Comments on: Roles in Education http://www.jarche.com/2007/05/roles-in-education/ Life in Perpetual Beta Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:59:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Harold Jarche » Role Shift http://www.jarche.com/2007/05/roles-in-education/comment-page-1/#comment-202235 Harold Jarche » Role Shift Mon, 05 Jul 2010 07:01:33 +0000 http://www.jarche.com/?p=1158#comment-202235 [...] last time I looked at roles in education I was inspired by Anil Mammen to create a table based on his definitions. I think some of the [...] [...] last time I looked at roles in education I was inspired by Anil Mammen to create a table based on his definitions. I think some of the [...]

]]> By: Jennifer Wordsmith Nicol http://www.jarche.com/2007/05/roles-in-education/comment-page-1/#comment-120568 Jennifer Wordsmith Nicol Wed, 16 May 2007 22:53:33 +0000 http://www.jarche.com/?p=1158#comment-120568 I agree with that! I agree with that!

]]> By: Harold http://www.jarche.com/2007/05/roles-in-education/comment-page-1/#comment-120333 Harold Tue, 15 May 2007 16:40:08 +0000 http://www.jarche.com/?p=1158#comment-120333 OK, Jennifer, I think you have a valid point. It's not teaching if it's not effective. It's the difference between teaching and lecturing. OK, Jennifer, I think you have a valid point. It’s not teaching if it’s not effective. It’s the difference between teaching and lecturing.

]]> By: Jennifer Nicol http://www.jarche.com/2007/05/roles-in-education/comment-page-1/#comment-120329 Jennifer Nicol Tue, 15 May 2007 16:10:51 +0000 http://www.jarche.com/?p=1158#comment-120329 Nope, still not convinced. Forgive the yucky comparison... it's all that comes to mind...I think the word teaching functions like "killing" and "attempted killing." An action (death) is required by the other party for the first party to have killed. So we have "teaching" which is only completed when someone learns something, and "attempted teaching" which suggests that nobody learned anything. Maybe I'll go back to work now. Nope, still not convinced. Forgive the yucky comparison… it’s all that comes to mind…I think the word teaching functions like “killing” and “attempted killing.” An action (death) is required by the other party for the first party to have killed. So we have “teaching” which is only completed when someone learns something, and “attempted teaching” which suggests that nobody learned anything.

Maybe I’ll go back to work now.

]]> By: Harold http://www.jarche.com/2007/05/roles-in-education/comment-page-1/#comment-120220 Harold Tue, 15 May 2007 02:29:14 +0000 http://www.jarche.com/?p=1158#comment-120220 Thanks for the objective perspective, Marco. It's not black & white, but I believe that the table can foster further discussion. Jennifer, I feel that I have to disagree, as teaching can only hope to imply learning. Learning is personal (IMO). Thanks for the objective perspective, Marco. It’s not black & white, but I believe that the table can foster further discussion.

Jennifer, I feel that I have to disagree, as teaching can only hope to imply learning. Learning is personal (IMO).

]]> By: Jennifer Wordsmith Nicol http://www.jarche.com/2007/05/roles-in-education/comment-page-1/#comment-120214 Jennifer Wordsmith Nicol Tue, 15 May 2007 02:09:51 +0000 http://www.jarche.com/?p=1158#comment-120214 The only thing is, the word "teaching" is a 2-way , I-Thou, "If a tree falls in a forest" type of word...If the learner doesn't learn, did the teacher teach? I don't think so. The word 'teaching' assumes learning. It is by definition a learner-centric word. So I think it is wrong to put "teaching centric" in opposition to "learning centric". Perhaps you could say "information-dispensing-centric". (3 minutes later) I wrote that paragraph then checked the dictionary. Turns out I'm wrong, at least by the definitions provided by the Oxford Canadian Dictionary. The main definition for 'teach' is to "give systematic information to (a person) about (a subject or skill)." This sounds like the teacher just has to give out information, with no responsibility to help the person learn it (unless that is what 'systematic' is implying). Learning is only suggested in the third definition of 'teach': "enable (a person) to do something by instruction and training." (1 minute of thought later) No, the dictionary is wrong. Teaching does imply learning. The only thing is, the word “teaching” is a 2-way , I-Thou, “If a tree falls in a forest” type of word…If the learner doesn’t learn, did the teacher teach? I don’t think so. The word ‘teaching’ assumes learning. It is by definition a learner-centric word. So I think it is wrong to put “teaching centric” in opposition to “learning centric”. Perhaps you could say “information-dispensing-centric”.

(3 minutes later)
I wrote that paragraph then checked the dictionary. Turns out I’m wrong, at least by the definitions provided by the Oxford Canadian Dictionary. The main definition for ‘teach’ is to “give systematic information to (a person) about (a subject or skill).” This sounds like the teacher just has to give out information, with no responsibility to help the person learn it (unless that is what ‘systematic’ is implying).

Learning is only suggested in the third definition of ‘teach’: “enable (a person) to do something by instruction and training.”

(1 minute of thought later)
No, the dictionary is wrong. Teaching does imply learning.

]]> By: Biotope Blogue 2.0 - Geoffroi Garon » Les rôles dans l’éducation, l’enseignement et les processus d’apprentissage http://www.jarche.com/2007/05/roles-in-education/comment-page-1/#comment-120196 Biotope Blogue 2.0 - Geoffroi Garon » Les rôles dans l’éducation, l’enseignement et les processus d’apprentissage Tue, 15 May 2007 00:00:35 +0000 http://www.jarche.com/?p=1158#comment-120196 [...] un tableau réalisé par Harold Jarche [en] inspiré par un billet de Anil Mammen [en] sur les différents rôles en éducation et leurs [...] [...] un tableau réalisé par Harold Jarche [en] inspiré par un billet de Anil Mammen [en] sur les différents rôles en éducation et leurs [...]

]]> By: Marco Polo http://www.jarche.com/2007/05/roles-in-education/comment-page-1/#comment-120128 Marco Polo Mon, 14 May 2007 14:35:44 +0000 http://www.jarche.com/?p=1158#comment-120128 Great graphic. I found this easier to grasp in the visual (layed out) format than in Anil Mammen's original post. Coupla points: "Imparting knowledge" doesn't have to be a "top-down" or unidirectional activity. Socrates showed how to impart knowledge by asking questions. The definition of "Learners as Teachers" as "the blind leading the blind" is spot on and very funny. However, "learners as teachers" doesn't have to mean "the victory of amateurism over expertise". It only means that if one assumes that "learners as teachers" means expecting learners to be or become experts in something they are not, merely to make them (or the teacher) feel good. There is also the possibility that, trying to teach someone else can be a key catalytic factor in helping structure knowledge in the learner. In other words, "learners as teachers" refers to a learning process, not a learning product (why would anyone go to the inexpert rather than the expert?). It's easy to fall into the ideological trap and start believing that "teacher-centric, bad; learner-centric, good". But rather than judge the idea on its merits, I prefer to look at results: a top-down, teacher-centric, lecture-style approach can be a very efficient, as well as stimulating, method of imparting knowledge and sparking ideas (when done well, but that applies to anything, does it not?). What determines if it is or not depends a great deal on the kinds of audience. A lecture-style approach may be efficient, a learner-centric "project-based" approach may sound fun and be politically correct, but if neither of them engage the learners and generate energy, what's the point? Great graphic. I found this easier to grasp in the visual (layed out) format than in Anil Mammen’s original post.
Coupla points:
“Imparting knowledge” doesn’t have to be a “top-down” or unidirectional activity. Socrates showed how to impart knowledge by asking questions.

The definition of “Learners as Teachers” as “the blind leading the blind” is spot on and very funny. However, “learners as teachers” doesn’t have to mean “the victory of amateurism over expertise”. It only means that if one assumes that “learners as teachers” means expecting learners to be or become experts in something they are not, merely to make them (or the teacher) feel good. There is also the possibility that, trying to teach someone else can be a key catalytic factor in helping structure knowledge in the learner. In other words, “learners as teachers” refers to a learning process, not a learning product (why would anyone go to the inexpert rather than the expert?).

It’s easy to fall into the ideological trap and start believing that “teacher-centric, bad; learner-centric, good”. But rather than judge the idea on its merits, I prefer to look at results: a top-down, teacher-centric, lecture-style approach can be a very efficient, as well as stimulating, method of imparting knowledge and sparking ideas (when done well, but that applies to anything, does it not?). What determines if it is or not depends a great deal on the kinds of audience. A lecture-style approach may be efficient, a learner-centric “project-based” approach may sound fun and be politically correct, but if neither of them engage the learners and generate energy, what’s the point?

]]>