The Primary Duty of a True Teacher

[stellamonika]

The primary duty of every true teacher is to direct and assist students to know and list all the possible knowledge about anything and everything!

Do you disagree with me? If so, what else is the primary duty of a teacher?

[volchok]

Yes, I disagree completely, obviously.

The primary duty of a teacher should not be to help the student do what he can do on his own. Anyone can pick up a book and memorize it.

The primary duty of a teacher should be to teach the students to question everything, to think critically, to follow logic, to value evidence and so forth.

[Moreno]

The primary duty of every true teacher is to direct and assist students to know and list all the possible knowledge about anything and everything!

Do you disagree with me? If so, what else is the primary duty of a teacher?

Let's start with the really rather strange second part: to list all the possible knowledge about anything and everything. This would not leave any time over for eating, going to the bathroom, sleeping, and so on, let alone actually learning. There is more knowledge out there than any single person could list, let alone understand. And more knowledge is coming in all the time. This also makes the first part silly also, but listing is, well, pretty pedagogically weak, in addition from the overweaning, but ultimately useless, ambition.

Helping children learn how to learn should be the first priority. Though really it's hard to separate out traits like this. They should also be inspiring and not hateful pricks.

Or even 'to challenge the minds of students'.

Or....to be a role model for how one learns.

Or...to be interesting. If you are utterly boring and have few social skills - which seemed like prerequisites for teachers back when I was in school - your lesson plan is probably worth poo poo.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.












Thank you for directing and assisting me to know and list all possible knowledge about anything and everything.






.

[lizbethrose]

To me, a teacher should recognize and allow creative thinking, especially in the lower grades when kids are exploring whole new (to them) worlds. Let children discover, rather than simply parrot what they've been told. Actually, we're all saying pretty much the same thing.

[Oughtist]

Recess supervision.

[Faust]

Good teachers teach technique. In highly technical fields, that might not be possible at first, but generally, a good teachers teaches not just "about" a subject, but teaches students the "how". In US public schools, this trait in teachers is not valued, but then again, in US public schools, very little education goes on.

[lizbethrose]

And--so--what did you learn today?

Did you read a book? Experience something--either old or new? Talk to your dog? Examine yourself? What did you learn?

[Faust]

I learned that my girlfriend's oven thermostat is off by about 25 degrees. I roasted a chicken and made soup stock. And sugar cookies. And ratatouille.

[stellamonika]

1.There is more knowledge out there than any single person could list, let alone understand. 2. And more knowledge is coming in all the time.

I agree with both 1 & 2.

But, do we classify the knowledge?
We don't.

To classify knowledge, one needs to be an expert in more more than one subject of discourse. Specialists cannot classify the knowledge because they have no knowledge on the sister fields. In the name of specialization, we have completely killed the classification systems. Now, our knowledge looks like a heap of scaraps.

Without classification, we can never guess the similarity between a horse and a zebra.
We will find that no new knowledge is coming up if we classify our knowledge properly. Just give a try...... Try to classify the knowledge... You will become a rebel, of course!

[stellamonika]

I need answers to two simple questions:
1.What is the knowledge which directs us to study anything extensively?
2. Can the teachers who lack the knowledge which directs us to study anything extensively direct students in their studies?

If we have an answer to the first question, we can direct any student to study anything extensively.

How to find the answer to the first question?

Please offer your answers.... If is not difficult do delineate the knowledge which directs us to study anything systematically!!!

[Smears]

To make sure that all the kids coming out have learned something, and have learned how to learn other things and have a desire to.

[James S Saint]

1.What is the knowledge which directs us to study anything extensively?

The perception of hope and threat, "PHT".

2. Can the teachers who lack the knowledge which directs us to study anything extensively direct students in their studies?

Teachers are bureaucratic robots doing what they are told to do. So it isn't up to them.

[Moreno]

I agree with both 1 & 2.

Great.

But, do we classify the knowledge?
We don't.

