As I read Louis Schmier's recent post, I was very impressed with his
sense of mission. It then occurred to me that those of us who take this
job very seriously typically have a sense of mission: we believe that,
through our teaching, we might be able to change things for the
better--if only just a little bit. Teaching will not bring us fame or
money. Teaching is not a profession that is highly esteemed in our
society (the lack of esteem is especially strong in the academic culture
that has produced us). Teaching does not often lead to great respect
from our students. In other words, the traditional kinds of ambitions
are not satisfied by teaching. Thus, in order to continue to take the
job seriously, in order to constantly try to become a better teacher, in
order not to go off and find another line of work, we must have a sense
of mission about teaching.
But this is where it gets sticky, because each of us has differing views
about the kinds of changes we believe would make ourselves or the world
a better place. My goals probably are not the goals many of you have. To
be more accurate, I imagine that many of you might want to place some
limits on my goals (but I may be wrong). My teaching goals involve
facilitating an increase among my students in the use of a rational and
natural approach to the questions and concerns of everyday life. In a
perfect world, I would want to see people give up their reliance on any
assumptions and concepts that point towards a domain beyond the natural.
In that world, I also would want to see people give up their reliance on
subjective ways of knowing, especially when these ways are based
predominantly in emotion and illogic. This view was not the result of a
sudden insight into the nature of things. Instead, it was the result of
a gradual evolution in my thinking. As I slowly began to question my own
supernatural beliefs and the likelihood of achieving a state of
illumination and enlightenment--a state in which everything suddenly
became clear to me (that is, an epiphany)--I began to wonder about the
potentially dangerous paths down which such beliefs and such an
epistemology might take us. It seemed to me that the approach of
scientists--an approach that valued attitudes such as skepticism,
empiricism, and naturalism--would be a better basis for understanding
myself and the world. This is the goal I have for my teaching: I want to
help my students to learn to use this approach when thinking about
themselves and their worlds.
Given that goal, the question then becomes: how can I best accomplish
it? Louis suggests that self-knowledge is the key. Such self-knowledge
will transform our very beings--our souls. To be good teachers, we first
have to find the "truth" in ourselves. We must "crack [our] hard outer
shell[s] if the delicious meat inside is to come out and be tasted." We
then will become "spiritually grounded, psychologically sound,
intellectually informed, and physically fit." This will give the "peace
of mind" essential for being a good teacher. Louis' "epiphany" led him
to this "truth" about teaching. And therein lies the problem for me:
Louis' approach is based in the same irrationalism which my own
"journey" has led me to forsake. I can not trust Louis' approach because
it is based on fundamental assumptions and concepts, as well as an
epistemology (a subjective approach to knowledge development), that I
find invalid. It is a view, however, to which students are very likely
to respond. Thus, Louis should be able to point to a great deal of
evidence that this approach to teaching is a fruitful one: students'
reactions will be very positive. But again, this is because students are
very likely to accept the same irrationalism (a strong Romanticism
running through American culture) that inspires Louis' thinking. This is
the irrationalism I wish to reduce in my courses.
I still have not figured out how best to achieve my ultimate teaching
goal. As my teaching continues to evolve, I probably will develop
procedures that work better. Of one thing I am relatively sure: I doubt
that I will ever feel as certain that my approach is the correct one as
Louis apparently feels about his. Such is the bane of a scientific
approach.
Jeff
--
Jeffry P. Ricker, Ph.D. Office Phone: (480) 423-6213
9000 E. Chaparral Rd. FAX Number: (480) 423-6298
Psychology Department [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Scottsdale Community College
Scottsdale, AZ 85256-2626
"The truth is rare and never simple."
Oscar Wilde
"Instead of having 'answers' on a test, they should just call
them 'impressions'. And, if you got a different 'impression',
so what? Can't we all be brothers?"
Jack Handey
