teaching (oneself or anyone else) vs. learning
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/6/02 10:18:55 PM, PSoroosh@... writes:
<< Maybe you could try reserving "they teach themselves" for times when they
purposely set out to systematically learn something. I bought a book and
purposely learned guitar chords - you could say I taught myself guitar. >>
I would say you learned to play guitar on your own.
You used resources in a systematic way, perhaps, and maybe you even tracked
our progress, or had a deadline to meet, but teaching yourself still seems to
me rooted in the teacher/student thing.
I found something this morning that I wrote a while back, while looking for
some unschooling quotes. It might have been on this list in the first place,
and so for anyone who's seen it already, apologies for the re-run.
----------------
-=-So if teaching *really* means competently and compassionately facilitating
learning, then
teaching *does* exist, no? -=-
The word exists.
The idea exists.
In English we expect words to have meanings. We expect a thing to be a
THING. And a verb to be ACTION! Wham! Pow!
The action of "teaching" isn't simple and clear.
When there are pairs of words like "pitcher and cup" or "pitcher and catcher"
or "ball and socket" we assume the two things are complementary parts of a
whole.
So we have (and have had for many languages back up the line, I'm guessing,
maybe) "teacher and student."
Now that I'm thinking about it, though, maybe this is, in part, an English
language problem. Because in Romance languages (Latin-based, Italian,
French, Spanish...) they use "maestro" or forms thereof. "Master" or
"Mistress" of an art or body of knowledge. Someone can be a maestro with no
followers or students. One can't very well be a teacher without the presence
of a student.
But anyway, we do have in modern English the pair "teach and learn."
If I want to teach someone how to use quotation marks, I can talk, show them,
make jokes, draw stick figures with speech-balloons, and I could maybe sing
songs about it. So IF the person who's in the room "being taught" is
thinking about how to file down that one piece of a machine gun that can turn
a legal semi-automatic into an illegal automatic, and how to hide that part
really well, disguised as something altogether different, what am I doing?
I'm talking, writing, drawing, dancing and singing. But I'm not teaching.
I'm reviewing for myself something I already know. I'm just performing a
play of sorts, without an audience. I'm playing with myself. I'm... Well,
you know.
So if I'm reading a magazine about machine guns and someone comes and says
"How do I punctuate a quote within a quote?" I can show them. If they don't
totally understand, I can draw pictures or give other examples. When I
perceive that they have learned the thing they wanted to learn, I should s
hush up and go back to my magazine, because the action is completed.
They learned. I helped them learn.
I was "the teacher" but I didn't do the work which resulted in learning. The
learner did that in his head. I wasn't in his head. I could put ideas in
the air, but only he could hear and process and ask more questions. Without
his active work, no teaching can possibly take place.
-=-So if teaching *really* means competently and compassionately facilitating
learning, then
teaching *does* exist, no? -=-
There's that Buddhist talk about being the water, being the ocean. Think of
it as kneading bread, maybe. Here's a truth: teaching has no action to show
for itself which is "teaching." You can't really pour useful information
into anyone else's ears or eyes against their will. They can learn like
crazy, but you can't make them learn.
Fold and push. People learn from other people.
Fold and push. There are people paid to teach. Some are aware that there
are limitations to what they can do. Others are not philosophical and
believe that if they "taught" (presented information) only the lazy and
uncooperative could possibly fail to "learn."
Fold and lean and push really hard.
"Teaching" is an idea which most people understand on a quick, simple level.
It's an idea that the best teachers and the best homeschoolers (i.e. we
unschoolers) think about more carefully and examine more closely.
I feel that I've taught my kids to be kind and patient. If they reject that
"teaching" though, they're not taught at all. I would have modelled and
discussed and totally failed miserably to teach. But somehow I persuaded
them to believe that what I believed was important. Sometimes, somehow, I
persuade people to believe unschooling will work and is important. Some
people fail to learn it but I keep singing and dancing anyway.