Some of 'we' do. Some don't. Some do it consciously. Others not so.

To classify knowledge, one needs to be an expert in more more than one subject of discourse.

I think you could be a jack of many trades and not an expert in any particular one to classify knowledge. In fact I think this is better than, say, being an expert in two subjects. You might not realize that those two subjects are best thought of by most people as one subject. Or you might not realize it was actually four areas of knowledge. You still have no overview.

Specialists cannot classify the knowledge because they have no knowledge on the sister fields.

It's a rare expert that has no knowledge of other fields. But generaly I agree that specialization can lead to one losing an overview of the place of one's knowledge.

In the name of specialization, we have completely killed the classification systems. Now, our knowledge looks like a heap of scaraps.

I don't think this is true. Also, classification need not be an invididual enterprise. It can be and I think it generally is, handled by groups. Experts can talk. Research can be done by teams, editors and reviewers can weigh in and over time classification systems arise.

Without classification, we can never guess the similarity between a horse and a zebra.

I am pretty sure most 8 years olds would notice it and even, if questioned, explain why they thought the two were in a category and would notice similarities that would lead them to the conclusion. Note: noting similarities first, categorization second. But perhaps the focus is on the word 'the' in 'the similarity'. The child perhaps knows little about genes, for example.

We will find that no new knowledge is coming up if we classify our knowledge properly.

How are you defining knowledge? Are you really saying there is no new knowledge? And if you are right, wouldn't that be new knowledge?

[Moreno]

1.What is the knowledge which directs us to study anything extensively?

Desire or curiosity or even fear and other similar emotions/feelings direct us to study things extensively.

2. Can the teachers who lack the knowledge which directs us to study anything extensively direct students in their studies?

Sure. If you mean they have to have some specific idea in their heads to be good teachers, I think the answer is no.

If we have an answer to the first question, we can direct any student to study anything extensively.

We can direct all we like, but if they are not interested, it ain't gonna happen.

[Oughtist]

I need answers to two simple questions:
1.What is the knowledge which directs us to study anything extensively?
2. Can the teachers who lack the knowledge which directs us to study anything extensively direct students in their studies?

If we have an answer to the first question, we can direct any student to study anything extensively.

Being a special needs teacher, I can't help but wonder what you mean by "any student"... there are many ranges and continuums of human minds out there, and no one particular "knowledge directive" is going to attend to the needs of all students such that they all study everything extensively. Not by a long shot. There's some concrete realities to factor in here.

The role of a teacher is to facilitate each student's learning to learn in their own terms. Conveying knowledge is secondary to promoting an inquisitive perspective.

[obe]

The teacher, first of all, in the primary grades, should be able to get over the hurdles associated with children's social development. This is a priority, since a child who doesen't like to go to school because of these kinds of issues, will be impeded, as far as learning goes. Group categorisation should superceed the individual.

[Moreno]

I need answers to two simple questions:
1.What is the knowledge which directs us to study anything extensively?
2. Can the teachers who lack the knowledge which directs us to study anything extensively direct students in their studies?

If we have an answer to the first question, we can direct any student to study anything extensively.

Being a special needs teacher, I can't help but wonder what you mean by "any student"... there are many ranges and continuums of human minds out there, and no one particular "knowledge directive" is going to attend to the needs of all students such that they all study everything extensively. Not by a long shot. There's some concrete realities to factor in here.

The role of a teacher is to facilitate each student's learning to learn in their own terms. Conveying knowledge is secondary to promoting an inquisitive perspective.

I fear we are dealing with a fill the blank slate old style pedagogy here, though perhaps I will be surprised.

[Drusus]

The primary duty of every true teacher is to direct and assist students to know and list all the possible knowledge about anything and everything!

Do you disagree with me? If so, what else is the primary duty of a teacher?

Some teachings are irrelevant or harmful, which shouldn't nessesarily be taught, but one should know of them in order to avoid what is bad and how to deal with bad things.

A teacher must try to prepare the student for the future, to survive "out there".