DA Caer (2003) * Man KE ecard | Corkum, doreonee), P19 - 27 Chapter 2 oe Orie The complex character ional significance by a of teaching to engage in such active ight kind of principles. Feo argue that we might ty for a crtieal under able} pupil oi Be modern Hberal to show, that there is a anttled ~ ierespective of TT destiny ~ and into which Shand every child. Thus, Senses of teaching eee a eer : Although education does not necessary involve teaching, and there can be forms fn person can aaa of teaching that are not especially educational, teaching is nevertheless clearly and seeretarial ae : enough a strongly educationally implicated notion. In this respect, of course, we vocations, the dif Ted should first observe that the term ‘teaching’ is ambiguous, and that in order to wed to undermine a 7; Set clearer about the relationship of teaching to education, we may therefore hhat has been. ea need to distinguish rather different uses of the expression. For example, insofar a eh able 0 as “Has she been in teaching long? and ‘Has she been long in education?" are in rents, and reasonable nae some contexts much the same question ~ as, again, are the questions ‘Where was 3s the abilities require i she educated?” and ‘Where was she taught? ~ senses of ‘teaching’ and ‘educa U should ~ in the interests ion’ may sometimes coincide. All the same, there are other contexts in which afforded significant aa f such terms do not appear at all synonymous: for example, whereas it seems Ee nee natural enough to say ‘Please don’t bother me while Pm teaching’ or T must try ee aa died to improve my teaching’, it seems less appropriate to say ‘Please don’t interrupt he design of the : me while I'm educating’ or ‘I must brush up my educating’. Even these nuances 2f educational exposure my of usage, moreover, are sufficient to yield dhe faisly distinct senses of ‘teaching’ 25 to which we shall ne First, then, to ask ‘Where was she taugh¢?, in the sense of ‘Where was she ecucated”, is to regard teaching as more or les identical with the protice of éducation as discussed in the previous chapter. However, to ask ‘Has she been in teaching long, in the sense of ‘Has she been long employed in education? isto conecive teaching more as a particular sort of occupation or oe ~ a profession or vocation perhaps — which might or might not be conducive to the goals of educa tion as we have so far characterised these. Finally for now (for ths is not to deny the possibilty of other farther significant senses of teaching), in saying “Please don't bother me while Fm teaching’, teaching would appear be regartied as a Particular datable episode or actin in which itis posible for me to engage for a Particular period of time —with oF without interruption ! Furthermore, although these different practice, role and activity senses of teaching may often go hand in hand ~ as a member of the teaching profession, 1 may indeed be concerned to promote the ends of teaching que education via the ty or processes of teaching ~ they may also come apart in significant ways, First, for example, a quite small child might teach her young sister to perform a nd schooling, idemtify a al preparation that you achieve, as well as some xe achievement of such give for including the riculum, and consider IL or only some young (iv) cookery; (v) netball; > Fiterature; (s) business20 Education, teaching and professional practice either uch jug her own ahodaces peeps ~ without beng her 1 the any rate, in the more spi ae simple oneerned with the praie of eluet Sf eos aed nthe previous chapter). or viously en the tending pein. In shor se ec 2 mie and prac senses hardy Seam to come seen fe tocar, io so concerned with overall promrion of he GatNiotal nero, might be lide cccpied with teaching an civ: On thc one hand seer headteacher o ea of see Ne concerned wih adinitave oF pastoral d sects wef tunel teaching On te ether hand perhaps moe conte. we phat nae practising teachers do noe much engage in eahing a8 a Seva on arene tt coron enough oc of eating Mea expe acon, Unde, some might argue tat Sone 1d role senses is a more a function of judicious refaining irdrected learning om merventon sorting hat aches datnal detent te foofnionalae ho pare good tc the general edt cm Sefnoe they teach, They it would spp that tere are profesional teach ee ane tat hey do for ving who engage teaching st but who are nevertheless not much concerned with the promation of educate in Ces ens cone! in the previous Gates Many pat aces of plane or conte of th nt eran aly nary del ight 3 eet ear eachers im anymore robust educational seme of wer prion Hees though they might si forall hat meré ou poperespest a profesor Reures who have commonly been regarded wit tach Tens, Sours, Gani, Buddha, Coots, Matarnad re ced few of thee woul app t have hod any occupational or proton connect mth cating Tne, the ef te i Ma = Jous and Soe ron caw en © (pen much ofthe rege nth eto ecg ea Peas athe they would have regarded thesis a profesional een cone tn ems just as odd to think of Jesus asa teacher ecto beaut 1 Socrates were ngin more of , re formal eupatonal capaces wih thee Ow To age red nt suppose that eve those yet more telinghy reeererers who did ngage inthe acti of teaching woul have had 0 aaa eae er although ths also not to say of Course that they did nt do 5} The complex character of teaching 21 in order to have won lasting fame as great