I don't much like jazz, but philosophy, ideas and teaching are kind of like
jazz. Early in playing an instrument you're told the One Right Way to hold
it, to blow/strike/pluck, to use the keys so you don't damage them, to stand
or sit just so, making it easier for you and safer for the instrument.
Those are The Rules.
If you get so good at your instrument that you can play it in the dark,
quickly, while carrying on a conversation with someone else at the same time
(not wind instrument players, but you know what I mean...) then the rules no
longer apply to you. At that point you cannot be a beginner who accidently
broke an instrument out of ignorance or carelessness. You will love that
instrument and know it really well, and maybe be able to repair it. At first
the instrument was the sacred goal, but once your musicianship is greater
than the instrument, you are beyond and above the simple rules.
Here's a rule: You have to stand to sing. Otherwise your diaphragm is
cramped up and you won't be able to support your notes and control your
pitches. HAVE to stand up.
Professionals in musicals and operas--they can sing sitting, they sing lying
in beds, they sing while they're dancing, they sing in all kinds of
positions. Folksingers and traditional musicians of various kinds sing
sitting in various situations.
I can teach like they can sing. So why am I saying teaching doesn't exist?
Beginners need to stand up to sing. Beginning teachers need to know that
teaching isn't a thing you do to someone else. Rather, learning is something
that you MIGHT, if you're lucky, get to assist with.
In beginning stages, like student teachers and beginning homeschooling
parents and assistant karate teachers (which my son is) and games teachers
(Marty and Holly have both "taught a game" in the past couple of days, or
rather recited rules in the presence of other people) need to look for and
see learning as a separate process from their own song and dance. In advanced
stages there is teaching, but it is compassionately and competently
facilitating another's learning.
Maybe I've just written my next HEM column.
Sandra
-----------------------------------------------
<< Maybe you could try reserving "they teach themselves" for times when they
purposely set out to systematically learn something. I bought a book and
purposely learned guitar chords - you could say I taught myself guitar. >>
I would say you learned to play guitar on your own.
You used resources in a systematic way, perhaps, and maybe you even tracked
our progress, or had a deadline to meet, but teaching yourself still seems to
me rooted in the teacher/student thing.
I found something this morning that I wrote a while back, while looking for
some unschooling quotes. It might have been on this list in the first place,
and so for anyone who's seen it already, apologies for the re-run.
----------------
-=-So if teaching *really* means competently and compassionately facilitating
learning, then
teaching *does* exist, no? -=-
The word exists.
The idea exists.
In English we expect words to have meanings. We expect a thing to be a
THING. And a verb to be ACTION! Wham! Pow!
The action of "teaching" isn't simple and clear.
When there are pairs of words like "pitcher and cup" or "pitcher and catcher"
or "ball and socket" we assume the two things are complementary parts of a
whole.
So we have (and have had for many languages back up the line, I'm guessing,
maybe) "teacher and student."
Now that I'm thinking about it, though, maybe this is, in part, an English
language problem. Because in Romance languages (Latin-based, Italian,
French, Spanish...) they use "maestro" or forms thereof. "Master" or
"Mistress" of an art or body of knowledge. Someone can be a maestro with no
followers or students. One can't very well be a teacher without the presence
of a student.
But anyway, we do have in modern English the pair "teach and learn."
If I want to teach someone how to use quotation marks, I can talk, show them,
make jokes, draw stick figures with speech-balloons, and I could maybe sing
songs about it. So IF the person who's in the room "being taught" is
thinking about how to file down that one piece of a machine gun that can turn
a legal semi-automatic into an illegal automatic, and how to hide that part
really well, disguised as something altogether different, what am I doing?
I'm talking, writing, drawing, dancing and singing. But I'm not teaching.
I'm reviewing for myself something I already know. I'm just performing a
play of sorts, without an audience. I'm playing with myself. I'm... Well,
you know.
