Not enough support!!!

THE “FACILITATORS”

“The facilitators (Denise and Evyette) were awesome.” Very Disappointed!!!!

The use of the term “facilitators” rather than simply “teachers” raises an interesting philosophical issue, to wit, what is it that teachers do and how is it to be distinguished from what “facilitators” do. First, the “facilitators.”

The term “facilitators” has an interesting lineage, going right back to Plato. He asked the question, “How does the student learn something new?” The difficulty, of course, is if that something learned was “new,” then how would the student recognize it? In other words, if it were “new” then, by definition, it would be beyond the student’s conceptual framework in terms of which it might be understood. Plato “resolved” the problem by claiming that all learning, including learning something “new,” was the result of remembering. To learn something new was nothing more than remembering past knowledge. In other words, the student already “knew” that which was, um, “new.” So conceived, the teacher was little more than a “midwife,” someone assisting at the birth of new knowledge. In current terminology the midwife became a “facilitator,” a term which has considerable foundational currency in current “child-centered” pedagogy. Denise and Evyette were “facilitators.”

The question, of course, is whether or not teaching can be reduced to facilitating. To so reduce it would depend upon successfully demonstrating that learning something new is a matter of remembering past knowledge. But, one might ask, where did THAT knowledge come from? If it, in turn, were simply a matter of remembering still further past knowledge then the downward path to infinite and incoherent regress beckons. Where does the regress end or, for that matter, DOES it end? Clearly, to avoid incoherence on the one hand and an epistemological vacuum on the other, some alternative conception of learning something new must be advanced. In other words, some account of teaching that is not reduced to some private, solitary pedagogical boot-strap operation of remembering is required. So what is that account of teaching?

Unlike facilitating, teaching is the purposive, reflective engagement of the mind of the student by the teacher. (We’re not talking about one-way “instruction” here, that which takes place in the elementary grades. We’re talking about the teacher in full-blown pedagogical flight.) So what is to be understood by the “purposive, reflective engagement of the mind of the student by the teacher?” What we’re talking about is the natural extension of the knowledge of other minds. When John speaks to Mary, for example, she understands what John is saying by coming to “indwell” in John’s mind. While relying subsidiarily on John’s words she simultaneously attends to his mind at work in those words. At the same time, John responds by listening to Mary’s mind at work in her words. Where John is to be understood as the teacher and Mary the student – as it should be – he reflectively and purosively structures Mary’s mind to bring about understanding. Unlike simply “facilitating” then, teaching is a mindful, structured and dialogical process issuing out into comprehension – into the understanding – of the student.

Thank you for your patience and understanding. There will be a short essay test to follow.

Avatar 113: A Good-Looking Pair of Siamese Cats

A pleasure as always,

Cheerio!

RSVPS

: Willard (12/29, 12:47PM)

Willard, could you possibly supply some content to your attachment – I realize that you have great difficulty, to put it mildly, in articulating your own “thoughts” such as they are – in which you claim that there exists some similarity between Stephen Harper and Montrealman? I know this will be very difficult for you but you must SUPPORT your assertions, not simply assert them. No more attachments, Willard. I just want to hear Willard’s mind working in his words. However, as is usually the case, you might like to give me a “dislike” instead and then you can just slither back under your rock.

: Tired of bs (01/01, 2:35PM)

Well bs, I actually am trying to use my “institutional education” – some would call it a powerful intelligence shaped by deep learning – for something positive. Now what would that be? It is attempting to stimulate reflective thought among others on this site, just like you, bs. Now I can see I have a long way to go with you. Let’s start with your definition of what constitutes a “bigger douche.”

I’m going to try and help you, bs. Let’s start with a definition of “douche” itself in the present context. What, if anything, do you mean by a “douche” in the context of teaching and learning? That after all, what my comment was all about. You do understand that, don’t you bs? You must not simply call people names but rather you must support your assertions with reasons. Try and grasp that fundamental point, bs. The ball is in your court. Don’t hit it into the net.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!