[John] The ideal instructor is the one who is part of the class - learning with them.
[Arlo] Okay, this is a fairly part of educational reform literature. Are there any criteria, as you see it, that distinguishes an instructor from the students? Or could we, in effect, randomly select a student from a class and designate that student as 'the instructor'? Was there any other value-add that Pirsig brought to the classroom other than as a 'motivator' and 'co-learner'? Did the students benefit from his presence? Would they have benefited equally, or better, without his being there? For what its worth, most graduate level courses are set up around the model of the professor as a co-investigator. Many ask (myself included) why we wait until learners are in fifth-year post-secondary studies before they encounter learning in this model (many answers have been offered, most place economic structures and Piagetian-inspiried pedagogy as dominant factors). But, so let's imagine the classroom where the instructor is, like Pirsig was, "part of the class". What else can you tell me about the instructor/student distinction? [John] It's not some talking head always speaking down to you like you're an idiot. [Arlo] Your two comments here, by the way, are described by educational theorists as the "guide on the side" (above) and the "sage on the stage" (speaking down to you like you're an idiot). Although even the most ardent "lecturists" would likely (publicly) renounce those who treat their students like idiots, I think from experience we can safely say that the more "sage-like" any speaker feels, the more inclined they are to speak as if his audience is 'idiots'. [John] It's somebody who is so interested in his subject that his interest is catching. [Arlo] Sadly, I always wonder why ALL teachers aren't like this. Skill levels, knowledge of pedagogy, classroom strategies, etc. aside, you think that passionate interest in the subject at hand would be an easy norm among teachers. But, in fairness, all too often teachers are 'assigned' courses (typically undergraduate at the college level, which creates even larger problems) they lack both interest and expertise in teaching. This is a part of the current model (related to economic decisions, mostly) that I think must be addressed. [John] I know that was aimed at Dan, but I'd been thinking Arlo... a lot of the necessity of the academy and academics was in the storage and communication of the classics and a certain way of thinking. A lot of their utility is being threatened by google. It used to be, "ask a academic" if you had a hard question. Now it's "google it" and it's a foreboding for the future. [Arlo] There are reform initiatives, based on learning taxonomies, that suggest 'lower' order skills like knowledge of facts, terminology, etc. be automated, as you suggest stuff anyone can find on Google (although this does raise the need to address critical thinking skills and information literacy skills among learners), and instructors should be brought in only (mostly) to focus on higher-order skills like analysis and synthesis (in Bloom's taxonomy). In my own thinking, this is moves from "know THAT" (experiential learning, often informal) to "know WHY' (academic learning, abstract theory and structures) to "know HOW" (authentic practice, applied knowledge). And I think when you look at Pirsig's rhetoric classroom, you see this progression. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
