As I've gotten further along in graduate school and learned more about the nature of academia, I've begun to observe the several distinct teaching styles. They all share the same goals (well, actually, really maybe not) of educating students and advancing their analytical skills, but they all differ in terms of how these goals are pursued.
There's the "rote" method, where the instructor tells the student everything that needs to be learned, sets forth a "right" way for doing everything, and then employs a methodology that has students learn by performing the "right" way under constant repetition until it becomes clear they can do things the "right" way on their own. The idea here is that students tend to make mistakes and form bad habits if they're not made to recognize a "right" way, and so need to be given only one correct model to accomplish things, with anything not matching the model frowned upon and eliminated.
The issue with this approach is that it turns students into robots. Automatons. What a teacher of mine long ago referred to as "algorithmic technicians." Which is great so long as the student deals with problems that fit the algorithm--algorithms are efficient, they're elegant, and they're quick.
But not all problems fit the algorithm. In these situations, the "rote" method fails. This is because the "rote" method, by focusing on adherence to a "right" way, instills algorithmic formulas and ignores development of actual skills and understanding of their application. It makes students devoid of critical thinking skills or any ability to figure out problems that do not fit their algorithms. In short, the "rote" method focuses on responses rather than enlightenment. And responses can be wrong, formulas can be fallible, and algorithms can be rendered impotent by a unique and unknown set of circumstances.
As an alternative, there's the "mystery" method, which operates on a belief that the best way for students to learn is to tell them nothing about what they need to learn, other than to state (and demonstrate) what skills they should get. The goal is to avoid the strict inflexibility of the algorithmic "rote" method in favor of developing loose, flexible, adaptive awareness of multiple skills available for creative application in response to problems. The general method is to force students to explore a subject matter by forcing them to figure things out on their own without any guidance from the instructor.
Imperative in this approach is the avoidance of any models or demonstration of "right" or "good" solutions. The rationale is that this will allow students to develop their analytical and learning skills, and help them understand that there are many different kinds of problems, and also many different kinds of solutions for those problems. In particular, it is supposed to make students see that they can construct many different kinds of solutions for any given individual problem, no matter how unique or unknown.
The issue here is that it is really difficult for students to learn if they're not given any kind of reference points as to what is considered good versus what is considered bad--or even what methods and sources are needed to make that kind of determination. Even the idea of forcing students to ask questions is troublesome, since the truth is that in order for a person to ask a good question leading to useful (as in educational) discussion, they first have to a base of knowledge good enough for them to know how to generate a good question appropriate for useful discussion.
All of this becomes even more difficult when the instructor tells the student that everything they've learned before is wrong, and that they need to learn everything anew--in which case, the student is left with no reference whatsoever. This isn't a method of education; it's a method of making people lost.
Another option is the "guidance" method. The attempt here is to offer some compromise between the "mystery" and "rote" methods, with the idea being that students should be given some minutiae of direction in learning and exemplars of "good" solutions to problems, while still emphasizing the education of skills and understanding of how to use those skills in lieu of formalistic algorithms. The hope is that student enlightenment can be stimulated by observation and analysis of why "good" solutions worked for a given problem, and why "bad" solutions failed for those same problems. In this way, students will avoid the inflexibility of the "rote" method, but also avoid the learning challenges induced by the "mystery" method.
The issue here is that this method requires a greater level of vigilance by the instructor to make sure that students don't focus on exemplars as the formulaic responses to be memorized, but instead use them as learning aids to see 1) what skills were used, 2) how those skills were used, and 3) the limitations and potential associated in using each skill. Which is fine, but not efficient in situations with a high student:teacher ratio (i.e., where there are many students but few teachers), and not very expeditious in situations of limited time.
These educational methods are not unique to culture--I've seen them ascribed and described in various ways unique to respective cultures. But the truth of the matter is, culture is irrelevant, and the challenges of teaching are universal.
An example is the prevalent (and persistent) perception that Eastern (particularly East Asian) methods of teaching are composed of either "rote" or "mystery" methods. This is particularly associated with the martial arts, where the stereotypes lend to visualizations of schools as either being rooms of students in organized lines performing drills in lockstep, or as institutions with teachers spouting abstract and obscure riddles to be left as mystical nuggets of enlightenment to meditating students seeking truth. Regardless, the image is always the same: the teacher is the master, and the students are mindless peons, and there is no discussion, no investigation, no questions--in short, no analysis or development of critical thinking whatsoever.
Stereotypes, within liberal arts scholarship, are often taken as exaggerations with some kernel (albeit distorted) of truth.
