Something has always troubled me when I have heard professors, teachers, and even students talk about teaching. I have never really known what it was, or that it bothered me so much. However, after the second reading assignment of this class, that which was on David Bartholomae. I am not saying that it was Bartholomae who solely helped me discover what was bothering me, but also the conflict he had with Peter Elbow and also the feelings of my fellow classmates. After listening to both sides of the discussion, on how teachers should teach, I realized what bothered me so much was that teachers who teach are not teaching anything.
Perhaps this idea has not settled as well with me because I have learned differently than everyone else. That is not to say that I was taught differently, but I just pick things up in a different manner. For instance, when an English professor tries to pound down my throat to write an essay a certain way, I just follow the process, I never really learn it. I do, however, take away from the process each method that I find usually. That could be anywhere from nearly the whole process, to where I only decide that I like where the professor wants me to put my name on the heading.
Still, it was not until a couple of weeks ago that I had found out about my profound dislike of the verb to teach. I knew I was on to something when after reading Elbow and his philosophy on teaching when my hairs stood up. It was not until after reading Bartholomae, however, and the class discussion that followed that something was aggravating me more than the self importance of Bartholomae. It was walking to one of my classes that I realized, I had never learned anything when I was being taught to, but when the teacher gave me their knowledge and let me pick and choose exactly what I wanted; nothing more, nothing less.
The reading of Patricia Bizzell's take on Foundationalism and Anti-foundationalism only helped solidify my case. When Bizzell argued that to be an Anti-foundationalist, some sort of foundation was needed. That kind of... irony I guess you could call it, only helped prove that none of these profound academics were really thinking about what it meant to be a student. When I read Corbett, I thought for a moment someone had realized that, yes, it was all up to the student and what they learned. Again, I was disappointed, when Corbett ignored his own teaching, when he himself took one thing away from a professor and later tried to emulate his teaching.
I have never had a teacher who just laid out their knowledge for me. The closest to that would have to be any teacher in a high school situation. I say that because high school has a much more rigid structure for what needs to be 'learned' than college, where most professors who have been at an university long enough have a near god-like stranglehold on what they teach. Where some professors teach exactly as the course guidelines read what the class will be, other professors teach their class by name only. That is to say, a philosophy class dedicated to Aristotle's teachings, is directed by a professor who likes to discuss present day ethic problems. I bring up this point to illustrate the pride professors have; their arrogance in their PhD allows them to think that they are smarter than the students (which is hopefully the case), but also enables them to teach what they want, but not what the student signed up for.
Sadly, for me, I have only found out about my own way of learning this semester... my last semester. I will graduate with a GPA no higher than a 2.33 (if I get all A's). I intend to take most of the blame for my poor showing in college, late nights and even later mornings will do that to a GPA. However, some blame should go to the professors, who have decided that I should learn everything they want me to learn, no matter how useless it is to me, or how irrelevant it is to the current course I was taking. For instance, a class I took to learn debate and the various different styles included, really consisted of discussions on current events and the method of parliamentary debates. If I were to go into politics, how would knowing how to debate in a parliament when the United States is Republican based? Or if I were campaigning, I have to debate another candidate in a Lincoln-Douglass debate, how would knowing how to argue with a group help me? Knowing this, I took nothing away from the class, because I am a student, I can learn what I want, as long as I go through the professor's method. I remember nothing from that class, and if I do go into politics, that professor has sabotaged my future.
The fact that professors and educators in general teach at students, instead of coaching them along makes a big difference. Being a good “teacher” does not mean that a professor knows their stuff, because anyone with the drive can get a PhD, but for someone to engage their students, not teach mind you, but give them the tools that the professor has, and let the students pick and choose which of those tools they want to take with them for the rest of their lives is the markings of a good teacher. Knowing different methods, styles, and whatever else Elbow and Bartholomae and Bizzell and Corbett think are important are indeed, superfluous. The fact that I have decided that I only take away from teachers the things I want, is not a new phenomenon. Every student, from Aristotle to me and you takes away what they want, but most students are too preoccupied with trying to figure out what their professor is trying to teach them, to figure this out for themselves. It has been the arrogance of the professor that has blinded the student, who in turn becomes the professor only to repeat the endless cycle of prideful teaching.
Posted by David N. on September 21, 2008
Tags Uncategorized
Comments on specific paragraphs:
Click the
icon to the right of a paragraph
Comments on the page as a whole:
Click the
icon to the right of the page title (works the same as paragraphs)