So if I'm reading a magazine about machine guns and someone comes and says
"How do I punctuate a quote within a quote?" I can show them. If they don't
totally understand, I can draw pictures or give other examples. When I
perceive that they have learned the thing they wanted to learn, I should s
hush up and go back to my magazine, because the action is completed.
They learned. I helped them learn.
I was "the teacher" but I didn't do the work which resulted in learning. The
learner did that in his head. I wasn't in his head. I could put ideas in
the air, but only he could hear and process and ask more questions. Without
his active work, no teaching can possibly take place.
-=-So if teaching *really* means competently and compassionately facilitating
learning, then
teaching *does* exist, no? -=-
There's that Buddhist talk about being the water, being the ocean. Think of
it as kneading bread, maybe. Here's a truth: teaching has no action to show
for itself which is "teaching." You can't really pour useful information
into anyone else's ears or eyes against their will. They can learn like
crazy, but you can't make them learn.
Fold and push. People learn from other people.
Fold and push. There are people paid to teach. Some are aware that there
are limitations to what they can do. Others are not philosophical and
believe that if they "taught" (presented information) only the lazy and
uncooperative could possibly fail to "learn."
Fold and lean and push really hard.
"Teaching" is an idea which most people understand on a quick, simple level.
It's an idea that the best teachers and the best homeschoolers (i.e. we
unschoolers) think about more carefully and examine more closely.
I feel that I've taught my kids to be kind and patient. If they reject that
"teaching" though, they're not taught at all. I would have modelled and
discussed and totally failed miserably to teach. But somehow I persuaded
them to believe that what I believed was important. Sometimes, somehow, I
persuade people to believe unschooling will work and is important. Some
people fail to learn it but I keep singing and dancing anyway.
I don't much like jazz, but philosophy, ideas and teaching are kind of like
jazz. Early in playing an instrument you're told the One Right Way to hold
it, to blow/strike/pluck, to use the keys so you don't damage them, to stand
or sit just so, making it easier for you and safer for the instrument.
Those are The Rules.
If you get so good at your instrument that you can play it in the dark,
quickly, while carrying on a conversation with someone else at the same time
(not wind instrument players, but you know what I mean...) then the rules no
longer apply to you. At that point you cannot be a beginner who accidently
broke an instrument out of ignorance or carelessness. You will love that
instrument and know it really well, and maybe be able to repair it. At first
the instrument was the sacred goal, but once your musicianship is greater
than the instrument, you are beyond and above the simple rules.
Here's a rule: You have to stand to sing. Otherwise your diaphragm is
cramped up and you won't be able to support your notes and control your
pitches. HAVE to stand up.
Professionals in musicals and operas--they can sing sitting, they sing lying
in beds, they sing while they're dancing, they sing in all kinds of
positions. Folksingers and traditional musicians of various kinds sing
sitting in various situations.
I can teach like they can sing. So why am I saying teaching doesn't exist?
Beginners need to stand up to sing. Beginning teachers need to know that
teaching isn't a thing you do to someone else. Rather, learning is something
that you MIGHT, if you're lucky, get to assist with.
In beginning stages, like student teachers and beginning homeschooling
parents and assistant karate teachers (which my son is) and games teachers
(Marty and Holly have both "taught a game" in the past couple of days, or
rather recited rules in the presence of other people) need to look for and
see learning as a separate process from their own song and dance. In advanced
stages there is teaching, but it is compassionately and competently
facilitating another's learning.
Maybe I've just written my next HEM column.
Sandra
-----------------------------------------------
Liza Sabater
I'm being the devil's advocate here.
In this debate over who has power over knowledge there is still one
fundamental truth: teach and learn are just words. Now, I have never
heard of a *maestro* without students (to be a master, one is an
*experto*) but the bottom line is that during our lifetime we will
learn either by ourselves or with a teacher. Yes, it is learning but
you can learn by having a teacher teach ---and that is not
necessarily a bad thing. In music, in martial arts, in yoga, we all
need teachers. There will be a moment when we wont need them anymore
(and we would still not be experts) but still, the experience with
the teacher will not diminish our learning experience.
What I find interesting is the power aura these words have.
Unschooling, as a life style for some, seems to be about loosing the
power grip of a word like 'teach'. That's were the 'competently and
compassionate' comes into play. Just like in yoga.
Still, all this discussion points to the fact that 'learning',
'teaching', 'education', no matter how you cut it, are all about
power.
Liza
In this debate over who has power over knowledge there is still one
fundamental truth: teach and learn are just words. Now, I have never
heard of a *maestro* without students (to be a master, one is an
*experto*) but the bottom line is that during our lifetime we will
learn either by ourselves or with a teacher. Yes, it is learning but
you can learn by having a teacher teach ---and that is not
necessarily a bad thing. In music, in martial arts, in yoga, we all
need teachers. There will be a moment when we wont need them anymore
(and we would still not be experts) but still, the experience with
the teacher will not diminish our learning experience.
What I find interesting is the power aura these words have.
Unschooling, as a life style for some, seems to be about loosing the
power grip of a word like 'teach'. That's were the 'competently and
compassionate' comes into play. Just like in yoga.
Still, all this discussion points to the fact that 'learning',
'teaching', 'education', no matter how you cut it, are all about
power.
Liza
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/7/02 8:19:03 AM, liza@... writes:
<< In this debate over who has power over knowledge there is still one
fundamental truth: teach and learn are just words. >>
Words are the basis for concepts. Concepts and philosophy and ideas drive
action.
I don't know if there is any such thing as "just words."
Sandra
<< In this debate over who has power over knowledge there is still one
fundamental truth: teach and learn are just words. >>
Words are the basis for concepts. Concepts and philosophy and ideas drive
action.
I don't know if there is any such thing as "just words."
Sandra
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/7/02 8:19:03 AM, liza@... writes:
<< the bottom line is that during our lifetime we will
learn either by ourselves or with a teacher >>
With money there's a bottom line.
With philosophy, there's just one more layer to consider. <g>
People learn either in school or without.
Since we're talking about "without," we might as well go one more layer.
Sandra
<< the bottom line is that during our lifetime we will
learn either by ourselves or with a teacher >>
With money there's a bottom line.
With philosophy, there's just one more layer to consider. <g>
People learn either in school or without.
Since we're talking about "without," we might as well go one more layer.
Sandra
Fetteroll
on 7/7/02 10:13 AM, Liza Sabater at liza@... wrote:
teachers to learn can't be escaped from except by growing up alone in a cave
;-)
Going to a class because we need a teacher to teach us is a different
mindset than going because we're choosing to learn from a teacher. A karate
teacher is just a vigorous guy in a white uniform unless someone decides
they want to use him as a tool to learn karate.
The exercise is about helping people realize that the beginning point in
learning is what is inside reaching out rather than what's outside trying to
get in. When learning something, a person reaches out for whatever tools he
thinks will help. It might be a book, online help, a webpage, a friend, a
mother, a child, an expert, an email list, a video, a trip to a museum, or a
teacher. It's trying to help people who are stuck see that a live person who
imparts some knowledge is just another tool for a learner. It's not
downplaying teachers. It's bringing the desire inside the learner to center
stage where it belongs in the process of learning.
My daughter may ask me how to do something on the computer rather than going
to the Help file (or any other of a slew of choices). I'm a tool to her in
that instance. She's guessing that I'm the most efficient tool for her
purpose. (Or maybe she just misses me ;-) I'm not missing the fact that a
teacher is different than a book. A teacher can tailor an answer to the
questioner and a number of other advantages. But online help can often get
quickly to the problem with skillfully worded searches. That's the nature of
tools. There are advantages and disadvantages, features one has that the
other doesn't.
That we can learn from teachers isn't a new idea to anyone. But that a
teacher is just one of many tools for learning like books and other
resources often is a totally new perspective, and enlightening one, for some
people.
