Alan,
And it's useful (note my "Teaching as Dialogue") to practice entering
into dialogue with students) - not only for them and for their
education and thinking, but to bring into their thinking the thoughts,
practices, ways of being (sage-ing?) which their (T)eacher lives. I
think this is a good/best way to inspire their futures, with the notion
in mind and, again, in practice, that they will move beyond their
teacher into a better/wiser future.
I do quite well with many/most students - fail with some - and am
"present" in many of their thoughts as they move into their futures -
some for many, many years. I think the question of the future - and of
wisdom - are highly interrelated.
Harvey
On Oct 25, 2006, at 4:26 AM, A.D.M.Rayner wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> This question is very dear to me, and so I find it difficult to resist
> trying to make some contribution.
>
> I feel in much accord with Cherryl. I don't think there is anything
> wrong with students. I think our current system has done much to
> reinforce the idea that all education is about is gaining
> qualifications by meeting prescriptive standards and studying fixed
> curricula. Young people (and many old people, for that matter) don't
> want this, but have come to expect it as a self-fulfilling prophecy.
> It is an expectation that I have attempted to dissolve in my own
> educational approach, most notably in my final year undergraduate
> course on 'Life, Environment and People'. I have now presented this
> course for six years, notwithstanding much bitter criticism from
> colleagues and external examiners and several efforts to close me
> down. The response from the students has been overwhelmingly
> favourable - they quite often describe it as the most educational
> course in the University - and the quality and depth of some of their
> coursework, especially in the 'artistic freestyle' section has
> astonished me and many others. But don't take my word for it - ask
> Jack Whitehead who has observed the course in action and Richard
> Williams, who has made a psychological study of its transformational
> influence. I'm copying this message to Jack and Richard who are not
> listed members of FoW, in case they may wish to add something or you
> may like to contact them.
>
> Of course I don't claim to get it all right, it is very demanding, and
> I have never 'taught the same course twice', because I change it every
> year in response to the discussions and my own learning. But you may
> find it of interest as an example of the kind of course that may help
> to break the stranglehold of purely objective knowledge-based
> education, especially within the sciences.
>
> I'm attaching a copy of the introduction to the course that I gave to
> students this year. Apologies if I have posted this before, but it
> does seem apt to the present discussion.
>
>
> Best
>
> Alan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Cherryl Martin
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Sent: 25 October 2006 06:58
>> Subject: Re: On the issue of Wisdom Inquiry
>>
>> Hi Roger, Karl et al,
>>
>> While I agree with your sentiments re the demand for qualifications
>> not understanding, (I have encountered exactly the situation the
>> teacher you quote encountered, teaching economics. I was warned by
>> the Deputy Head not to teach the students to think. She offered the
>> currently popular movie ‘Dead Poet Society’ as a cautionary tale to
>> make her point. I was also told by the Head that I should not teach
>> values in economics because I should be concentrating of teaching
>> students to pass the examinations ) - I feel that we cannot approach
>> the critical issues we face with even an underlying belief that
>> failure is a possibility. Remember the line in the Apollo 13 (I
>> think) movie: ‘Failure is not an option’. The crew and the spacecraft
>> returned home safely (although I believe that the line was a product
>> of the imagination of the script writers – not based on fact) because
>> a dedicated team of experts applied their minds creatively to finding
>> seemingly impossible solutions to technological issues using the
>> scarce resources they had on hand – and succeeded. It’s a story that
>> proves the old saying – ‘where there is a will there is a way’.
>>
>> If we believe we could fail we should all give up right now and spend
>> the time we devote to FoW on other pursuits. Throughout history the
>> course of events has been altered, by people determined to make a
>> difference – in ‘value creating’ and in ‘value destroying’ ways, for
>> good and evil. If it is helpful to you, I can give you a list of all
>> of the examples to prove my point. The visions and lives of Nelson
>> Mandela and Gandhi top the list.
>>
>> I know we face an uphill task and will no doubt encounter many many
>> obstacles on our way to achieving our goals, many of which will be
>> self-induced. Progress is always achieved by faltering steps – two
>> forward and one back. But unless we are determined to create a better
>> way of ‘being’ for ourselves and for generations to come – we will
>> continue to slip further and further into decadence and eventual
>> ruin. (Think Roman Empire) History is littered with stories of whole
>> civilisations that have collapsed due to poor decision making and
>> unresolved conflicts. (See Jared Diamond’s book ‘Collapse’ for
>> examples).
>>
>> My take on the subject of wisdom enquiry is that we need to develop a
>> curriculum that teaches analytic, problem-solving and decision making
>> skills, together with other core competencies - such as conflict
>> management, communication, relationship, design and resource
>> allocating skills, using case study examples drawn from real life
>> situations encountered by students in their daily lives, backed up by
>> guided debates on possible solutions to the dilemmas we face,
>> illustrated using quotes and life histories from the world’s greatest
>> leaders from all faiths and cultures throughout history. (I have
>> spent about 9 years devising a thinking model based on these premises
>> and on collecting the evidence and quotes for it.) We could back this
>> up further by teaching leadership skills in the field, possibly in
>> ways many young people are now familiar with. In the UK we have The
>> Prince’s Trust ‘Duke of Edinburgh Awards, Outward Bound courses etc.
