Teaching is a constantly progressing ideal, I think. The first chapter of Kuma discussed this idea, I think, and I won’t get into exactly what was said because it’s about what we do with the text and not about simply recognizing its reality, but I’d like to investigate this thought further. An ideal is supposed to be something somewhat set in stone, the culmination of a concept or action that results in what was required of perfection. To describe an ideal as constantly progressing automatically decries its nature because only imperfect things require progress- the journey towards perfection is what transforms a theory into a suggestion, and then once its destination is achieved it can be considered ideal. Taking the definition at its most extreme lends this possibility.
Teaching, though, is an abstract concept. Surely there is something fundamentally sound about the process, and experts in education do exist, but teaching as a term and an expression is in itself, abstract. I feel that the abstract nature of what can/should/will be considered teaching is what allows it the potential to become more than that which one finds in a lexicon; what allows it to become something more outside the normal conceptions. It can be considered a progressing ideal because of its importance. Only important things are considered for the creation of thought-out ideals, and the ideal changes overtime as importance is lent to different areas than before thought. Thus we see education as necessarily dynamic.
I guess what I’m trying to get at with this post is that I see how and why new theories of effective education come about, die, and then progress again. I buy into at least one aspect of every theory of teaching that Kuma lays out in the first chapter, but I also recognize that even these are limited. It’s only a matter of time before another theory rears its head and we all move on to that for answers as of yet unreceived.
No comments:
Post a Comment