teachers, One can also think of actual examples of enormously influential modern thinkers, who are or were indeed teachers by profession, but who nevertheless enjoyed le ‘enviable reputa- ‘other great past and. present thinkers will have wielded greatest pedagogical influence through their literary works, or through the books about them of ths seems possible o regard some as great teachers hhacly if at all weachers in the mle or actiy sen: ppoint that needs to be borne firmly in id, not least in view of enormous terday scepticism about the objectivity of human knowledge and values) to conceive teaching ‘more in (the sophistical) terms of activity and process than content. Teaching as activity and performance Stil, since wider questions about the aims and content of education are revisited throughout this work = and the next chapter will be explicitly concerned with questions of the occupational (professional or other} status of teaching - we shall for the moment focus primarily upon dhe performative character of teaching. How, then, should we understand the activity or activities in which teachers ‘engage with a view to the proper pursuit of the pedagogical project? In overall strategical terms, we should first notice ~ as we did in reflecting upon education in the previous chapter ~ that teaching is ioe concept teaching is apt for appraisal as good or bad, effective or ineffective, according to more or less ‘observable standards of success, From this viewpoint, any general question about What teaching as an activity means might be recast as an inquiry into what are ordinacily regarded as the tera of good or practically effective, as opposed to not 50 good or ineffective, teaching, In order to address this istue, however, it might fies seem reason: identify the sorts of falures ‘methods adopted by characters tempt to bring about larning* So, om the face of it, standards of goed teaching would appear to be indexed fairy directly led, in straightforward causal or preductie terms ~ to the production of effec ‘on this view, succesful rarely whether the respects in which one’s teaching is liable to fail are ofall of « norma: tive piece: more specifically, we might ask, is pedagogical success or effective teaching always measurable by the standards of causal or technical effectiveness?“This might be regarded as rather an odd question. Indeed, it might appear dificult to eaneive how standards of good teaching could be anything other than technical effectiveness ~ and, in fact, I suspect that this, ‘of many professional educational theorists and policy recently departed century. This viewpoint, moreover, has tention to bring, ig the body from the floor ite to teach a headstand tively? Arguably, it amounts to lide more than having ensured that 2 proper usally ordered sequence of events is logically or coherently tion (saying or shoving) of roughly the form: do (a), do ), short, insofar as learning may be understood in terms of the acquisition of this ‘or that more or less complex skill - which it obviously can be for much of the time — then teaching can itel/be understood as a skil: namely as a ski that ie productive of other sill. On this views moreover, iti a sil that can itself be main if not the sole purpose of this viewpoint, indeed, the development of behavioural theories of learning in ly welcomed by some very famous educa- sequence of this, we should not to what is to count as good teac best placed to determine effective teaching of even experienced tes subject t0 the * expert, Moreover, there can be no doubt of the potential political implications The complex character of teaching 23 Jdered: they are predicated profesional expertise i reducible discrete experimentally testable behaviours. Secondly, the prometion ‘with an intial distinction between: pedagogy is essentially a matter of in question are primarily technical inguiry or research; and ‘observe that the pedagogical reputation and/or expertie of many renowned teachers — again we might mention Jesus, Socrates of id hardly have rested upon their training in scientific research- tion aside), we might also want to deny that it was primarily a matter of their systematic deployment of any skills or strategies of the sort uoually held to be disclosed by empirical research, ‘There are of course various respects in which the practical teaching metho#s ‘or procedures of memorable teachers might be considered at odds with any ‘general research-based approach to the systematic understanding of pedagogical ‘method. First, on the basis of much recent work on professional pedagogical ‘expertise it would seem that any research into teaching by ‘external’ educa- tional researchers rather than field professionals faces something of a dilemma ‘The basic trouble i that if such research seeks tobe of univenal value to any and24 Education. ceaching and professional 24_ Education, ersching nd eee all practitioners, it must aim for a level of generality that considerably prescinds of particular contexts of practice. In so doing, however, any tonclusions about teaching to which such research gives rise are likely to be of snorder of abstraction or banality that can have litle or no useful application to emal classroom practice, This would seem to be so even of any general advice ‘onomy of teaching approaches oF all very well advising teachers that ed to vary theie teaching approaches between direct