On Jul 7, 2014, at 10:37 PM, GS Chandy <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 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
Yes, exactly. In the not too distant past pedagogy was a very pragmatic activity involving the teaching of well defined subjects and topics to interested students prepared to tackle them. That form of pedagogy is relatively simple, well understood and practicable by just about anyone with knowledge of the subject, some patience, and experience with prepared students. The teacher teaches and the student learns. But as the education industry became more driven by political ideology it ran into conflict with this simple and well understood form of pedagogy. Primarily, it could not meet the basic tenets of interest and preparedness. To surmount this obstacle, new forms of pedagogy were imagined that share the same deliberate vagueness and lack of definition in order to create an *illusion*. Any word or notion that might be traceable back to the pragmatic and well understood form of pedagogy is to be avoided or the illusion collapses.
This is why you will not answer simple questions like ?What do you mean by fear and loathe math?? and why Richard cannot answer the simple questions put to him. Because if you do answer these types of questions then things start becoming defined, less vague, less mysterious and then you will be left with just the grim reality.