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?
This is an intriguing idea and clearly has many merits, but I have some significant concerns about how an explicit emphasis on the role-playing involved in the act of teaching might compromise and perhaps even militate against the trust between teacher and student, which we've repeatedly established in class is of tremendous importance. It seems to me that once the educator reaches this point, the entire educational process is tinctured with this distrust. It seems to me that an open confession of this manipulation via acting would lead to student refusal to take the teacher seriously, to trust her or him, and ultimately to do any learning at all.
ReplyDeleteThat's a legitimate concern, so we need more clarity about what the teacher-as-actor is up to. It's nothing so crass, I think, as portraying a made-up character whom you discard when the show closes. Rather, you develop a persona who really is you, but specifically you in teaching mode (you might well be a little different in other contexts). You grow into this persona over time, and change it gradually in dialogue with the ever-changing students.
ReplyDelete