This interpretation has some validity to martial arts education. To a degree, "rote" instruction is necessary--there is a right and wrong way to do techniques (with the right way maximizing effectiveness and the wrong way rendering them useless). Likewise, "mystery" methods are useful--sometimes students needed to be prodded and shocked into recognizing just how fluid and unpredictable real combat can be. Furthermore, "guidance" methods work in encouraging students to develop their mental creativity and flexibility--which is just as crucial as physical capability in implementing effective (or "good") solutions to the problems posed by an unpredictable world of chaos and disorder.
But the fact that there is some validity to each approach should be interpreted as a clear indication that there is no single "right" method of education. That is, there is sufficient value to each method to warrant their use, but there is also sufficent deficiencies in each method to call for limitations in their deployment. There should be no blind adherence to any individual teaching method, but rather a disciplined application of each method for those lessons for which they are most appropriate.
In short, there needs to be a fundamental faith in the exercise of pragmatism, and a willingness to use each method to address the solutions for which they are best suited. Only by doing this can a teacher insure that they are giving the most effective teaching in the sense of providing the most memorable lessons with the most valuable and largest amount of information to the greatest number of students for the greatest time possible.
And isn't that the entire point of teaching?
Luckily, I'm seeing that Jason--and everyone else, apparently--is as pragmatic regarding teaching as I am. In that respects, Jason is a very different kind of martial arts teacher. He does not fit the stereotypical Asian martial arts instructor at all. He seems much more...progressive. As in willing to try new things--or any thing that seems to work best.
Which is kind of a godsend...A lot of schools that I investigated before choosing Jason had extolled the virtues of their "traditional" approach (with its "rote" education and employment of "mystery" methods) or "modern" approach (with their "guidance" approach featuring instructors more intent on serving as model exemplars than actually teaching something).
Jason, in contrast, seems to be very straightforward, and intent on doing whatever he feels is necessary to make sure people "get" a technique or a concept. I notice that he'll keep switching methods until he feels that students are starting to do things right. And he certainly makes it a point to emphasize context and concepts, so that there's some critical analysis of why things are the way they are. It certainly helps me, since it saves me frustration and energy and makes me feel like I'm accomplishing something in terms of learning technique and application of technique (and getting some value for my time and money).
I shudder at the thought of what things would have been like if I'd chosen one of the other schools, burdened with all their ideologies.
At least now, I have some sense of freedom to understand a bigger picture.
You know. To free the mind.
And isn't that the entire purpose of education?
There's the "rote" method, where the instructor tells the student everything that needs to be learned, sets forth a "right" way for doing everything, and then employs a methodology that has students learn by performing the "right" way under constant repetition until it becomes clear they can do things the "right" way on their own. The idea here is that students tend to make mistakes and form bad habits if they're not made to recognize a "right" way, and so need to be given only one correct model to accomplish things, with anything not matching the model frowned upon and eliminated.
The issue with this approach is that it turns students into robots. Automatons. What a teacher of mine long ago referred to as "algorithmic technicians." Which is great so long as the student deals with problems that fit the algorithm--algorithms are efficient, they're elegant, and they're quick.
But not all problems fit the algorithm. In these situations, the "rote" method fails. This is because the "rote" method, by focusing on adherence to a "right" way, instills algorithmic formulas and ignores development of actual skills and understanding of their application. It makes students devoid of critical thinking skills or any ability to figure out problems that do not fit their algorithms. In short, the "rote" method focuses on responses rather than enlightenment. And responses can be wrong, formulas can be fallible, and algorithms can be rendered impotent by a unique and unknown set of circumstances.
As an alternative, there's the "mystery" method, which operates on a belief that the best way for students to learn is to tell them nothing about what they need to learn, other than to state (and demonstrate) what skills they should get. The goal is to avoid the strict inflexibility of the algorithmic "rote" method in favor of developing loose, flexible, adaptive awareness of multiple skills available for creative application in response to problems. The general method is to force students to explore a subject matter by forcing them to figure things out on their own without any guidance from the instructor.
Imperative in this approach is the avoidance of any models or demonstration of "right" or "good" solutions. The rationale is that this will allow students to develop their analytical and learning skills, and help them understand that there are many different kinds of problems, and also many different kinds of solutions for those problems. In particular, it is supposed to make students see that they can construct many different kinds of solutions for any given individual problem, no matter how unique or unknown.
The issue here is that it is really difficult for students to learn if they're not given any kind of reference points as to what is considered good versus what is considered bad--or even what methods and sources are needed to make that kind of determination. Even the idea of forcing students to ask questions is troublesome, since the truth is that in order for a person to ask a good question leading to useful (as in educational) discussion, they first have to a base of knowledge good enough for them to know how to generate a good question appropriate for useful discussion.
