The Promise Of Rain
Yesterday, someone said casually to me, "Ah well, within months they'll all have forgotten you anyway. The young never remember such things."
I don't think that's entirely true, but I don't hope that it is entirely false either. Making an impact is not what education is about; rather, it is more about influence. Quite often, people forget that the two are not normally interchangeable. An impact may have influence; influence may have an impact – but one tends to think of impact as singular and brief, while influence is a multiplex and has prolonged effect. In a world of soundbites, it is too easy to confuse the two.
'Education' means 'a drawing-out'. You cannot use an impact to draw things out; the response of a substance to impact is either malleability or brittleness, not ductility or flexibility. 'Influence' means 'a flowing-in'. When you contribute, there is more to draw out; that is all there is to it. My philosophy of education has always been tripartite: 1) identify what each student has in terms of 'capital'; 2) identify areas in which it can be grown (painful or not); 3) contribute to those areas. The important thing is that it is not 'the philosophy of me doing the education'; I much prefer it when the persons undergoing education learn to do it to themselves.
This has opened me up to charges of being a 'bad teacher' who walks into class armed with nothing but a drawing instrument, with lessons which are alternately described as 'complex' and 'vague'. Well, if I had 20 clones in a class, lessons would be easy: I'd only need to teach a single thing in a single way. But here I would like to defend myself.
Firstly, I think that this style trains the mind to rehearse and think through what is being taught so that some kind of framework is retained in the teacher's mind without further recourse to external sources. This is how examinations are run; why should teachers be allowed to refer to notes when their students won't be allowed to in exams? Secondly, why should education always be piped in via multimedia when in real life people don't always receive input (or produce output) that way? Thirdly, why should one eschew the complex for the simple when the complex is the truth and simplicity is just reification?
Please note that I do not necessarily espouse complexity over simplicity. I simplify when it is justified. I don't think I am a perfect teacher, but I do think that on average I raise the game for most students. They have to learn to think for themselves; at the same time, I show them how I think for myself and offer suggestions as to how they can improve in certain ways. Often, the process is not simple. It is a constant (sometimes seemingly random) barrage of tricks, tips, oddities – all woven into a big tapestry which seems as messy as real life. Yet, I am confident that I have provided some structure, some substance to the overall process of learning.
But that is the promise of rain. The rains fall where they may; you can predict their general behaviour but not their specific behaviour. The influence of rain is not in a single impact – that would be a crop-killing flood. The influence of rain is subtle, long-term, integral to the drawing-out of a crop's potential. I would rather be like rain than like hailstones. I would rather be grey and amorphous in form but life-giving in substance, than lively in form but grey and amorphous in substance. At the same time, I hope I have provided sufficient liveliness of form to help the crops absorb the substance.
My educational model has always been that of the Teacher, who taught with authority, with only His voice and with the occasional illustration. He taught in parables, and was able to say, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." Nowadays, He'd probably be hauled up for being a bad teacher in not providing earphones for His students and in teaching by metaphor and quotation rather than by direct input of factual substance. It says a lot about the system of the world, which we are not supposed to be conformed to, but which we tacitly allow to take root in our lives.
I don't think that's entirely true, but I don't hope that it is entirely false either. Making an impact is not what education is about; rather, it is more about influence. Quite often, people forget that the two are not normally interchangeable. An impact may have influence; influence may have an impact – but one tends to think of impact as singular and brief, while influence is a multiplex and has prolonged effect. In a world of soundbites, it is too easy to confuse the two.
'Education' means 'a drawing-out'. You cannot use an impact to draw things out; the response of a substance to impact is either malleability or brittleness, not ductility or flexibility. 'Influence' means 'a flowing-in'. When you contribute, there is more to draw out; that is all there is to it. My philosophy of education has always been tripartite: 1) identify what each student has in terms of 'capital'; 2) identify areas in which it can be grown (painful or not); 3) contribute to those areas. The important thing is that it is not 'the philosophy of me doing the education'; I much prefer it when the persons undergoing education learn to do it to themselves.
This has opened me up to charges of being a 'bad teacher' who walks into class armed with nothing but a drawing instrument, with lessons which are alternately described as 'complex' and 'vague'. Well, if I had 20 clones in a class, lessons would be easy: I'd only need to teach a single thing in a single way. But here I would like to defend myself.
