more on teaching and learning

Yesterday I wrote about what teaching is to me. It was mostly in response to this radical unschooling notion that teach is somehow a bad word. The following was a comment on that blog post:

"But you aren't teaching if a kid is thirsting for the knowledge you impart...that is responding to that child's drive to learn....you can't "teach" a child whose brain is not there yet...it's developmental...one can't want to learn to read unless one is ready to read...and every child is different...."

So, firstly, I'd like to say that I'm not talking exclusively about children learning. I'm also including my own present experiences of being a 34 year old undergraduate student. I love learning, I love education. I plan to work in my chosen field for maybe 5 years, and then return to the ivory tower to earn a masters degree. I will graduate in a year and a half, which will make me about 40 when I plan to earn my MSW. I can also see myself pursuing a PhD. I can also see myself teaching at a college or university one day.

It's not just children who are learners. We learn all of our life, from formal academic teachers, from our bosses at our jobs, from workshops or conferences we attend, from our fellow employees, from our friends, from our relationships, from our children, from life. Education never ends.


Secondly, I'd like to respond to the statement, "but you aren't teaching if a kid is thirsting for the knowledge you impart."

This is, I think where I differ from the radical unschooling perspective, and I think it's a philosophical difference, that is, a matter of opinion, rather than truth. Or, that there are multiple truths out there, and no one has a monopoly on truth.

I say you can't teach anyone unless they are thirsting for knowledge, child or adult. It's like the axiom, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." But why can we not consider the leading to be teaching? I think this is a distinction, a truth, shall we say, that I will never understand.

Perhaps the distinction really is between being and doing. Perhaps these radical unschoolers are rejecting aspects of the doing of teaching, the rote, mechanical parts that sometimes occur when the teacher is not inspired, when the teacher is not being teacher.

Often, when I find myself struggling to understand something (and, like Werner Erhard said, understanding is the booby prize!), I often find myself turning to the dictionary, thinking, "just what, exactly, does that word really mean?

So I'd like to share something from my dictionary about the word teach:

1. To impart knowledge by lessons; give instruction to: to teach a class.
2. To give instruction in; communicate the knowledge of: to teach French.
3. To train by practice or exercise.
   
4. To follow the profession of teaching.
5. To impart knowledge or skill.

synonyms: Teach, instruct, drill, educate, school, discipline, train and tutor mean to guide in acquiring knowledge or skill. Teach is the most comprehensive word; it embraces all methods of imparting knowledge, information, guidance, counsel.

And then from my dictionary about the word learn:

1. To acquire knowledge of or skill in by study, instruction, practice, etc.
2. To find out; become aware of: to learn the facts.
3. To commit to memory; memorize.
4. To acquire by experience or example: to learn bad habits.
5. To gain knowledge or acquire skill.
6. To become informed; know: with of or about.

Nowhere in any of these meanings can I see the suggestion that teaching cannot happen, that it is only learning that is possible. Thus, I will continue to reject the rejection of the verb teach. However, in no way am I suggesting that you can force a child to learn something s/he is not yet ready to learn. What I am suggesting is that, if there is learning going on, there is also teaching going on. If the child is not learning, then the teacher is only trying to teach, and s/he is clearly not succeeding.

Finally, to look at the argument of development, it is abundantly clear that development happens in distinct stages. For example, the normal range for a a child to learn to walk is 9 to 18 months. That is a huge range. Consider, too, that not all children fall into this "normal" range. My son, for example, never really bothered with crawling. He went from rocking on his hands and knees to couch surfing to walking at 8 months of age. He learned how to crawl, he just wasn't that interested in it, preferring to be upright as soon as possible.

So, yes, I can clearly see that some children aren't developmentally ready to read until they are 8 or 9 years old. But what I don't see is that those children cannot be taught to read. I really think there is a distinction between reading and walking. As a species, we have been walking for far longer than we have been reading. Also, there is only one way to walk - standing up, on your feet, placing one foot in front of the other - but there are many languages to learn to speak and read. I really don't think reading is something that can be learned spontaneously, I think someone has to tell the learner what these symbols we call letters mean. Even if that only consists of reading aloud to your child while they look at the written words, you are still modeling reading in a way that the child is learning to associate a specific sound with a specific symbol.

I'd like to end by paraphrasing something from the Bible: "give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime." Can the man learn to fish by himself, can he teach himself to fish? Surely he can. However, if someone else teaches him to fish, might the process not be expedited? Might he not struggle frustratedly with just how to cast the rod, if someone explains the process, guides his arms, watches him practice and corrects mistakes in positioning, etc? I certainly would prefer to not reinvent the wheel, which is why I seek out teachers.