Bravo!, Glen. I've uttered precisely those words many times: "...there
is no such thing as teaching. There is only learning".
This can be understood when one asks the question "What is leaning?" I
contend that, at least, it is a lifelong construction (creative) project
on the part of the learner to develop an internal (mental) organization
of interrelationships of elements and systems of elements. (It is
composite - nested). Like any dynamical system, this internal mental
network of interrelationships requires constant maintenance, repair,
reorganization, regulation and adaptation. "Information transfer" may be
involved, but it is not the essence of the dynamics that occur.
But, access to this internal dynamical system (our individual internal
"learning tree") is mostly limited to the "learner" and is not directly
available to "outsiders" (parents, teachers, politicians, etc.) In other
words, this construct is strictly private to the learner. Because of
this limited access, "teaching" is not possible - or very limited.
If one wants to "teach" someone else, the most productive route is to
attempt to *evoke* elements that are already in that persons internal
mental construct - rather than to directly try to alter it. You've got
to try to entice its "guardian" (the learner) actually do the altering.
After all, "educe" (the root of "education") means to "pull from out of"
more than it means to "introduce into".
But, of course, "educement" and evocation are the province of artists -
not engineers or soldiers ("teachers"). "Educement" is more like fishing
than it is like hunting. Enticement is involved. "Teachers" have to
become "artists" if they want learning to occur - not engineers, or
soldiers.
Of course, "educement" requires mostly a 1-1 relationship between
"student" and "facilitator" - like mentoring, apprenticeship and
tutoring. Unfortunately, such an approach is not scalable. If we want to
indoctrinate the masses, these kinds of personal relationships between
"student" and "teacher" don't scale to that volume.
Anyway, I find the whole process of "teaching" to be suspect. It may be
well-intentioned; but it is sometimes more politics than compassion.
Teaching campaigns - like institutional education - often have a
priority of serving the institution's sponsors (society at large). The
"student's" personal desires and interests are secondary.
Grant
On 6/26/13 9:30 AM, glen wrote:
Nicholas Thompson wrote at 06/24/2013 10:56 AM:
I am coming slowly, however, to belief that one cannot learn
from or teach to any person whom you cannot hug or punch in the nose, if
you feel the overwhelming need.
I think I'm safe enough to claim that there is no such thing as
"teaching". There is only learning. Teaching is an illusion brought
about by a coincidence between a motivated student and a resource-full
"teacher" (who, is more properly thought of as, actually is, simply a
more advanced student).
For this reason, I agree with the opinion about MOOCs that they will
work well for the motivated student, but not so well for mind-control in
the the assembly line production of cookie-cutter undergraduates. But,
obviously, I have that opinion about _all_ education. 8^) Why am I
always surrounded by nails?
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
