No Good Teachers? (Part 2)
It wasn't until I had typed that title that I realised the ambiguity which careless punctuation might have introduced. "No-good teachers?" is of course the questionable (plaintive?) alternative. But we are reasonable people who at this stage in our lives have many paradigms (deploying whole batteries of methodology and theory) to analyse the question as it stands.
Are there really no good teachers? Is it even possible (as the Mademoiselle seems to suggest) that we can even define 'good' well enough to answer the question? What is a good teacher? Am I crazy for trying to define that?
No. I don't think I'm crazy. I might be asking a bit much from language, but I haven't gone off the deep end yet. And here is my reasoning.
Let me first assert that 'good' in this context means 'more than merely fit (for a given purpose)'. Further, I assert that the nature of this excess fitness is a positive thing, so much so that it is reasonably clear (or clear to the reasonable person) that there is competence in excess of what is merely required.
I justify my assertions by saying that when we find something to be good, it implies that this thing has intrinsic virtue within the context of its function, location, or other existential context. The nature of virtue is essence of positive contribution to the context. Hence, a 'good' thing is one which not only meets requirements, but clearly exceeds them in recognizable and desirable ways.
Let me next state that 'teacher' in this context means 'one who teaches', but we must now define 'teach'. I assert that to teach is to prescribe and enforce a course of action which leads to a gain in knowledge; to do this consciously, deliberately, and with prior consideration and planning; to do this systematically, repeatedly and consistently; to do this by direct interaction with the person(s) being taught; and to do it in a way that is transparent as to methodology and related outcomes.
I justify these assertions by reference to the common uses of the word 'teach', and now proceed to combine the two sets of assertions into a definition of the phrase 'good teacher'.
A good teacher must therefore exceed the parameters of the 'teacher' definition in such a way that this 'excess virtue' is recognizable and desirable, makes a positive contribution, and fulfils the requirements of society. That is:
Are there really no good teachers? Is it even possible (as the Mademoiselle seems to suggest) that we can even define 'good' well enough to answer the question? What is a good teacher? Am I crazy for trying to define that?
No. I don't think I'm crazy. I might be asking a bit much from language, but I haven't gone off the deep end yet. And here is my reasoning.
Let me first assert that 'good' in this context means 'more than merely fit (for a given purpose)'. Further, I assert that the nature of this excess fitness is a positive thing, so much so that it is reasonably clear (or clear to the reasonable person) that there is competence in excess of what is merely required.
I justify my assertions by saying that when we find something to be good, it implies that this thing has intrinsic virtue within the context of its function, location, or other existential context. The nature of virtue is essence of positive contribution to the context. Hence, a 'good' thing is one which not only meets requirements, but clearly exceeds them in recognizable and desirable ways.
Let me next state that 'teacher' in this context means 'one who teaches', but we must now define 'teach'. I assert that to teach is to prescribe and enforce a course of action which leads to a gain in knowledge; to do this consciously, deliberately, and with prior consideration and planning; to do this systematically, repeatedly and consistently; to do this by direct interaction with the person(s) being taught; and to do it in a way that is transparent as to methodology and related outcomes.
I justify these assertions by reference to the common uses of the word 'teach', and now proceed to combine the two sets of assertions into a definition of the phrase 'good teacher'.
A good teacher must therefore exceed the parameters of the 'teacher' definition in such a way that this 'excess virtue' is recognizable and desirable, makes a positive contribution, and fulfils the requirements of society. That is:
- The good teacher has an interactive armamentarium which, when systematically, repeatedly and consistently deployed, will lead to gains in knowledge beyond what would be reasonably expected by mere self-study or personal inspiration.
- The good teacher deploys this armamentarium in a properly considered and intelligent way – and his students know this, recognize this, are convinced of its effectiveness and desire its effects.
- The good teacher knows how and when to vary the means and types of deployment, is a convincing practitioner, and has mastery over his material (and failing complete mastery, at least knows how it might be gained).
Labels: Definitions, Education, Teaching
etched with acid at 9:02:00 pm
2 Comments:
Hm I don't know. Your descriptions of how the good teacher may possess such 'excess virtue' is pretty good, but they provide only a list of examples which is hardly exchaustive.
I'll be frank here, I don't quite know the difference between description and definition. But I somehow had the idea that your lengthy definition of 'teacher' and 'good' is still more of a description than anything else. A limitation of language, I suppose.
while I agree that the ultimate role of a teacher is to facilitate a gain in knowledge on part of the student, I don't think a teacher needs to directly 'enforce a course of action'. A good teacher is also one who inspires people to work hard or fulfill their potential, not necessarily one from whom students take the bulk of their learning.
I may have misinterpreted your blog post. But oh what the heck. On another note, if you like discussing definitions of concepts, perhaps you could elucidate me sometime on this stupid essay on Int'l Law that I've been reading.
jenn: Description is 'this is what it presents itself as'; definition is prescriptive, is 'this is what I am saying it is'. If a teacher does not enforce a course of action (whether by passive, active or incentive means), then the teacher possesses no agency and hence is doing nothing and fulfilling no function. A course of action is not necessarily a course of study!
Post a Comment
<< Home