Robert Hansen (RH) posted Jul 7, 2014 9:32 PM (http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9512923) - I had earlier responded to RH's above-referred post, when it struck me that some clarifications may be appropriate. This is, thererefore, in addition to my earlier posting. > > (RH): On Jul 7, 2014, at 10:58 AM, GS Chandy > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > (GSC): The learning and understanding of ANY SUBJECT > > or discipline involve, I maintain, an extremely > > complex set of mental activities, 'mental models' to > > be constructed and then used, etc, etc. > > (RH): It seems that you are saying the the mechanics and > details of how the mind works is complex, which I > agree with. > > But what does this have to do with pedagogy? > > All of the successful teachers and learners to date, > including several on this forum, including myself, > ... A quick glance at a leading dictionary provides the definition: Merriam-Webster: +++++ ped·a·go·gy, noun:
the art, science, or profession of teaching +++++
It appears that this major dictionary, like Robert Hansen, prefers to ignore the 'learner' in the 'learning + teaching' dyad!
I therefore took a look at the Oxford English. With sinking heart, I found the same problem there: pedagogy is defined with no reference at all to 'the learner'!!
QUOTE Mark K. Smith explores the origins of pedagogy and the often overlooked traditions of thinking and practice associated with it. He argues that a focus on teaching as a specialist role is best understood in other ways. Pedagogy needs to be explored through the thinking and practice of those educators who look to accompany learners; care for and about them; and bring learning into life. Teaching is just one aspect of their practice... UNQUOTE
(I have not yet read the essay in detail, but I'm pretty certain it is sound in principle [even if Mr Smith has not yet applied 'systems thinking' to the issue]. I shall in due course *study* this essay of Mark Smith's, and I may even like to correspond with him on the matter. Later...)
Anyway, I now look forward to the further jousts on this issue against Robert Hansen (supported as he seems to be by the venerable and most respected authorities of Merriam-Webster and the Oxford English!!)