Subject: 12/10/04 WSJ Article on How Schoolchildren Learn

Posted by Prof. Dr. Niall Palfreyman on 12/16/2004
In Reply To:12/10/04 WSJ Article on How Schoolchildren Learn Posted by John Gunkler on 12/15/2004

Message:

Thank you for a very thought-provoking mail, John. As soon as I read the first sentence above, I thought: "Ooh! Provocative! I want to save the pleasure of reading this mail until I've finished the day's teaching."
Well, I've now finished, and your post hasn't disappointed my expectations.

I absolutely agree with you: _assuming_ that I agree (which I emphatically don't) with your definition of communication, i.e.: "I know something you don't and I'm here to impart it to you." I agree that "imparting knowledge" is the first step towards disrespect for students.
However I do not view communication as "imparting knowledge".

I think I see it like this: My _goal_ as a teacher is to facilitate learning; and my central _tool_ in doing this is communication. Here I am however using a very different definition of communication from you.

The "Imparting" model of communication looks like this SD model:
Cloud => communication => StudentKnowledge

This is an open-loop model in which the teacher "causes" knowledge to flow into the head of the student. Paolo Frere called this the "funnel"
method of teaching.

I prefer a "transactional" model of communication which looks something like this:
TeacherKnowledge <=> communication <=> Cloud <=> communication <=> StudentKnowledge

Here "communication" is a biflow which feeds to both teacher and student, and which is also influenced by both teacher and student (I didn't know how to represent these feedback connectors!). In other words, communication is for me a transactional process in which both I and the student have goals, and we together negotiate the construction of communication acts which seek to fulfill _both_ of these sets of goals.

In your first example, John Holt is creating a symbol (the
flute-playing) which is interpreted by the students, and they in doing so respond in various ways to this symbol. If Holt then simply ignores these responses, then he is not (according to my definition) communicating. However instead of this he is open to their responses, and adjusts his communciation appropriately - maybe he ups the volume of his playing, or turns so that students behind him can see better. It is this openness to feedback which is so essential to the fully transactional nature of communication, and without it both respect and communication proper are missing.

Finally, my central point is this: The flute-playing is a communication act which only makes sense in the context of the responses from Holt's students. If some teaching research tells me to play the flute to my students, then this is bound to fail as a teaching strategy. However, if other teaching research narrates to me the full story of how Holt and his students reacted to the shared symbol of flute-playing, then I start to understand how I can adapt the flute-playing symbol to the needs of my students. I then become an if not better, then at least a richer, teacher.

Best wishes,
Niall.