instruction, inquiry, jon and activity (or whatever: the trouble i that places (which all professionals worth their salt may fu teachers realy need to know is how co balance these teaching ms learning — Sty for rece deployment in partulr oo terly depend pon the kid of judgements th rae ere tion to make. Indeed, tis pont has ely been ily ong ‘made? Tt has precisely been insisted chat since the pedagogical and other exper~ sa cachr i contexespeic, ou Geld profesional could bei a position (0 creda the pre nature of tet own ov Cee pupils practical rend inthis arr teaer context, and so only such profesional oud be wel placed aaeey teaching Hence the dilemma: on te one hand, insoae a the general Ges of profesional educational researchers ignote par they ean be of be or no use to proctioner;on the of Staessen they ean have no very general profesional relevance. cin tari ie the very narre of teaching expertise toe indexed to sponta ccumutances, and thre is hardly anything of gel meet hat we nig method a such. Ths, good teachers are no those who oa aera sof pedagogy of management for che quahiechrical secon ck Win oe tht impersenal laring proces but those whos pli characteved fom the outset by ses interpersonal engagement se Ragu mene and itrests of pariular human persons he very best ces aieisanably remember fr their man touch, and their ans: een ess are beter conceived as lati grounded in gensin care aes rape ths puralar meests and nesdh of ether. Ined, one might et Simane the ideal teacher-learner interaction (whist appresiaing dat amy we Ra ay be harder to acheive in vorme context than ater) ata form of acm which pups are encouraged to make sese of some aspect oftheir ei ah the felp of wer or tore experienced associates. TRS point, Sener es ts tovusher rapects in which a scientific or technological roeech wo te aedy or pedagogy apareny a o capture the pint of good rmemorable teaching Meare ee cierprespposiion or dog of sient or technological apmonties © understanding eoveatonsl method that pedagogical ezcarch should close techniques th [aly but aso gatomataly app fable in waye that cond Sed ataioment of prespecfable vaacingobjeives Om tis view the aim would be ro rove each and evry ae ened and uncertainty fem the business of learing by the optimal ‘The complex character of teaching 25 logical and/or causal ordering of this or that process of knowledge- or skill~ sco, Bu beyond the ie Seeing erie wo ently meet cpifeans fle to ppc tat we hiya we nih tone of cptemi ‘could approach the learning of a particular period of Bri ‘well approach the learning of a forwacd rll - by red Moreover, in the ease of historical understanding, we should appreciate that even hard facts are open to rival interpretation or explanation. But nov, i historical education isa matter of understanding and interprecaio Jing ~ and it remains a persistent da 3 pressely the kind of analy more clearly in the next section, hi as mete sequences ial, artistic or other er te be aug the ‘meaningless teaching on the bass of such reductive anal ‘hough teaching that the same a necessary one? There are reasons, however, for tay nt astlly be nce ies aving aside the evident chronological order of historical facts — after all, one can harally deny that events happen before or alter one another ~ itis not ‘obvious with respect to many other academic subjects that there is any determi- nat onder in whch he fat as such would have tbe laren dhe just what require to be explained, there is no reazon to suppose that ‘would as such have logieal or causal pricrity over that one. What one might ‘more plausibly claim with regard to some academic subjects ig that there are relations of logical or causal priority between different levels of explanation, or approaches to making the facts more meaningful, and that insofar as education is26 Education, reaching and professional practice about explaining or making sense of the world, any meaningful ti ‘would have to respect these explanatory considerations. B deeply inte ‘and often trade in suggestive ‘ors and analogies: on this view, since there is much that is figura texpressive atthe heart of even scientific explanation, teachers may need Shee students to scientific perspectives ina variery of imaginative and not rocally ordered ways. Moreover, if this is so even of empirical of i) objectively descriptive inquiries, how much more wil it not be #0 of oem overly evaluative and exprestive inquiries? From this perspecdive, alfording insight into history cligion or iteratare may be more a mater of constrvcthg imaginative pictures, models and metaphors than of routinely following the preseribed pedagogical procedures ofthe earning maintenance manual ‘onnection, indeed, what is most striking abou ers as Jesu ‘and Socrates is their deployment ~ ematiealy connected parables, rnderstanding of their pupils and disciples. Thus, although we also ted te be care not to overstate this point ~ since there is also areal enough incoherent teaching ~ i is not obvious that proceed according to some single scien ‘pedagogical procedure foe, be taken to undermine any claim that good teachers are poscsor and uilisers of teaching sis ~ of for exam sieuon and imaginative presentation: the point i mare chat may conse such sls a8 the universally generaisable and technically ic research, Rather, on this VS ills as creative responses tothe nce. Thus, inofa a5 ‘who simply