A colleague forwarded an article in a newspaper which seemed to ask teachers to reflect on their role as teachers:
https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/teachers-must-have-their-day-5966774/
I didn't read it initially but when several colleagues commented that they thought it was well written, I decided to read it as well. It literally made no sense to me so I wrote up a review of the article and forwarded it to my colleagues. I reproduce my review here:
I just read the article to see what I could reflect on to improve as a teacher. To be perfectly honest, I thought this article was quite poorly written. The article has no coherent structure and does not lead to any explicitly stated points.
1. First paragraph: "From A to B, from C to D: the ideals have always given meaning to the vocation of teaching" is the first sentence. From A to B usually refers to a range of activity spanning a spectrum. Is Yajnavalkya different from Tagore and Gandhi different from Freire? If so, in what way? As a general reader, am I supposed to know those details? I guessed at the end that the author is pointing to a common thread of a "dialogic" approach in all four and that is the "ideal". So are these the only range of ideals that have ever given a meaning to the vocation of teaching? A mother teaching her child on her lap, fisherperson teaching how to fish, a weaver teaching how to weave do not give meaning to teaching? If so, why not?
2. Second paragraph: The general populace repeats a rhetoric but teachers have lost everything positive about the vocation. Are the rest of the examples in this paragraph of teachers who have lost everything positive about the vocation? Are they not adding any value to the students? If this is the point of the paragraph, surely the author should discuss more? Sure, some of us are "subject experts" (why the scare quotes?) doing routine things? If this is wrong, should every teacher be "general expert" doing non-routine things? How can we do that? Any pointers?
3. Third paragraph: How does our society "reproduce a system in which quite often the wrong people join the vocation"? The rest of the examples in this paragraph point to how people can be demotivated *after* joining the system. There are no pointers to how the wrong people join the system and who these wrong people are. The rest of the examples also do not really show what about the system demotivates the teachers. Why are teachers tired/exhausted/demotivated? Because of election/census duty? Poor salaries? Control by principal or management? If so, some discussion on why this happens is necessary. Just saying it is so adds no value. Also, does not the average person on the street respect their teacher in a genuine fashion even now (however well or badly they fared in their education so far)? If not, does the author have any data about that? Without this data, how can the "illusion" be removed?
4. Fourth paragraph: The first factor is not clear at all. What aspect of Nachiketa would the author want to emerge? What does it even mean to say Nachiketa "emerged"? As far as I remember this story does not talk about any aspect of a teacher's role. Nachiketa himself was very curious about the nature of the self and asked Yama some questions about it. Also, how would the author say a flower has bloomed or it has not? The author has declared it cannot bloom so I guess the question does not even arise.
5. Fifth and sixth paragraphs: Quantification of outcomes is bad? Is it not important to the physical sciences, engineering and medicine? Should we not examine if the student is able to design a structure which does not fail? Should we not examine if they remember interactions between prescribed drugs before they go out to be doctors? Should we not examine if doctoral students are able to publish a thesis and defend it before their peers? Even in the social sciences, is the author claiming that a teacher cannot and should not measure how a student assimilated things learnt in a history class?
6. Seventh paragraph: Is this a prediction? "This dystopia may not be altogether unreal." This sentence does not make sense. Is it currently real or a prediction? If it is a prediction then what is the meaning of saying it may not be altogether unreal? Shouldn't the author say "It is not farfetched to expect this dystopic situation to arise" or something to that effect? Besides, what about what was said so far in the essay leads into the predictions of this paragraph?
7. Eighth paragraph: The author is now claiming a political situation is causing a totalitarian discourse which is detrimental to "creative ideas". This paragraph mixes up tenses so it's not clear if there will be problems in the future or they are already here. What does this poorly written long sentence mean: "Hence, as the message would be conveyed, it is not a good idea if a teacher encourages what Freire would have regarded as a “problem posing education”, or if, for instance, she asks her students to write a paper on the social construction of a macho “saviour” through the 24×7 “patriotic” television news channels and instantaneity of Facebook and Twitter."? Is the teacher not able to do this currently or will they be stopped from doing so in the future? If they are being stopped currently, how are they being stopped? I'm curious about the mechanism by which one may be stopped, as envisioned by the author.
Finally: So how do we "renew the faith in the very meaning of the vocation of teaching"? What is the "very meaning"? How can I "renew faith"? Nothing about this essay has pointed me in any direction. So should I follow this dictum "We are wanderers. We are explorers. We are poets, philosophers, thinkers, visionaries" and "trust myself"? to solve all the problems of how the society has devalued the ideals and how the "wrong people" are in this vocation? And even if I wanted to, how do I implement these dicta?
https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/teachers-must-have-their-day-5966774/
I didn't read it initially but when several colleagues commented that they thought it was well written, I decided to read it as well. It literally made no sense to me so I wrote up a review of the article and forwarded it to my colleagues. I reproduce my review here:
I just read the article to see what I could reflect on to improve as a teacher. To be perfectly honest, I thought this article was quite poorly written. The article has no coherent structure and does not lead to any explicitly stated points.
1. First paragraph: "From A to B, from C to D: the ideals have always given meaning to the vocation of teaching" is the first sentence. From A to B usually refers to a range of activity spanning a spectrum. Is Yajnavalkya different from Tagore and Gandhi different from Freire? If so, in what way? As a general reader, am I supposed to know those details? I guessed at the end that the author is pointing to a common thread of a "dialogic" approach in all four and that is the "ideal". So are these the only range of ideals that have ever given a meaning to the vocation of teaching? A mother teaching her child on her lap, fisherperson teaching how to fish, a weaver teaching how to weave do not give meaning to teaching? If so, why not?
2. Second paragraph: The general populace repeats a rhetoric but teachers have lost everything positive about the vocation. Are the rest of the examples in this paragraph of teachers who have lost everything positive about the vocation? Are they not adding any value to the students? If this is the point of the paragraph, surely the author should discuss more? Sure, some of us are "subject experts" (why the scare quotes?) doing routine things? If this is wrong, should every teacher be "general expert" doing non-routine things? How can we do that? Any pointers?
3. Third paragraph: How does our society "reproduce a system in which quite often the wrong people join the vocation"? The rest of the examples in this paragraph point to how people can be demotivated *after* joining the system. There are no pointers to how the wrong people join the system and who these wrong people are. The rest of the examples also do not really show what about the system demotivates the teachers. Why are teachers tired/exhausted/demotivated? Because of election/census duty? Poor salaries? Control by principal or management? If so, some discussion on why this happens is necessary. Just saying it is so adds no value. Also, does not the average person on the street respect their teacher in a genuine fashion even now (however well or badly they fared in their education so far)? If not, does the author have any data about that? Without this data, how can the "illusion" be removed?
4. Fourth paragraph: The first factor is not clear at all. What aspect of Nachiketa would the author want to emerge? What does it even mean to say Nachiketa "emerged"? As far as I remember this story does not talk about any aspect of a teacher's role. Nachiketa himself was very curious about the nature of the self and asked Yama some questions about it. Also, how would the author say a flower has bloomed or it has not? The author has declared it cannot bloom so I guess the question does not even arise.
5. Fifth and sixth paragraphs: Quantification of outcomes is bad? Is it not important to the physical sciences, engineering and medicine? Should we not examine if the student is able to design a structure which does not fail? Should we not examine if they remember interactions between prescribed drugs before they go out to be doctors? Should we not examine if doctoral students are able to publish a thesis and defend it before their peers? Even in the social sciences, is the author claiming that a teacher cannot and should not measure how a student assimilated things learnt in a history class?
6. Seventh paragraph: Is this a prediction? "This dystopia may not be altogether unreal." This sentence does not make sense. Is it currently real or a prediction? If it is a prediction then what is the meaning of saying it may not be altogether unreal? Shouldn't the author say "It is not farfetched to expect this dystopic situation to arise" or something to that effect? Besides, what about what was said so far in the essay leads into the predictions of this paragraph?
7. Eighth paragraph: The author is now claiming a political situation is causing a totalitarian discourse which is detrimental to "creative ideas". This paragraph mixes up tenses so it's not clear if there will be problems in the future or they are already here. What does this poorly written long sentence mean: "Hence, as the message would be conveyed, it is not a good idea if a teacher encourages what Freire would have regarded as a “problem posing education”, or if, for instance, she asks her students to write a paper on the social construction of a macho “saviour” through the 24×7 “patriotic” television news channels and instantaneity of Facebook and Twitter."? Is the teacher not able to do this currently or will they be stopped from doing so in the future? If they are being stopped currently, how are they being stopped? I'm curious about the mechanism by which one may be stopped, as envisioned by the author.
Finally: So how do we "renew the faith in the very meaning of the vocation of teaching"? What is the "very meaning"? How can I "renew faith"? Nothing about this essay has pointed me in any direction. So should I follow this dictum "We are wanderers. We are explorers. We are poets, philosophers, thinkers, visionaries" and "trust myself"? to solve all the problems of how the society has devalued the ideals and how the "wrong people" are in this vocation? And even if I wanted to, how do I implement these dicta?
