Jeff wrote (edited):
> You must be the change you wish to see in the world.
> -- Mahatma Gandhi
>
> This also ties into our previous discussion of wisdom and
> education. Does wisdom come from face-to-face meetings with
> a teacher or is it something inside us? The answer to this
> question has a large impact on how we build culture and how
> we educate. Does a teacher pass on wisdom or mostly facts.
> My view is that the teacher leads the student with questions and facts, but
> the wisdom has to come from within the student.
>
> For example: in ZEN a student might be given the following
> koan: What is the sound of one hand clapping? If the teacher
> provided the answer to this question the student would
> memorize it and move on. No wisdom would be gained. Instead
> it is expected that the student find the answers and the
> teacher only provides hints and questions. This assumes the
> student finds wisdom inside.
>
> Most of todays industrialized society and religious thought
> favors the idea that teaching and teachers provide wisdom.
> Schools would look for better teaching methods or ways to
> reach students. The idea that a student is in control of
> learning and wisdom can not be taught is almost a foreign
> concept.
>
> There is some proof that wisdom can not be taught. If it
> could be taught then we would expect the educated to make
> wise decisions in all areas of life. I have found that
> this isn't true.
>
> I think the position i'm moving towards is that we need less
> teaching and more focus on building a society that seeks
> wisdom. The idea that learning is a liberating and a
> interesting lifelong process died about 50 years ago. My
> parents had this attitude as children and a few people still
> have it today. For the majority it is an idea that sounds
> interesting and they might try it someday between commercials,
> or maybe in retirement.
If I used the same definitions for "teaching", "education" and "educated"
as Jeff seems to be, then I'd agree. As those definitions are the most
common, it is a good place to start a conversation. While I was a teacher,
and often when I am learning, I ponder the art of teaching. I agree with
the reaction to our standard education process. It assumes that students
just have to open the top of their heads long enough to let someone pour
something of value into it. There is a lot wrong with this idea, but I'll
pass on elaboration, as many of you may already be familiar with these
criticisms. Instead I will share my views of what the teaching / learning
relationship could be like.
We are all constantly learning as we go about our lives. Every action and
event adds up to form the way we see the world and how we think. Every
person we encounter adds to our lives. So, of course, a teacher in a
classroom is learning and a student is teaching. There is never a clear
distinction between learning and teaching, but they define different roles
we play, even if simultaneously. So, I use the words to refer to the roles.
I agree with what Jeff was saying, learning of any true value must come
from the student. Even memorization of a list of facts requires more from
the student than the provider of the list. That said, I still think there
is a valuable role for a teacher. When I was teaching English in Japan, I
was also learning Japanese. This gave me the oportunity to be on both
sides and play the insights of one off the other. I also studied a
teaching method called the Silent Way, which had some valuable insights.
My conclusion at the time was that the student has to do ALL of the
learning (focusing on the material, possibly the learning, not the
teacher), and that teaching was the art of placing each student in the
right "environment" to continue learning at their optimum pace.
Juggling a room of students makes this very difficult but an interesting
challenge. It requires the teacher to focus on each of the students and
the learning (not the material), watching them for clues to know what they
are thinking and what they are missing, watching for the tell tale "ah ha."
Teaching is creating a rich environment where the student can feast on a
variety of learning styles and views of the material at hand. This can not
be a planned lesson, following a schedule, covering a certain amount of
material in a given amount of time.
A good student (one who learns easily and quickly) will learn with or
without a teacher of any quality. A poor student (one who learns with
difficulty and slowly) will not be helped much by even a good teacher.
Most people are in between, and they learn better and faster when the
teaching is of good quality.
Not all subjects are condusive to teaching. Knowledge and skills are
easier to teach than wisdom and ethics. The former are composed of fewer
variables and elements which make them easier to manipulate in a learning
environment. The latter are complex and are strongly influenced by things
and events outside of any learning environment a teacher could create. As
an example, it is easier to teach someone how to grow mushroooms than it is
to teach someone that "Nature is important." This is not to say that you
could ever teach someone all there is to know about growing mushrooms, but
you could get them well on their way to being able to do what good mushroom
growers do, able to grapple with most of the possible variables and
complexities. And I am not saying that you could not provide people with
an experience that would not suddenly bring on a deep knowing of the
importance of and connection to Nature. I am saying "easier" and "more
difficult".
The thought that all learning "comes from within" is one that I have not
clearified for myself. I am aware of the idea that within each of us lies
the infinite wisdom of the universe. It is often connected to intuition
and other similar ways of knowing. I am still open to this possibility,
but my experiences to date seem to lean more on learning through more
direct contact with people, experiences, verbalized ideas, etc. It seems
that we learn in response / reaction to our environment, and we can
increase our learning by actively seeking out learning opportunities. If
learning comes from within, it must still be influenced by things without.
Perhaps they are one and the same, just different routes for input. As I
said, I am still working on this one.
So, an "education" should not be giving a list of valuable things to
someone. Any list will, by definition, be too limited to be of real use.
Instead, education should be teaching people to learn effectively,
consciously, and in a wide variety of ways, so that they can take advantage
of a wider range of learning opportunities. We often say someone is well
educated if they have an advanced degree, from a good school, and have a
lot of knowledge in a specialized field. Instead, we should say someone is
well educated if they are good at manipulating their environment to
optimize the diversity and the pace of their learning. Once someone is an
effective learner, they can enter any specialized field of choice with
ease, and are able to shift within or even change fields as needed.
The greatest gift a teacher can give is a "love of learning". Other great
gifts are a love of a subject and effective learning skills. If teaching
were to concentrate on these things, we'd be a lot better off. Instead,
teaching is bogged down by the material / subject matter (cirriculum) and
making sure that students "learn it" (testing and grades). This kind of
teaching has never been very effective, yet we insist on continuing as if
it did what we want it to. How much of ALL of the things, facts, books,
lectures, movies, activities, etc. that you experienced in ALL of our days
in school are still with you now? 20%? 10%? 5%? 1%? Is this worth the
time spent at school? What if you kept 80 to 90%? Wouldn't it then be
worth the time spent?
This is getting long, so I'll quit here.
Live, Love, Learn, Laugh!
Eric:
