|
|
Growing up in America's educational system from kindergarten all
the way through to a doctoral degree, I was brought up to think of teaching
in a very specific way. To "teach" was to dispense information in the hopes
that the students would do their jobs as dutiful receptacles and retain
the knowledge that was being given to them. To "learn" was to be able to
absorb and memorize, then regurgitate on command. In all fairness, this
model for education does make some sense when dealing with children and
when teaching them the basics of math or grammar, etc. What I am concerned
about is that this model for teaching seems to be used throughout the educational
system, and even in graduate school. What disturbs me is that I have found,
and this feeling is reinforced each time I walk in front of a class of
college students, that "teaching" as I have described it above does
not and even cannot exist if Universities are going to continue to claim
that they are harbors of education.
After several semesters of dispensing interpretations on poems
and stories, I came to the realization that I was not dispensing anything.
I was saying alot, but my students weren't getting it. I have heard the
same complaint by many, if not all, of my colleagues: "Why can't they get
it? They nod in class and then blow it on the tests and papers. They are
good at summarizing plot but they don't grapple with issues brought up
by the text. They simply do not know how to think." The more I pondered
on these questions, the more I came to understand that they did get it;
but not the "it" that we wanted them to get.
Following years of being told to merely listen and not to question
what they were told in their high school classes, our students come to
us pretty much with intellectual muscles that have atrophied from lack
of use. They sit, listen, memorize, regurgitate, listen some more, memorize
some more, and regurgitate some more. And what is worse, is that those
who did try to do more than that (eg ask questions, posit theories, and
make declarative statements not following the cue of their teacher) were
silenced with a condescending nod while the teacher moved on with the all-important
"dishing out" of what they needed learn if they were to succeed in college
and career.
heading
Ironically, these so called "students" are wonderfully prepared
by this goal-oriented method of teaching for most of their college courses,
where they focus their attention on a single lecturer standing in front
of a large classroom telling his students the information they will need
to do well on the tests. Who cares if they understand the information,
or if they can apply it, analyze it, or develop ideas from it; all that
matters is that they test well. This way, a professor can claim that good
grades = good education, presenting herself as the good teacher who made
those grades possible. So, in college as in high school, they spend most
of their time in class sitting, listening, etc.
heading
Sometimes, even professors themselves (especially in English
or Philosophy classes) are turned off by the "lecture" format and
favor an approach which fosters discussion. These professors present to
their students a relaxed atmosphere where they can speak their minds and
where no one is ridiculed for their opinions. The desks are usually put
into a circle to shift the focus of students on each other and not on the
singular authoritative voice of the professor. Well meaning though this
approach may be (and it does tend to get the results it seeks ie more student
participation), nevertheless, there can be problems here as well; for the
approach may give the illusion of communication while leaving teacher and
students comfortably and confidently sedimented in their own opinions.
For instance, how often do professors open a dialogue among students and
themselves when they are prepared to change their opinion or interpretation
based on what a student might say. Are students themselves prepared to
release their previous way of thinking if a fellow student challenges them.
Or are professors more often than not faced with a scenario where each
person talking is putting forth her opinions/interpretations in the hopes
of convincing others that she is right. What most university "discussion"
courses consist of are several talking heads talking at each other and
not with each other. There is no dialogue, no depth of analysis, no thinking.
There are only several pontificating monologues occuring in close proximity
to one another, promoting ideas they have heard or been given by someone
else, usually an authority figure or media personality. They have no clue
as to the foundation or consequences of these ideas because they have never
been encouraged to question these ideas from the inside out. What we often
take to be a rebellious student who "questions authority" is more than
likely a student who has rejected one progam of thought for another. By
allowing them to merely "mouth out" their ideas, we reinforce our students'
susceptibility to propoganda and mind manipulation in the finest tradition.
Moreover, we further indocrinate our students in this mind-set by how we
respond to their questions and concerns. Many times when professors are
challenged, they just flex their claim to "higher" knowledge or de facto
authority and put that student in his place, which is to be a receptacle,
nothing more. This supposedly more "open" approach can pose a more serious
threat to education than the lecutre format, for the students are given
to believe that they have listened to others and have considered other
viewpoints when they actually haven't. So much for developing a "well-rounded"
human being. So much for education.
Another threat to education in the college classroom is the illusion
of objectivity professor's wear as a mantle to protect their position as
head of the class. It is common knowledge in student circles today that
the first order of business in any English class (esp. composition classes)
is to ferret out the political leanings or interpretive slant of the professor.
Students have learned what professors would prefer to ignore: most
professors are not objective in their appraisal or appreciation for the
structures of writing and argumentation.
I have heard time and again of the professor who docked a student
simply because that student would not parrot back the teacher's dogma.
Some students have even gone so far as to offer their professors published
essays from professional writers to test the bias of their "teacher". These
essays then received low grades. Other students who received a poor grade
simply wrote a new essay with a thesis which agreed with the professor
and would receive a mark of at least a letter grade higher. Is it any wonder
our students look upon their English classes with a jaundiced eye. And
professors have the audacity to wonder why students don't talk more or
think more carefully or write with more depth. Our students are simply
relating back what they have learned from us: Sit, listen, assess the professor's
value system, and reflect back what that professor wants to hear. How can
we wexpect our students to think if we don't. If they happen to pick up
some grammar or writing tips, or develop an appreciation for literature,
that's lagniappe. They certainly are not encouraged to learn anything from
us; they are encouraged to be mirrors of their teacher's brilliance and
greatness.
heading
And yet another obstacle to education in our Universities is
the "Hard Ass" professor. This is the teacher walks into a room and says
"No one ever gets an A in this class, so forget it." Here, he is establishing
two ideas about himself, one conscious , the other not. The conscious idea
he hopes to translate to his disciples is that he is a "hard ass" who demands
more than the average bear and will task them to the nth degree. What he
unconsciously reveals about himself is that he can't teach. After all,
who would be so lame-brained to tell a trainee on the job at a nuclear
power plant that "No one I train ever can shut down the plant processers
the way I can, so give it up, it's hopeless." Pretty absurd, but what the
"hard ass" professor is really saying is that it is not his interest to
teach his students in a way they can relate to or understand because he
feels that his job is to be an opaque obelisk the students must decipher
or a shpynx whose riddle they must figure out. Either way, the classroom
has immediately, at the get go, become an environment hostile to learning
and is now, once again, an environment ripe for manipulation and intimidation.
But the question I ask myself is who is it that is intimidated. Only the
unsure and weak make pronouncements that are intended to place themselves
as the ultimate and only authority; only they are so unsure of their methodology
or the worth of what their teaching and even who is teaching the class
that they avoid the issues worthy of discussion, analysis, skepticism
and discovery, and hide behind their "iron curtain" of power and ignorance,
hoping no one has the courage to pull the curtain back and expose the fraud
standing there.
What's Left?
In the beginning of this chapter, I mentioned what I thought teaching
was, and later I described what it is not. So, what is left for those who
genuinely wish to be educators. The first place to look is the word, "education".
If it means anything, it means to "lead out" (from the Latin educo) of
ourselves and our students those truths which actually say something about
us as we are. In other words, not to input so much as to lead out of us
what is already there waiting to be discovered, uncovered and expressed.
A plant need not be taught how to grow, it simply needs the proper environment
in which to grow and fed the nutrients to sustain itself; it does the rest.
Perhaps this organic approach could be summarized as "To teach is to learn".
If professors understood themselves to be part of the process of creating
the environment and intellectual nutrients for their students' minds to
grow in, the whole mode of education would have to undergo some radical
changes.
First, any professor wanting to educate would have to accept
and investigate his own thoughts and opinions. To teach these opinions
would be an opportunity to learn about themselves. Only then can the teacher
be an example of education rather than merely a dispenser of facts and
figures. And experience has taught me that people learn by example more
than by what they are told to blindly believe and accept. The opportunity
for a student to experience first hand the process of discovery through
their professor's own questioning can lead to genuine interaction and discussion,
and give confidence to the student that they too have it within them to
grow into their personally investigated and accepted thoughts and ideas.
When a professor presents ideas as if they appeared ex nihilo, a
student can despair at never being "sharp" enough to understand what the
professor seems to understand withou effort. Engaging students in the arduous
process of intellectual inquiry, a professor can begin to see actual education
taking place, perhaps for the first time. The professor's genuine and spontaneous
struggle with meaning and purpose in the endeavour at hand lets them know
that ideas more often than not do not spring forth fully formed as Athena
from from the almighty mind of Zeus, but take time to germinate and be
tested and tested and tested before they are given any claim to authority.
Moreover, instead of revealing a potentially exploitable vulnerability
to our students, I have found this approach to at once liberates me from
both the false ideal of "objective" perfection, and from facing the boredom
of hundreds of frustrated and bedeviled people wondering "where the hell
does he get these ideas?"
Since my students are part of the process of education, mine
and theirs together, they don't have to ask; they are there at the moment
of creation, sharing both the joys and frustrations of creative thought.
They do not feel exiled from the realm of relevant thought, they are absorbed
in it. My passion for the literature, or whatever, can intereact and inflame
theirs and vice versa. I take the point, but they are invloved in every
step of the operation, sometimes with one or more of them takinf the point.
When they understand that I am genuine in my pursuit of their voice and
not just an echo of my own (and this usually takes 2-3 weeks of concentrated
effort), it is as if they are awake for the first time to their own capacity
for creativity and learning, and some even experience euphoria (no joke)
that they can actually think. They seem surprised, shocked, and at time
even mournful that they have never been respected enough to be asked what
they think and challenged to develop their thoughts.
And they do wake up. Attendance is high not because they are
commpelled but because they feel at home in a class where they might not
be free to express themselves anywhere else. At the end of the semester,
I have observed their sadness at being forced to leave. That is why I have
felt the need to begin an all-voluntary Roundtable discussion group for
all who wish to continue the experiment. The group has been meeting for
over a year and a half now with no signs of slowing down. It has even attracted
word-of-mouth recognition and participation. Imagine my surprise when I
heard stories of professors in the 40s and 50s who also cultivated these
kinds of student-oriented discussion groups where, in an informal atmosphere,
participants could actively and vigorously explore their ideals and values
in a supportive atmosphere of good hearted and often heated debate. If
they found there ideas lacking, the relaxed atmosphere allowed a student
to admit error and reinvestigate her position. How different from the modern
college classroom where it is most certainly a "be in the right or fail"
proposition.
When did teachers, as a whole, lose this passion in students.
Was it when they figured out there was no money in cultivating the future
ministers of destiny. In the movie A Man for All Seasons, Richard Rich,
a college graduate of the 16th century, asks Sir Thomas More for a position
at court to feed his desire for recognition and glory. More, recognizing
his fellow scholar's disastrous ambition, offers him instead a teaching
post. Rich is noticeable disappointed and More asks him, "Why not be a
teacher. You could be a great one." Rich responds, "Yes, but who
would know it." And More answers back to Rich and to all who have dreamed
of education as a profession when he says, "You, your pupils, God. Not
a bad public that." Have professors been so tempted or numbed by the need
to produce a profit that the have collectively forgotten that education
is not just a profession, it is a vocation, a call to preserve the integrity
of the only animal that lies to itself. Without professors who believe
in either their students or the work of education, our culture loses its
last best defense against the evil that comes to our society from self-deception
and self-alienation. When we ignore our students, we ingore our own
best destinies as human beings working to contribute our bit of truth and
light to an otherwise darkening world. We could be the morning at the brown
brink eastward that springs in Hopkins' poem or we can be the last lights
off the black west went; it's our choice. If we arent's up to the challenge
of reinvigorating education, who can. Think about the next time you look
out over the podium.
If you have comments or suggestions, email me at figueroaf@mail.brcc.cc.la.us
This page created with Netscape Navigator Gold