After a formal group conversation about educational theory at a recent event a theology professor and I took our break outside the conference building. As we sat on rocking chairs looking over the vista the professor apologetically shared his frustration at hearing people talk about the “creative” methods they used in their teaching. His frustration was, in part, his inability to see how some of those creative methods applied to his field of discipline. If there is a stinging assessment of one’s teaching that hurts most, it may be the comment, s/he’s not a very creative teacher.” So I appreciated the source of his angst.
“I assign my students reading and writing because that’s what helped me most to understand theology when I was learning it,” he said.
What I told my theologian friend was that there were two things to consider. First, if reading texts and writing are the modalities appropriate to one’s discipline, then there’s no need to apologize for using them, even when using them exclusively. But, it behooves the teacher who uses reading and writing as the primary modalities of teaching to understand how and why reading and writing bring about learning and produce understanding in the student. A good teacher not only uses the right methods to realize their learning objectives, but he or she also understands the dynamics of the pedagogy behind the methods.
For example, it’s not sufficient to assign students material to read, one must understand why they need to read, what kind of reading they need to do, and how it is that they need to read. Similarly, “just writing” is not sufficient for deep learning that leads to understanding. Both teacher and student must understand why writing brings about the desired learning, plus, what kind of writing needs to be used and how to go about it.
The second point is the caution that just because a particular modality was helpful to us for acquiring understanding, it may not be the exclusive modality others need. Reading and writing may be the primary modalities of a discipline, but they are not necessarly the only pathways to understanding. A sound grasp of Howard Gardner’s theory of Multiple Intelligences will go a long way to helping an educator appreciate the importance of, and the appropriate uses of, cognitive and affective methodological pathways to understanding.