>> Children’s TV regularly replays episodes of ‘Raven’ – a children’s
>> programme about 10 – 14 year olds achieving set challenges using
>> problem solving strategies involving physical, mental and spiritual
>> strengths.
>>
>> My experience of teaching young people is that they often have better
>> solutions to the problems they, and we as whole families, societies
>> and nations, face – freed from peer-pressure - than we expect them
>> to have. They think more passionately about issues than adults who
>> tend to be content with outmoded assumptions and the status quo.
>> These same programmes can be developed for adults. They are the
>> stuff of modern management training which is rapidly evolving to take
>> account of new knowledge of information processing skills in
>> individuals and of motivation and communication.
>>
>> As Karl has suggested, we cannot take one single route to achieve our
>> goals. We need to develop strategies on several fronts
>> simultaneously. Breaking away from the current ‘scorecard mentality’
>> we have been steadily perfecting for four hundred years will not be
>> easy. But it CAN be done. It will take time and a huge amount of
>> effort, money and commitment. Our task will be to determine how we
>> can raise the resources, financial and human, to turn our dreams into
>> reality and to motivate as many people as possible to join our
>> crusade. After all, the ‘bad guys’ have done it for years for
>> personal material gain. They have led us down this path to
>> destruction we have been on. It is time for us to lead the march up
>> the hill again!
>>
>> Just some thoughts for starters…
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> Cherryl
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Group concerned that academia should seek and promote wisdom
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Roger Anderton
>> Sent: 24 October 2006 11:10 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: On the issue of Wisdom Inquiry
>>
>>
>> This idea of an Alternative VU with the emphasis on Wisdom Inquiry
>> instead of Knowledge Inquiry is very good. But-
>>
>> On the issue of Wisdom Inquiry:
>>
>> How is it supposed to work?
>>
>> It is my thesis that it will FAIL.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The existing system of Academia based on Knowledge Inquiry falls
>> apart in many areas, one of these areas as related to me by an
>> ex-teacher of physics is:
>>
>>
>> ------When I was an O-Level student, I could never comprehend AC
>> transformers. They seemed to defy Ohms law. That threw me off the
>> rails of
>> full understanding of electricity for many years.
>>
>> ----- It wasn't until I was actually teaching physics that I
>> returned to the AC theory issue again, having to teach the AC Theory
>> option
>> at A-Level. But by then, I had the benefit of university training in
>> Maxwell's equations, and I was much more able to decypher the whole
>> issue.
>>
>> ---- I soon worked it all out. It all came down simply to
>> V =IZ,
>> as opposed to merely V=IR.
>>
>> ---- I then questioned 'why are they teaching
>> transformers to
>> O-Level students, when they don't teach them impedence until A-Level?'
>>
>> --- The answer came back, that impedence was too
>> difficult a
>> concept for O-Level students to grasp, so they leave it out to make
>> things
>> simpler.
>>
>> --- Yes. Dangerously simpler. Criminally simpler.
>>
>> ------- Anyway, when I was teaching A-level physics, I recalled
>> my
>> own problems, which were associated with these gaps of knowledge in
>> the
>> syllabus. I would show my pupils these gaps. I would tell them it's
>> not on
>> the syllabus, and they don't need to remember it, but that having
>> seen that
>> it exists will help them understand the things that they do need to
>> know.
>>
>> ---- Some of the wee brats threw their pens down and
>> protested
>> 'If it's not on the syllabus, why are you telling us about it?'
>>
>> -----Next there was the complaints. I was
>> accused of making
>> things too complicated. I then got into the philosophical argument of
>> pointing out that the topics themselves were complicated and that it
>> wasn't
>> me that was making them complicated.
>>
>> --- My bosses argued back that it was up to make
>> to make
>> the topics more simple.
>>
>> ----It's one, of many reasons, why I packed teaching
>> in.
>>
>> Now my points --- the students don't want certain information; they
>> only want information that they will be tested on in exams.
>>
>> Because of this emphasis on Knowledge Inquiry in Academia, students
>> are given gaps in their education.
>>
>>
>> Given now, that you want an Academia based on wisdom Inquiry instead
>> of Knowledge Inquiry, the pressures from the students will be still
>> be exactly the same; "they" will only want wisdom that "they" are
>> tested upon in exams and demand that wisdom not in the exams should
>> be excluded.
>>
>> That is NOT real wisdom in my perspective.
>>
>> But it will be what the students demand; hence wisdom will be
>> censored in the Alternative Academia the same as Knowledge is
>> censored in the Existing Academia.
>>
>> Censored wisdom however is not proper wisdom in my perspective, so
>> Alternative Academia will fail in providing wisdom.
>>
>> Roger
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.11/493 - Release Date:
>> 23/10/2006
>>
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.11/493 - Release Date:
>> 23/10/2006
> <LEP intro.doc>
|
