Fundamental Tenets of Teaching I

Because I am leaving my post as teacher, I was asked by 2 colleagues, who are too young to know any better, to lay out those guiding principles which I believe are essential to teaching. After thinking it through for a number of weeks, here is the first of 3 that I have come up with: (by the way, these thoughts, as usual, are derivative...influenced by many books, sermons, lectures, conversations and experience...nothing profoundly original here.)

Principle # 1:

A truly Christian pedagogy must be incarnational.

I remember the first time I heard a statement to that effect. It was an unexplained passing remark in a larger discussion about education, but it stuck with me because, at the time, its meaning eluded me. Not that I have fully secured its meaning now, but after years of periodically mulling it over, this idea has begun to take a shape which emerges more clearly in my mind through further instruction, conversation and experience.

Incarnational pedagogy insists that effective teaching and learning take place person to person - in community. This idea carries a multitude of implications which are extremely difficult for fiercely independent individuals (such as myself) to accept. The implications of incarnational teaching are far-reaching and pervasive. I surely cannot address them all here, but hopefully we can all flesh-out the applications for our particular situations.

Many of us, either through our own or our children's experiences, can attest to the significant and sometimes long-term damage caused by poor teacher-student relations. Whether this faulty relationship stems from a basic conflict in personality, rebellion or inability on the child's part, stubbornness or incompetence on the teacher's part, or a critical spirit on the parent's part, in every case, real learning is hindered if not halted entirely.

A teacher who doesn't really love his students, or remains superficial in his relationship with them, will tend to enforce rules and expectations arbitrarily, generating resentment toward the teacher or toward favored students who never seem to fall prey to the random rebukes. Students know, or at least suspect, when they are not loved. (By the way, that is NOT to disregard that children regularly misinterpret or misrepresent their own case. They are sinners like the rest of us and, if they can generate pity or a lesser punishment by portraying the teacher as "unfair" or themselves as "innocent," they will! But the intent of this essay, is to address the teacher's responsibility and demeanor.)

A less-than-loving teacher is often highly concerned with the amount of measurable data that is acquired, students' GPA's, and standardized test scores since these are interpreted as a direct and public reflection of his "teaching ability." His students often become the victims of data download...large amounts of information may be acquired, but without penetrating to the heart in any meaningful way. This kind of "learning" is temporary at best, and leads to a "performance-only" mentality or a "puffed-up" heart at worst.

The lack of true love on the teacher's part might manifest itself in ways other than the two mentioned above, but hopefully those examples are sufficient to remind us of the experiential reality that significant learning potential is lost in the absence of loving relationship. My intention is not to attribute all academic success or failure to the teacher-student relationship, but barring real mental or emotional obstacles that prevent learning, I believe the necessity of loving relationship is normative.

Hopefully we have also witnessed the reaping of innumerable benefits when the converse is true. A child who has struggled in school or a particular subject, may suddenly take great interest and find success because he loves and is loved by his teacher. That love may be exhibited through patience and understanding with the child's struggles, or it may result from a connection established apart from the academic setting (such as common interest in airplane models, or Cardinal baseball, etc.).

A loving teacher strives to operate justly and consistently in the classroom , while considering individual students' personalities, interests, strengths, weaknesses, abilities, and life-circumstances.

A loving teacher desires for each student to enter school daily with the confidence that he is loved, that he is understood, and that his teacher is working for his particular benefit. Given the diversity of most classrooms, that is an incredibly enormous task, but if we love, this will nevertheless be our goal.

A loving teacher will take great pains to insure that his students are acquiring more than mere head-knowledge. He will engage his students in discussion, exercises and conversation whose goal is to transfer the raw knowledge set before him into understanding which penetrates the heart and begins to transform the way the student thinks, feels, and acts.

Keep in mind though, parents, that just as the lack of love will manifest itself in various ways, so will the presence of love. Teachers, like all human beings, possess a variety of personalities, which influence the way they express or withhold love. A "strict" teacher can be just as loving as a "sweet" teacher, even though their classrooms may operate differently.

If we accept the premise that loving relationship is necessary for maximum learning, we must necessarily examine the structure and atmosphere of our classrooms. Are we providing our teachers with a structure designed to maximize their opportunities? How many students can a teacher be reasonably expected to know, love and meet the needs of? I would suggest the optimal size is 10-12. This remains a somewhat unrealistic notion since schools have largely become independent financial enterprises rather than member-supported ministries of the local parish church, but experience tells me it is a worthy, if lofty, goal. Even the most experienced and competent teacher is unable to ascertain the individual needs of 20+ students, nor is it hard to imagine how a relaxed, less-taxed teacher is more likely to operate lovingly.