Firstly, I think that this style trains the mind to rehearse and think through what is being taught so that some kind of framework is retained in the teacher's mind without further recourse to external sources. This is how examinations are run; why should teachers be allowed to refer to notes when their students won't be allowed to in exams? Secondly, why should education always be piped in via multimedia when in real life people don't always receive input (or produce output) that way? Thirdly, why should one eschew the complex for the simple when the complex is the truth and simplicity is just reification?
Please note that I do not necessarily espouse complexity over simplicity. I simplify when it is justified. I don't think I am a perfect teacher, but I do think that on average I raise the game for most students. They have to learn to think for themselves; at the same time, I show them how I think for myself and offer suggestions as to how they can improve in certain ways. Often, the process is not simple. It is a constant (sometimes seemingly random) barrage of tricks, tips, oddities – all woven into a big tapestry which seems as messy as real life. Yet, I am confident that I have provided some structure, some substance to the overall process of learning.
But that is the promise of rain. The rains fall where they may; you can predict their general behaviour but not their specific behaviour. The influence of rain is not in a single impact – that would be a crop-killing flood. The influence of rain is subtle, long-term, integral to the drawing-out of a crop's potential. I would rather be like rain than like hailstones. I would rather be grey and amorphous in form but life-giving in substance, than lively in form but grey and amorphous in substance. At the same time, I hope I have provided sufficient liveliness of form to help the crops absorb the substance.
My educational model has always been that of the Teacher, who taught with authority, with only His voice and with the occasional illustration. He taught in parables, and was able to say, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." Nowadays, He'd probably be hauled up for being a bad teacher in not providing earphones for His students and in teaching by metaphor and quotation rather than by direct input of factual substance. It says a lot about the system of the world, which we are not supposed to be conformed to, but which we tacitly allow to take root in our lives.
etched with acid at 7:47:00 am
7 Comments:
that casual comment is balderdash. some people are unforgettable and some teachers influence the paths of the students greatly, by the thousands.
i would think you're one of them. not just an educator, but also a mentor outside of the classroom. that renders you memorable. (:
take heart that those who need to remember will remember, those who don't - well, it's their loss to have not had their lives subtly moulded by your concern and teachings. you can't reach everybody but you can maximise your influence on those you do reach. and thank God for opening the doors for you to reach out to these students' hearts. (:
cheryl
My perspective here.
I first met you at a time when I was terribly young in every sense of the word. Yes, I did feel frustrated from time to time when you were being vague. I think that's the curse of being young - you always think you know more than you actually do.
In time, I began to understand that the vagueness was not you - it was that I lacked understanding of certain foundational concepts you were trying to teach.
In retrospect I'm very glad you taught in the way you did. You taught me that education needn't be immediately relevant to be useful. Emphasis on immediate. :)
Take care.
yeah sure (: definitely will keep in touch. should have a cuppa or something soon.
cheryl
Balderdash? As in the Gabriel Seah kind of Balderdash? :p
But anyway, I've never even been taught under you sir, and yet the way you write and conduct yourself gives me a very memorable impression regardless.
If only I had had a teacher like you over here!
hi sir!
you have never taught me before. but with regard to what you have wrote above, i can't help but agree. ( - i never really pay attention to lessons with powerpoints :/ if 'everything we need' are powerpoints, what's the point of a teacher? :P)
anyway, my brother (whom you taught tok) says that they all miss you and your lessons if that's anything to go by.. and i don't think they are just griping for the sake of griping. :)
and adrain and harpreet?! as in the esteemed directors of litigation?!! i haven't even met them! :S heh
anyway take care!
sze min
sir,
you are definitely that rain that brings life. i've known it since i met you 4-5 years ago and that belief has been reinforced many times, especially through the bonding lesson you taught me in the prep room! (now that i understand what you meant back then. haha)
to me, you are always that teacher who are distant, yet close to the heart. so, you'll definitely be remembered.
thanks again for everything.
I must say that i've certainly gained the most from your lessons in terms of getting a good grade for my examinations. But after 2 years of IB, without you as my teacher, I realised that I have a very good conceptual grasp of my chem fundamentals.
I guess that's what teaching is about. Not feeding students with specifics, but helping them see the big picture and how the specifics fit in.
Thanks for the education sir!
Post a Comment
<< Home