A Pedagogy of Hope

I have been thinking a bit more about this idea of what a good teacher is, does and seeks to achieve. I’ve talked about it a little in the comments in response to Dave Peters. It seems that however hard I try to explore a question, I keep coming back to the meaning of life. This week has seen me reading up on existentialism and nihilism and finding hope in psychology and potentially a partial answer to the question.

In the last posting, I talked about Korthagen’s work on belief and teacher education, with an emphasis on the importance of key values and not just the topical key skills. This led me to think about likely beliefs of pre-service teachers, be they explicit or implicit. Starting with the worst-case scenario, what if people hold a nihilistic view that there is no meaning to life? Why would you even get out of bed in the morning, never mind teach? But then there is a deterministic view that we are merely the result of DNA or our social conditioning, which is also a bit depressing as it can also be devoid of hope and potentially damaging in the classroom. The existentialist promise of man defining himself seems to be a much healthier starting place and is inclusive of both theists (Kierkegaard) and atheists (Jean-Paul Sartre). Following in this tradition, Victor Frankl’s, Man’s Search For Meaning teaches, that while we cannot always control what is done to us, we can indeed control our response. Frankl’s experiences as a prisoner in Dachau, add authenticity to his arguments (his book really is a must read!)

So I would argue that in order to teach we should be possession of a belief that there is meaning to life and that we as teachers and learners have the power to engage with our own destiny and make meaning.

This then provokes the next question, teach what? What do we want to achieve? A simple answer might be framed in economics; we want a skilled workforce, which is competitive in the world. This is clearly important, but it is only part of the picture. To measure everything in terms of the mighty dollar is hugely shortsighted. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi has written some wonderful papers exploring happiness. He has argued against the focus of his fellow psychologists on pathologies and called for exploration of the positive attributes that make life rich and worthwhile. He identifies these as being, “hope, wisdom, creativity, future-mindedness, courage, spirituality, responsibility, and perseverance”. Perhaps educators should be enaging with these themes. While there are economic realities that dictate that we need to have the potential to earn a living, Csikszentmihalyi has argued there is a deeply ambiguous relationship between happiness and income. We might better serve our children by preparing them to live rich and abundant lives as well as providing for themselves materially.

Such an approach may also prove to economically worthwhile as it may act as a preventative medicine for the countless souls who end up shipwrecked into hopelessness and despair in our societies – offering them a pedagogy of hope

What makes a good teacher?

Consciously, we teach what we know; un-consciously, we teach who we are.
Hamachek (1999, p.209) cited in Korthagen (2004).

Occasionally, I read something that really strikes a chord with my thinking and my experience; Professor Fred Korthagen’s (2004) In search of the essence of a good teacher: towards a more holistic approach to teacher education, is such an article. It has inspired me in a number of ways. Firstly, it has helped me further focus and justify my doctoral study which was aiming to compare the New Zealand and Malaysian pre-service teachers’ beliefs as to the purpose and practice of primary education. I am consequently considering asking what it means to be a good teacher to those groups of people. Secondly, it gave a voice to concerns I have about the focus on ‘core competencies’ that I have experienced in the UK and New Zealand, and instead calls for more attention to be paid to ‘core values’ – amen! Thirdly his exploration of the power of Gestalts (“an unconscious body of needs, images, feelings, values, role models, previous experiences and behavioural tendencies...” (p.85) and how it these rather than a teacher’s training that often are triggered when responding to a classroom situation, resonated with both my experience as a teacher and teacher educator. Finally, I found his model for reflection extremely practical. I could see myself using it in a number of ways.
So – why not read the article?

Maybe, I should broaden my study, perhaps instead of focussing on just pre-service teachers, I should ask teachers, children, principals, parents and teacher trainers in these two countries, “What makes a good teacher?” Would there be a marked difference between the nations? Or would the roles mark the bigger difference?
By the way, what does make a good teacher?

Power Difference (PD) in Schools

Hofstede (2001) argues that the parent/ child relationship is continued in schools where the teacher/student relationship replaces it. He suggests that this is evidenced in the emphasis on respect in high power difference societies and equality in low power difference societies, suggesting the position and role of the teacher are culturally driven and not universal.

In the New Zealand/UK contexts (a low PD societies), teachers may consider themselves as equals to their students and be comfortable with students disagreeing with them. Students typically might see their teachers as equals and see no need to show respect when meeting them, be comfortable about questioning them and free to disagree with them (Hofstede 2001).

In contrast, high power difference countries might suggest a more typically teacher centred and ordered classroom environment, where pupils are expected to show more respect and not to contradict teachers. Hofstede (2001) also points out that in high power difference societies, education is highly personalised, with the wisdom of the teacher being transferred. This is starkly contrasted by notions of the teacher as facilitator and students as constructors of knowledge as are prominent in the West.
I am currently wondering how transferable the western theoretical frameworks that underpin the content of much that is taught to international students; is there such thing as a universal understanding of what it means to be an effective school teacher and if there is, is she an equal or deserving of special respect?

Michael Wesch’s Presentation to Library of Congress

Will Richardson posted this on his blog saying it was one of the "must views for the year" Michael Wesch explores the cultural significance of You Tube. For those of us interested in education/and or culture, I think we would do well to engage with what he is saying.