Joyce
> Yes, it is learning butNot a bad thing. In fact a *pervasive* thing. The message that we need
> you can learn by having a teacher teach ---and that is not
> necessarily a bad thing.
teachers to learn can't be escaped from except by growing up alone in a cave
;-)
Going to a class because we need a teacher to teach us is a different
mindset than going because we're choosing to learn from a teacher. A karate
teacher is just a vigorous guy in a white uniform unless someone decides
they want to use him as a tool to learn karate.
The exercise is about helping people realize that the beginning point in
learning is what is inside reaching out rather than what's outside trying to
get in. When learning something, a person reaches out for whatever tools he
thinks will help. It might be a book, online help, a webpage, a friend, a
mother, a child, an expert, an email list, a video, a trip to a museum, or a
teacher. It's trying to help people who are stuck see that a live person who
imparts some knowledge is just another tool for a learner. It's not
downplaying teachers. It's bringing the desire inside the learner to center
stage where it belongs in the process of learning.
My daughter may ask me how to do something on the computer rather than going
to the Help file (or any other of a slew of choices). I'm a tool to her in
that instance. She's guessing that I'm the most efficient tool for her
purpose. (Or maybe she just misses me ;-) I'm not missing the fact that a
teacher is different than a book. A teacher can tailor an answer to the
questioner and a number of other advantages. But online help can often get
quickly to the problem with skillfully worded searches. That's the nature of
tools. There are advantages and disadvantages, features one has that the
other doesn't.
That we can learn from teachers isn't a new idea to anyone. But that a
teacher is just one of many tools for learning like books and other
resources often is a totally new perspective, and enlightening one, for some
people.
Joyce
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/8/02 6:17:57 AM, fetteroll@... writes:
<< When learning something, a person reaches out for whatever tools he
thinks will help. It might be a book, online help, a webpage, a friend, a
mother, a child, an expert, an email list, a video, a trip to a museum, or a
teacher. It's trying to help people who are stuck see that a live person who
imparts some knowledge is just another tool for a learner. It's not
downplaying teachers. It's bringing the desire inside the learner to center
stage where it belongs in the process of learning. >>
Really well put.
And some people only have one tool in their toolbox, which is "take a class."
They equate learning something with "being taught."
So when someone wants to unschool but insists on using "teach" as a prominent
bit of their terminology, it can help for them to take that tool right out of
the toolbox for a while until they develop and learn to use a dozen other
tools, all called "learn."
Sandra
<< When learning something, a person reaches out for whatever tools he
thinks will help. It might be a book, online help, a webpage, a friend, a
mother, a child, an expert, an email list, a video, a trip to a museum, or a
teacher. It's trying to help people who are stuck see that a live person who
imparts some knowledge is just another tool for a learner. It's not
downplaying teachers. It's bringing the desire inside the learner to center
stage where it belongs in the process of learning. >>
Really well put.
And some people only have one tool in their toolbox, which is "take a class."
They equate learning something with "being taught."
So when someone wants to unschool but insists on using "teach" as a prominent
bit of their terminology, it can help for them to take that tool right out of
the toolbox for a while until they develop and learn to use a dozen other
tools, all called "learn."
Sandra
Tia Leschke
>. . .
>
>The exercise is about helping people realize that the beginning point in
>learning is what is inside reaching out rather than what's outside trying to
>get in. When learning something, a person reaches out for whatever tools he
>thinks will help. It might be a book, online help, a webpage, a friend, a
>mother, a child, an expert, an email list, a video, a trip to a museum, or a
>teacher. It's trying to help people who are stuck see that a live person who
>imparts some knowledge is just another tool for a learner. It's not
>downplaying teachers. It's bringing the desire inside the learner to center
>stage where it belongs in the process of learning.
>That we can learn from teachers isn't a new idea to anyone. But that aThis is a keeper, Joyce.
>teacher is just one of many tools for learning like books and other
>resources often is a totally new perspective, and enlightening one, for some
>people.
Tia
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
Eleanor Roosevelt
*********************************************
Tia Leschke
leschke@...
On Vancouver Island