The classroom atmosphere is dependent, not only on the children's vertical relationship with the teacher, but also on horizontal relationships between students. Love between classmates doesn't often come naturally and requires a great deal of instruction in wisdom on the teacher's part. He must plant, water, and feed the seeds of love while pulling the weeds of discontent, strife, malice, etc. If these sins are allowed to grow between students, they present a severe distraction from the learning process. Children need to learn early on that they can benefit from the input and perspective of peers who approach ideas from a different vantage point than themselves. They can actually learn from one another if they stop vying for top-position, either with the teacher or among the other students. They must learn to value one another, bearing with one another's weaknesses, rejoicing in one another's victories, building one another up, etc. These student-to-student relationships can greatly hinder or help the process of learning.

The above comments about relationships apply in a homeschool setting as well as in a classroom, and this principle of incarnational teaching should also inform our use of technology in the home school. Though all books, computer programs and videos come to us through other people and so are "incarnational" to some extent, they should not replace the interpersonal relationship and dialogue that are essential for real and lasting understanding.

At the very least then, our experiences with teachers and fellow students, whether in the home or the classroom, confirm that neither educational degrees, teachings "skills", experience nor course content are paramount in effectively transmitting knowledge, understanding and wisdom. Training and experience can certianly enhance a teacher's ability - and a good teacher will always seek ways to improve his delivery, advance his understanding of the human-brain, obtain the most thorough and well-thought-out curriculum, and acquire new knowledge or skills that improve his practice of his craft. My point, though, is that no acquisition of these skills and abilities, however thorough, can erase the necessity of loving interaction in the Christian learning environment.

Why is this true, though? Why is the process of learning inextricably linked to these outward, social relationships? Because man is created in the image of the Triune God - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - who live in perpetual, eternal fellowship with and service for One Another. This Trinity is essentially communal and thus man, like the Image in which he was created, is social by nature. It is not good for man to be alone. We need one another. We are designed to function optimally in relation to others.

Think about it. When God created Adam and placed him in the garden, he declared that it was not good for him to be alone. Adam wasn't really alone, was he? He was in direct fellowship with God, was he not? He was surrounded by living creatures in a perfectly beautified and untainted environment, wasn't he? Why then, did God declare him to be alone and set out to change that? Because the life of man would not be a true image of the Creator if it did not reflect the mutual fellowship, love and submission embodied in the Trinity.

It is not good for man to be, do, or learn alone. Think of the multitude of false teachings and religions which have been cultivated by men or women who developed their views in isolation. Joseph Smith, Mohammad, Jim Jones...those three alone are enough to make the point! Therein lies the danger of "just me and God and the Bible." Too often, when men set themselves to learn Scripture, or any truth, without seeking wisdom and validation from others, they go off the proverbial deep-end, ending in grave error.

This fact leads me to question Dorothy Sayer's statement in her popular essay on The Lost Tools of Learning that "the sole true end of all learning then is to teach men to learn for themselves." Though I believe her intention was for us to equip students so that they have the ability to pursue new knowledge without absolute dependence on a teacher, we must be careful not to over-apply this idea! Our goal should not be little students sitting alone in their rooms acquiring massive amounts of knowledge on their own! We must teach our children to engage others in these pursuits...to seek input, discussion and wisdom from real people, not solely from books, tapes, websites, videos or nature. Those who learn in isolation are in great danger, not only of falling into error, but of becoming idealistic and arrogant in their thinking. This almost always results in a harsh, critical, judgmental, divisive spirit which then leads to further isolation.

It is also helpful to remember that God, from the beginning, ministered his grace to his people through human agents. He didn't just drop a copy of The Decalogue on the doorstep of every tent. He provided fathers, elders, priests, judges, kings, and prophets as agents of his law, love, forgiveness, knowledge, understanding, etc. And what was his ultimate act of love on our behalf? The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us and through The Man Christ Jesus we beheld the glory of the Father. The Truth, the Way, the Life, Knowledge, Understanding, Wisdom....embodied in human flesh. Our desire should be to embody the Gospel for our students...we are living, human agents of God's Truth, not mechanical transmitters of data. As we live in faith and love beside our students, they will be encouraged to willingly submit to the yoke of learning and will likewise be stirred up to love and good works.

Principle #1:

A truly Christian pedagogy must be incarnational.