All of this becomes even more difficult when the instructor tells the student that everything they've learned before is wrong, and that they need to learn everything anew--in which case, the student is left with no reference whatsoever. This isn't a method of education; it's a method of making people lost.
Another option is the "guidance" method. The attempt here is to offer some compromise between the "mystery" and "rote" methods, with the idea being that students should be given some minutiae of direction in learning and exemplars of "good" solutions to problems, while still emphasizing the education of skills and understanding of how to use those skills in lieu of formalistic algorithms. The hope is that student enlightenment can be stimulated by observation and analysis of why "good" solutions worked for a given problem, and why "bad" solutions failed for those same problems. In this way, students will avoid the inflexibility of the "rote" method, but also avoid the learning challenges induced by the "mystery" method.
The issue here is that this method requires a greater level of vigilance by the instructor to make sure that students don't focus on exemplars as the formulaic responses to be memorized, but instead use them as learning aids to see 1) what skills were used, 2) how those skills were used, and 3) the limitations and potential associated in using each skill. Which is fine, but not efficient in situations with a high student:teacher ratio (i.e., where there are many students but few teachers), and not very expeditious in situations of limited time.
These educational methods are not unique to culture--I've seen them ascribed and described in various ways unique to respective cultures. But the truth of the matter is, culture is irrelevant, and the challenges of teaching are universal.
An example is the prevalent (and persistent) perception that Eastern (particularly East Asian) methods of teaching are composed of either "rote" or "mystery" methods. This is particularly associated with the martial arts, where the stereotypes lend to visualizations of schools as either being rooms of students in organized lines performing drills in lockstep, or as institutions with teachers spouting abstract and obscure riddles to be left as mystical nuggets of enlightenment to meditating students seeking truth. Regardless, the image is always the same: the teacher is the master, and the students are mindless peons, and there is no discussion, no investigation, no questions--in short, no analysis or development of critical thinking whatsoever.
Stereotypes, within liberal arts scholarship, are often taken as exaggerations with some kernel (albeit distorted) of truth.
This interpretation has some validity to martial arts education. To a degree, "rote" instruction is necessary--there is a right and wrong way to do techniques (with the right way maximizing effectiveness and the wrong way rendering them useless). Likewise, "mystery" methods are useful--sometimes students needed to be prodded and shocked into recognizing just how fluid and unpredictable real combat can be. Furthermore, "guidance" methods work in encouraging students to develop their mental creativity and flexibility--which is just as crucial as physical capability in implementing effective (or "good") solutions to the problems posed by an unpredictable world of chaos and disorder.
But the fact that there is some validity to each approach should be interpreted as a clear indication that there is no single "right" method of education. That is, there is sufficient value to each method to warrant their use, but there is also sufficent deficiencies in each method to call for limitations in their deployment. There should be no blind adherence to any individual teaching method, but rather a disciplined application of each method for those lessons for which they are most appropriate.
In short, there needs to be a fundamental faith in the exercise of pragmatism, and a willingness to use each method to address the solutions for which they are best suited. Only by doing this can a teacher insure that they are giving the most effective teaching in the sense of providing the most memorable lessons with the most valuable and largest amount of information to the greatest number of students for the greatest time possible.
And isn't that the entire point of teaching?
Luckily, I'm seeing that Jason--and everyone else, apparently--is as pragmatic regarding teaching as I am. In that respects, Jason is a very different kind of martial arts teacher. He does not fit the stereotypical Asian martial arts instructor at all. He seems much more...progressive. As in willing to try new things--or any thing that seems to work best.
Which is kind of a godsend...A lot of schools that I investigated before choosing Jason had extolled the virtues of their "traditional" approach (with its "rote" education and employment of "mystery" methods) or "modern" approach (with their "guidance" approach featuring instructors more intent on serving as model exemplars than actually teaching something).
Jason, in contrast, seems to be very straightforward, and intent on doing whatever he feels is necessary to make sure people "get" a technique or a concept. I notice that he'll keep switching methods until he feels that students are starting to do things right. And he certainly makes it a point to emphasize context and concepts, so that there's some critical analysis of why things are the way they are. It certainly helps me, since it saves me frustration and energy and makes me feel like I'm accomplishing something in terms of learning technique and application of technique (and getting some value for my time and money).
I shudder at the thought of what things would have been like if I'd chosen one of the other schools, burdened with all their ideologies.
At least now, I have some sense of freedom to understand a bigger picture.
You know. To free the mind.
And isn't that the entire purpose of education?
No comments:
Post a Comment