re and ly prescribed rules, but one whose techniques 2 Constant sensitive response fo the needs of the musical mor feather may be regarded as someone whose expertise is a ‘Sentve interplay with the needs and challenges of this or that particular pede [oqeal occasion. In that case, however, just as it seems absurd to set about the training of jaze musicians by attempting to establish empitical slaying effective or meaningful, it may be no less mistaken t suppose th Frakes good teaching effective or meaningful i something upon which To await the findings of objective scientific inquiry. Thus, althoogh regarding teaching as an artis consistent with regarding it as a mater of sill and hence Si something that depends in a large part upon learning and experience fori ‘trective cultivation ~ i is not to suppose that it would be learned in dhe manner 1d theory raises some rather awkward sy in professional training Howeves, a more radical objection would be that of good teaching in terms of any i mistake to think of the Te might be suggested key fe that the most striking pedagogical characteristics of such great teachers as Jesus and Socrates are a function more of authority, ch Vor personality ~ referred to a8 charions, ted to content ae process portance to say'~ and igher education have fal tially this confusion ~ precisely by supposing that the qu: teaching ought to be judged by the same sort of pe oom for some improvement of the nt of the pedagog professors, one could scarcely sympathise with any attempt to remove 2 great ing post, merely on the basis of his or her expressive or topic or discipline clearly other dimersions of authority ~ of what is28 Education, teaching and professional practice 28 Education, teaching and professions! practise precisely called charima~ that are related more to character and personality and Fence rore to the process than to the content of teaching and learning: Indeed, it ‘would be hard to deny that character and personality are often of enormous ‘ean make a large difference to the force of character may be vital 0m ‘fien siraitened educational circumstances of much compulsory state 2 hence, however delicate the matter may be, teachers may be liable fon grounds of either less th ity or les than forceful ‘That said, the place of chs the relation of such qual jin teaching performance, and sto teaching skill and technique, are evidently For a start, though ‘and personality as rough mixtures of nature and ignificant differences between these aspect: of human demeanour. Indeed, although character and personality are undoubtedly connected, they are nevertheless also cleasly ep Table: we can speak of someone as having much character but livle or no personality ~ oF vice versa. Teaching, personality and character Fis, lt us consider personals, A generly open and optimitic owen, oF a Senten see of humour would seem 1 Be features of pereoaly rather than wereercnssnier= and one mark of thin ithe may well be fe, if ot 2 es tsumpeous to eee a teacher fr leking een quale of velioes aera in hc o her presentation. Many perfec admirable and well ter aecie teachers, preset Beease they a BY I rnure or lethargic peopl ~ or, ethas, eae ta and/or realy istable manners. Among the rei (AD BGiowe tat teaching uperor are Fable to face are those 9. which Seach cachers are cea burning the midnight oto achieve worthwhile [Beton ree, ba are paey faing vo engage the cooperation of puis such oi tions, But however tempting it may be to address the problem of personally for lifeless teaching by appeal to euch thespian analogies, the trouble teaching is ot ultimately acting, but more a matter ~ arguably a this Indeed, itis not clear that encour try to encourage teacher to be more animated. Hows, for example, might we advise a person who Jacks humour to be more humorous? Indeed, it is not just that any such advice The complex character of teaching 29 take the advice, they should not really need it. The key point f sense of humour ~ no lest chan an optimistic or charitable outlook ~ is nt a ‘ill, and is therefore not likely to be learned by (for example) practising the sight well suddenly become a iy a matter of “inside-our™ 4 real sense, religious) conversion, and less often a conse Moreover, a¢ already people for their lack very different joyful or upbeat one ~ this is us personal (perhaps, really no-ore's business but their own if they do 20 lack igh well ll a close friend to snap out of it if she i depresed f any apparent cause ~ but I should also be prepared for her t tll me advice. But even worse, eitcsing osbers for thei colourless fing them that they are physically same sor of ait judgement ~ refore bard to envisage cicurmstances in which it might be done withoutsome rel ofence, Maen seem sgieany oherwte wih quale of characte. Admit insofar as there may be no cut-and-dried answer A tence or dooren 8 ae of penal oa the question whether cof character, character vertheless positive char- acter traits ~ temperance, courage, a sense of justice ~ where the difference is clear enough. Generally, indeed, character seems to be more a product of conscious oF deliberate formation than personality: moreover, insofar as itis lady, character ig usually held to be the seat of fare proper objects of moral evaluation, In this tues are necessarily or inevitably moral in and of endurance ~ agents are ne and truthfulness, as well as rout although