one will
ever be the wiser.

The 'better' students will appreciate my acknowledgements of their
accomplishments, the 'average' students will assume every Russian
language skills instructor conducts class the same way, and the 'poor'
students will flunk out anyway. By the time that first class is over,
I've learned enough Russian language skills to be better the second
time around. As long as I dedicate myself to learning right along with
my students, there's no stopping me.

So, maybe... maybe you could teach a class you weren't qualified to
teach if you developed a theory, applied it, evaluated the results,
reflected upon your progress, and went back to the theory again.
Maybe.

>[Arlo]
> 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.

[Dan]
I haven't had the opportunity to read Granger other than the quotes
offered here so I cannot comment on that. I do agree Dewey is worth
exploring as well. Still, I think we all have a stake in this and it
is worthwhile that we share our own ideas, even if, as in my
situation, we never had the opportunity to attend higher education for
one reason or another.

For instance, I recall reading an anecdote about the late Michael
Jackson and how he trained a troupe of professional dancers to be in
his performances. Jackson was not a professional dancing instructor.
Yet he oversaw every minute detail of their repertoire. Other
performers, especially those of his caliber, would have hired
professional choreographers to handle those details. Not Jackson. He
insisted upon and obsessed over doing all the training.

What does this mean for the classroom? I think rather than relying on
others to do the heavy work like education reform, the instructors
have to take charge at a grass-roots level. If they are going to
create a better world, it starts with fundamentals, not with grandiose
plans.

Anyway,

Dan

http://www.danglover.com