Bur for now, I have to say that, even though there are basic philosophies and practices that I agree with, there is a fundamental premise that I have an issue with.
On page 14 the author's make this statement, "We can only conclude that teaching must consist of dialogue, not monologue, since dialogue opens up the space that would foster true learning." Although I totally agree with the last part of the statement, I take issue with saying that only dialogue and not monologue should be included in teaching. There are times where monologue is required for learning. You can not discuss what you don't know. If you try to have a discussion about something that you have not learned yet, then it is going to be a fruitless conversation. So my revision of this statement would be that teaching should include both monologue AND dialogue. I know that dialogue is useful in learning, and that there are times that it is essential, but it seems that it gets overused and also used as an excuse for teachers not to teach as much as they should. There is also the fact that when having discussions while in a class, there is usually that one person that monopolizes the time, asks unrelated questions, or doesn't under-
stand the real subject and concept that is being talked about. Then it is a waste of time for everyone in the class.
In learning to be a tutor I believe this is the same situation. Although we are reading material about the 'the theory and practice' of tutoring, we still need monologue/teaching from those with the expertise and knowledge of not only HOW to tutor but also how to teach how to tutor. Those are two separate things.
What I agree with a 100% is the statement on page 19 that reads, "We believe that tutors must first understand themselves both as learners and teachers- or at least be engaged in this endeavor-before they can offer useful assistance to others." Basically, the two are so intertwined that you cannot be one without the other. But you also need to know when it is the right time to be which one. That is the tough part. It is almost as simple as knowing when to speak up, and knowing when to shut-up. How is that for oversimplification.
Great line here, Val: "It is almost as simple as knowing when to speak up, and knowing when to shut-up." I agree, and, if you think about it, that's what dialogue is--not monologue. I think we focus so much on dialogue now because for a very long period of time, teachers taught by lecture alone. Then, after much research, teachers discovered that students learn from interaction, even when that interaction isn't as "fruitful" as when students already know stuff about the topic at hand. Talking through what they don't understand can lead to understanding. This can be tough to accomplish in a classroom, though, and that's why the Center is great--we offer students a safe place to ask questions, to not feel as though they need to have all of the answers already.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your thoughts here, Val. I wonder if you've adjusted your thoughts at all after class?
Enjoy your weekend!
mk
I totally get why dialogue is important at the WC! As I also understand why dialogue is crucial to learning. That is one of the reasons that I home educated my kids is so that we could discuss what they were learning and that they had to opportunity to explore what they were interested in. My focus on this particular post had more to do with the theory of classroom proceedure that was stated in the article that we read for class. I realize that the relationship to what is done in the WC was what we were supposed to focus (and probably write) on, but my argument class got in the way and I went off on a tagent. Oh! I know! Maybe that can be my next paper!
ReplyDelete