All,
This post
probably will not advance the subject, but I thought I would share an
insight it has brought to me.
My six year old daughter (who posed a
question about "nothing" some time ago) has been reading at a six year olds
level for about a year now (thankfully unremarkable). She came to me recently
and said "I learned that words are made of letters at school today". I said
"Grace, you have been reading for some time now, and you have known the alphabet
for three years, you knew that letters were in words". She replies "But, I
didn't know that words were made (I am unsure how she perceives
"made") of letters".
Knowing that words have letters does not, in the eyes of a
six year old, necessarily mean that words are made of letters. My
assumption that she would have known otherwise seems in line
with:
But, of course! Further reflection on the graphic image
(teaching reflecting learning) as symbol of the thread's theme got me thinking
that it is not just any teaching which will be reflected as learning, but
a certain kind of teaching, a structuring and shaping of teaching with
learning in mind from the get go in order that it might reflect learning
(certainly a different shaping of "teaching" in the graphic might not have
reflected "learning" at all).
It would seem my teaching of letters and words may not have had
learning in my mind, hence; I am not a
teacher.
Best
Darrel
Summers
I forgot to include the graphic. Here it is.
Gary Richmond
wrote:
Arnold, Jim,
list,
I hope you won't mind my posting my response to your personal
email, Arnold, as your comments seem most pertinent to the subject of the
thread.
[Note: off-list I sent Arnold a graphic image: the reflection
of teaching as learning which is attached here and should appear at the bottom
of this post. All the quoted material is from Arnold's email.]
Hi
Arnold,
As I'm caught up in the beginning of the new college term so
just a few inter - linear/ -paragraphical comments.
Arnold Shepperson
wrote:
Oh yes. But it still leaves one wondering about the WHAT that's
being taught, and equally about the WHAT that's being learned!!
But, of course! Further reflection on the graphic image
(teaching reflecting learning) as symbol of the thread's theme got me thinking
that it is not just any teaching which will be reflected as learning,
but a certain kind of teaching, a structuring and shaping of teaching
with learning in mind from the get go in order that it might reflect learning
(certainly a different shaping of "teaching" in the graphic might not have
reflected "learning" at all).
Perhaps we should think of working this into Peirce's way of expressing
the categories in NLC:
WHAT -- IS -- IT?
One gets the impression that when Peirce defined "university" in the
Century Dictionary as an `Association of men (ahem) for the purpose of
learning and research', he was as much concerned with this WHAT as he was
with the IS and the IT.
Yes, and the WHAT may perhaps
be seen to center around logic for Peirce, ultimately in its methodeutical
branch around sound inquiry itself, how one goes about researching,
whatever the subject matter (hypothesis formation regulated only by the
pragmatic maxim and a certain 'economy of research').
Personally, I can't see that one can have a peircean version of the
University without SOME modicum of `teaching'; This is
pretty much the theme of the faculty development seminar I'm
developing/co-leading at my college this year. College instructors need to
learn to teach students how to go about efficiently accessing the best
information for their purposes (e.g., they tend to use the free web &
Google almost exclusively, not tapping into the great data bases the
university subscribes to, etc.), critically evaluating the material they find
(there's a lot of garbage out there on the web and they haven't always
established sound criteria for evaluation), and effectively and creatively
using it. From a Peircean perspective, the question regarding the
purpose it is being used for begins to take on greater significance as
well--I see it mainly through ethical lenses at the moment.
I guess it's the difference between what my sort of experience has
shown and what passes for `teaching' in the lecture theatre, that offers a
place to start some kind of inquiry into just what `Higher Learning' entails
in an era where `study' seems to have become an occupational hazard of
sorts. 'Study' is discipline, and we live in a pretty
undisciplined era as regards a great deal that goes by the name 'Higher
Education'. As you know, Peirce has a great deal to say about the development
of the habit of rigorous discipline (his remarks to Lady Welby, for
example--"If I had a son. . .", etc.).
Otherwise, we just adjust to the Work that comes with the Job, I
suppose, and make the best effort we can at learning.
An American association of college librarians has
proposed that teaching ought entail promoting 'information literacy' in
students, helping them acquire the requisite 'attitudes' and skills leading
them to the goal of becoming 'life long learners' so that after they've left
those proverbial '"ivy covered walls" (most of the campuses of the very
urban City University of NY have much starker walls, btw ) they can
continue to learn in those areas of interest and importance to them. This
leads directly to your concluding remark.
If the Internet has anything to recommend it, it's the opportunity it
provides for serious learners to communicate in a way that ultimately lets
the subject-matter `speak for itself' intelligibly (so to speak, of
course). Best,
Gary
--- Message
from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
|