character ie often by maturicy a fairy dy imits to what agents can do by way ‘may yet not be out of place to advise a teacher sirug pine to exercise more metle or backbone: indeed, to insise is bunch’ may be no more inappropriate than lesson preparation. But is this not just another way of saying — ist not, to be sure, one of the things that one might be— that what a good teacher may need 10 sake of good order are certain skills of discipline or {is the most appropriate thing to say: On the qualities of character are litle more than ‘upheld or reinforved by the consideration that ~ unlike many features of jes soem more argured than innate. Moreover, any £05 plicated in the discourse of responsibility, praise and hat agents who have acted from less than good character ‘oaght to have, oF might well have, behaved ot is well known tha: Aristotle compared the acqui through his influential distinction between plrnesit, of moral wisdom, productive reason of lchie ~ Aristotle also makes much of the profoun: “ences between virtues and shils.!* From this perspective, qualities of ¢ like courage and justice seem, like features of personality, to be more cor factions or skills. Thus criticising agent doing their best and could nethave done any better. Yo criticise agents for failures of courage, selEcontrol or fairness, however, i t cit But true or false, the story seems instruct Firs, this route to cass control was whereas it might well work in some circumstances, one can imagine others in which it would be plain suicide, Secondly it ir not obviously a echnigu as such at all: insofar as the response ‘worked’, it was mote probably because the teacher was expressing genie distress at the misbehaviour and because the liking and respect in which the boys held him meant that they were sincerely moved by the hurt they had caused. Thus, even without denying that class ‘control can sometimes go awry because teachers have not mastered certain the heart of good ‘moral association or ethos than of any not at all clear that we could conceive early not a gewaalsable technique: misleading but dangerously dstortive to construe them in the instrument of kil, technique and management. On the face of it, any independently conceived management techniques may be neither necessary nor sufficient for deployment might make a dire situation t make matters woree) and there may be ‘oF no interest in such sil who ate able t0 Ce, on this stronger view, classroom relations between teachers and pupils ~ as distinct from (at least some) relations between factory owners and wotkers or riton guards and inmates ~ ought to be characterised by interperconal qualities of respect, care and trust rather than by those of impersonal direction, coercion and control. As already noted, it is arguable that good teachers are generally fr personal quales of virtue and character than their ‘with complete confidence, and on whom they can always rely for unfailing academic and personal help and support. From this viewpoint, there are obvious ‘dangers in encouraging young teachers to conceive of classroom ‘managerial or organizational fof characteristics as care, and respect: indeed, the erosion of appropriate morally grounded authority and discipline may be one casualty of some unfortunate modeling of teacher professionalism on inappropriate occupational comparisons from ‘commerce and industry. ‘Teaching and virtue But there is an even stronger case for conceiving not just capacities for authority and discipline bur all aspects of teaching as an activity on the modelIs Indeed, we shall shortly undertake more detailed of the dit reasoning of skills. The essential point, however hardy to deny ary significant professional role ‘good educational practice, notions of skill and technique ~ af least on 8 ‘Common narrow consirual of these as a largely routinised modes of productive ‘cognition and affect, judgement and complex practical challenges of education Aristotle's notion of plroresis, or the prac- ‘ppeared to offer a far beter account of the = and it is this sense of virtue suthority and discipline are more wn needs to be understood more in moral rather than te Jn th iaken to regard pedagogical and organi ‘capacities as entirely reducible to specfiable behavioural skills or ‘com in the manner of many recent policy documents and initiatives, Tndeed, this would seem to be so whether we conceive good or effective teaching to be commensurate with some sort of ‘based technology of pedagogy - as many rentieth-century apologists earning have undoubtedly #0 tied to conceive teaching sil along the lines of more personal and experiential again, ie because the norms of good ‘ehnical norms. To grasp this we have that teachers may have something to learn ‘lass organization and resource managemé teducational o pedagogical research, But although from the adoption of this rather than th exploits all of the state-of apply to people ~ perhaps require very personal signatur "as much danger may although we should also expect some of the ethical constraints on educational to be general moral principles, we have already seen that many others specific virtues, tailored more particularly to the requirements of prise — with particular regard to the question of the precise professional or ee ‘other occupational status of teaching. the idea that ell such constraints are general. For, if ~ in response to the objec: