Teaching as Improvisation

We talked for a bit Tuesday about teaching as improvisation. I think this highlights two things about teaching that I think could be interesting to discuss. Does thinking of teaching as an improvisational art 1) employ an art to teaching that can be improved, like that of a musician's and 2) entail some degree of natural talent?

Obviously, teaching in this sense can be improved at intervals, but if it is like this art, then is it likely that some people are or could be better teachers than others?

Political Theory and Pedagogy

In our classes this week, we talked about student autonomy.  Various pedagogical practices, such as calling on a student without their permission, or structuring the class in ways that force, compel, or conduce student participation. Can we form a coherent pedagogical theory of student autonomy through the western liberalism political philosophical model?

In other words, can we use concepts like autonomy, consent, state of nature (outside the class) and civil society (inside the class) as conceptual models for a fair and just approach to the relationship between students and teachers?

PE: Socratic Inclusion

We talked today at length of Seigel's concept of epistemological inclusion, or rather, his distinction between the soundness of conclusions of any epistemological framework and the morality of inclusion/exclusion.

After Greg's evocation of Socrates, I thought it interesting that, with respect to inclusion, Socrates is an exemplary model.  Moreover, Seigel specifically cites Socrates and the Socratic tradition and search for truth as his idea of philosophy--it seems as though the symbol of the epistemologically driven tradition was also the same person who talked to everyone, regardless of class or social status, about the truth, or at least in search of it.

PE: Views of the Teacher

We talked at length today about the perceived dangers of teachers impressing their views on students.  While this tactic may make more sense at the undergraduate level, I would like to pose it as one that could apply to all grade levels--can a teacher mitigate the espousal of 'dangerous' views simply by being just another member of the class?

Obviously, there will always be a slight element of power difference when it comes to the student-teacher interaction within the classroom.  With that being said, if a teacher simply poses questions, and entertains viewpoints in such a way that suggests they exist independent of everyone in the room, which they do logically speaking, then were is the danger of impressing a view point?  And moreover, it seems that teachers can still direct conversation and refute illogical view points while acting as a student or moderator, and not the sole possessor of these views.  Thoughts?

Critical Thinking in the Arts

In testing Siegel's claim that critical thinking is paramount in education, we soon began discussing whether or not one can or should think critically about the arts--one point I was trying to make in class, though possibly couldn't clarify, was the idea that while critical thinking is perhaps necessary for the pursuit of knowledge in some fields, it is quite possible to aesthetically enjoy music without thinking critically.

With that being said, the arts certainly contain the capability and room for the critical thinker.  It is quite possible to enjoy art without this aspect, yet I don't think this is relevant to Siegel's claim: as long as the capability within art for the critical thinker exists, then I think we can accept Siegel's claim comfortably, without having to endanger subjects like music, or any of the arts.

PE: Manipulation via Acting

When we see a play, movie, or read piece of literature, we constantly dissect characters in the ensuing conversation.  In fact, it was through literary creation which made famous the idea of the unreliable narrator, or the instrumental use (or misuse) of certain characters to prove a point in the broader narrative of the lesson.

In class on Thursday, we discussed the idea that teaching more actively defined as acting may increase the effectiveness of manipulation or telling the noble lie to students, because those students may be more inclined to question the words of the teacher as an actor, rather than as a person they are hierarchically linked to.  Thoughts?

PE: The Teacher of Emile

Seeing as I was not in class Thursday, I thought I might raise a question about the reading, and perhaps you may have answers tempered by the discussion in class.

How does the teacher in Emile differ from the Philosopher Ruler in the Allegory of the Cave?

Emile is quoted in the packet stating (roughly) that he would like to continue to be the person molded by the teacher; as is part of Rousseau's concept of education as a 'denaturing process.'  Emile is even quoted later to have considered retaining his teacher, so that he would always have the guidance he needs.

To me, this seems much a more paternalistic style of teaching than the Philosopher Ruler, who acts as more of a guide. While the molder of Emile is a teacher, the molder of the cave dweller is knowledge; the teacher merely exposes him or her to it.  Thoughts?

Allegory of the Cave

Something I wished to elaborate more in class to day was the (in my opinion) relevance of the allegory to Teacher/Student relationship.

We talked at length about Socrates' perhaps over exaggerating the importance of math, and on the dramatic level, all but refuting his dialogical opposition to poetry.  With that being said, surely the role of the philosopher and the cave-dweller can shed some light on the learning process and the relationship between the student and the teacher.  For example, the presence of a teacher with not only appropriate knowledge (of outside the cave) but also the ability to relate to the student (knowledge of the shadows).

Moreover, as we have already discussed, the process of learning involves not the passive reception of knowledge by the student, but his or her transformation--this idea points to the teacher as more of a guide and facilitator, rather than the administer of facts; in this way, the philosopher guiding the dweller out of the cave fits this mold as well.

Thrasymachus on the Dramatic Level

In class today the presence, or rather lack thereof, of Thrasymachus, presents an interesting question, especially from the literary perspective on character development in the Republic.

In Book I, Thrasymachus is clearly a powerful force, as Socrates alludes to in his descriptions.  Of course, one can doubt that Socrates was actually frightened of Thrasymachus, but surely it is reasonable to assume that he was at least a forceful and obstinate counterpart to Socrates.  Moreover, unlike Adeimantus, Polemarcus, and Glaucon, Thrasymachus has already chosen a career, quite successfully, as a sophist.

With that being said, why does he vanish from the dialogues?  He virtually disappears, and through books II-VI, only chimes in with the other three briefly once, merely to agree with the others, and then later in Book VI Socrates jokingly evokes his name, although there is no response by Thrasymachus himself.

Clearly, Plato establishes Thrasymachus as someone whose presence in the room is necessary, for indeed there is no mention of his leaving the room at all after Book I, and furthermore, Plato establishes the character of Thrasymachus as a bold and ambitious sophist, also in the first book.  How does his disappearance in the later books explain this?  It seems as though the Thrasymachus we had come to know in Book I would surely not sit idly by throughout the many conversations had by Socrates, Adeimantus, Polemarcus, and Glaucon.

Thoughts?

PE: The Incentive of Glaucon

In book IV of The Republic, Socrates clearly calls the motives of Glaucon in question.  In other words, Socrates attacks his inner assumptions about the truth, in his poignant view, that the truth is something easily hidden from the soul.  In fact, Socrates seems to counter the view of Glaucon, that a lie to the soul, when resting in the latter, is detrimental to the person.  Now, when Socrates poses the idea that the lie within the soul (the lie resting in the soul) is actually the worst form of the lie, Glaucon, who seems to, by Plato's dramatic interpretation of Glaucon's character, disagree fundamentally with this statement by Socrates, ends up agreeing with him wholeheartedly.

I think, for the purposes of this class, the 'classroom' medium that Socrates utilizes to draw out the vocal thinking processes of Glaucon is one that often times produces the answer most logically desirable, whereas, an atmosphere like a lecture hall or a correspondence course would not.  Socrates is able to draw out logical conclusions from Glaucon in this medium in particular, which could say something for the dynamic of the Socratic classroom; one which might serve teachers well in classes specifically involving active student discussion.

PE: A Common Process

To begin, I just want to say that I look forward to our class this year.  I think one common thread we've drawn this far is the emphasis on the process of interaction of students and teacher as vital to education.  This process is something quite evident in the rising and falling of arguments in the Republic; I think the process, with respect to it's dialogical nature, is something that we can employ in in our class as well.