There's this quote by Robert Irwin (an artist reflecting on teaching) that I love. - The book mentions how - while most students create art that mimics their teacher's - his students created art that looked nothing like Irwin's art and became significant artists in their own right. He says:
"It is very difficult to avoid, the student being so lost in the beginning and the school set up to emphasize short-term performance. So they tend to imitate what you do as a way of associating with what you say. But what you're trying to do is develop their sensitivities and not your own. I have strong philosophic reservations about what it is we are actually talking about when we use the word morality, but as that word is most commonly used, I would think that the most immoral thing one can do is have ambitions for someone else's mind. That's the crux of the challenge and the responsibility of having the opportunity to deal with young people at such a crucial time in their formation. One of the hardest things to do is not to give them clues -- 'Here, do it this way, it's a lot easier' -- and instead to keep them on the edge of the question."
This question of morality came up yesterday in the instructors' meeting and I'm still tossing around Stamatis's view of moral/immoral instruction. I think his view is different from Irwin's. And I think along Irwin's lines-- and that the moral/immoral question is independent of discipline-- immoral art teaching is like immoral science teaching to me. But to give someone access to a conceptual science idea or even method (say, control-of-variables) - which I think (??) was what Stamatis was saying as the moral issue - is a different kind of thing than giving someone access to an artistic style. Right? That this conceptual story of science is somehow a birthright while understanding abstract art might not be? Not sure...
I'm still convinced that science instruction should be a lack-of-imitation. And that this means a not-fix-it mentality. But I can see more of a gray around around this than I like to admit.
When I read the sentence "I would think that the most immoral thing one can do is have ambitions for someone else's mind," I was surprised. I developed a prediction about the end of the sentence by the time I had read the first half, and it did not say what I expected it to say. No ambitions at all? That seems really too much. I expected it to say that it would be immoral to try to reproduce myself in my students - because I think that, and because I expected to agree with Irwin based on what came before. Anyway, I think perhaps the "repertoire" model is a compromise. Teach them to do some of the basic things that have been done, and don't stop pushing them to do something original. I play jazz, in case any of you don't know, and it would be immoral (at least, I think this would be the jazz community's consensus) for a jazz teacher to de-emphasize EITHER the learning of famous solos and various pre-fab jazz exercises OR the development of the player's own original style and material. It is all FOR developing the ability to be original, but the training diet cannot be constituted only by direct attempts to be original. So, not to argue that this is how teaching science ought to be, but it is probably what I think. Seems like also an appropriate model for learning to paint. And that when teaching an art, the more common mistake would be to under-emphasize the dimension of originality. But jazz is an art form that I think is near the top in a list that is ordered by the importance of originality. I can't finish my comment... help!
ReplyDeleteI definitely struggle with that question -- how much technique and known ideas (is that what you would call it?- the pre-fab-jazz? - or is that another thing?) should be taught in responsible science instruction. I definitely have a facility with math, for example, that is "pre-fab" and yet is incredibly useful at *allowing* me to be creative with science. Is this what you mean by learning famous solos? - that this kind of structure allows for originality? (I’ve never played jazz.)
ReplyDeleteTwo thoughts:
1. My student population, and what they bring to bear.
- my students are pre-service elementary teachers who are typically in their early/mid-20's. They have a lifetime of science classes under their belts that- I assume- emphasized the "learning of famous solos" as opposed to developing their own style & material. I am preparing them to teach elementary school science. I believe that I can't over emphasize originality. Repertoire is not at risk. (Perhaps! - I wonder what your analog of 'repertoire' is.)
2. Islands of expertise
I also believe that constructing one idea incredibly deeply (spending an entire semester on the most basic ideas of light, say, or sinking/floating) and really learning how to learn that idea, building from the ground up and getting a handle on the whole game of science, is incredibly useful. It's how to know what a "complete, gapless story" is and how to go about constructing one. I think it sets up an ability to learn how to learn on your own, critique books/authority as you read it (not to doubt the books/authority, but to learn how to compare it to your own ideas and take your ideas seriously in the learning process). And I think that the way for an instructor to do that is to attend to something other than content. It's still an "ambition" for someone else's mind, but in terms of developing their skills rather than their ideas.
I've felt at Chico - more than ever - that it is incredibly difficult to have a real conversation with my students about science. That is, a conversation where I feel like we're actually talking to each other. (It's hard to describe what I mean.) I don't know if this is related to the student population or my own growing awareness. I just really value this student-directed inquiry b/c it means it is pretty impossible to have these bizarro conversations that happen in more traditional instruction (traditional = PSET - not traditional at all!).
What is (an example of) a bizarro conversation?
ReplyDeleteI wish I had a transcript of such a thing. (I should really tape office hours.) It's a conversation where both parties spend the whole time trying to figure out what the other is saying and what would "count" as a reasonable answer, but only further confusing one another. I think it has to do with them not quite getting the vocabulary, or the purpose - what "counts" as explanation/understanding. (I tried writing a mock bizarro conversation and failed. I just can't make one up b/c it's that bizarre.)
ReplyDeleteI really feel like this might tie into the whole idea of them 'gaming' the education system - that they try to figure out what's expected and what will earn them points, i.e., getting a good response from the instructor by using a new term, rather than genuine sense-making. That being their default, then this comes back to the idea of how the classroom develops - the inside-out vs. outside-in being one way to think about it. Except instead of focusing on the scientific process thinking about the community discourse development process. I'm not articulating this well - but this level of discussion is of interest to me right now, and I see strong footings in a discourse community in E1 Wed the 11th, on my first day of observations. And the instructors are allowing a bizarre conversation because maybe they want the students to be working out the community negotiation? Maybe it's ok for them to struggle with meta ideas and build cohesion without addressing things that could be otherwise productive to address (like the person leslie heard expressing genuine confusion about how energy 'works'?) One risk is scape-goating - the outspoken person saying we needed the equations could have been scape-goated, but in him negotiating some cohesion, will someone else be? will the instructors be? how do we negotiate this? (i've rambled off topic - hopefully someplace useful)
ReplyDeleteand maybe to clarify or further confuse - I think this has soooo much to do with the classroom meta-goals... which has to do with where the students are coming in and where you hope they will be going out - hence why sometimes repertoire is good and sometimes (like in leslie's classes where they's all they've been bombarded with in the past) it may be something toxis
ReplyDelete