Skip to main content

Pedagogy of Prestidigitation

I put what might be too much thought into presentation when I teach. I say it's too much because I don't know how much of it comes across to my students, but insofar as a teacher must entertain, it seems appropriate to work on one's showmanship. Over time, I've developed some particular aesthetics of teaching that both keep me motivated and focused in the task, and hopefully contribute something unique to my students' experience.

My basic model is jazz improvisation, for reasons perhaps best understood by fellow initiates of Robert Anton Wilson. The presentation slides give me an overall structure and contain the essential information. For the most part, the slides are supposed to be springboards for verbal improvisation. I like the idea of running discussion sessions, and when it happens I enjoy it, but I find it hard to get the students going. In introductory ethics courses, when I include assignments that require them to read before coming to class, it's easy because everybody knows what's right (before they take philosophy, at least). In most courses, I think I scare them too much. It's not intentional or anything, but I've been given to understand that I have a forceful presence. As much as I try to dial it down, it seems to come across anyway.

Still, that's just about lecture style, and not really all that different from the most general public speaking advice. In addition to that, I give some thought to the peripherals. For instance, I value minimalism in my self-presentation. Remember, I said my conditioned response to teaching is to reach for the chalk? I value that model because I (usually) don't have to bring the chalk and board.

The blackboard is classroom infrastructure; I walk into a room and expect to see one. The tools are simply at hand, something I find in the environment, take up, and use. Most of the time I taught at Tulane, I had a pile of books and notes and papers to hand back. Way too much baggage for someone teaching about letting go and liberation, right? As I got more comfortable in the classroom, I started trying to scale back and bring only what I really needed. At Twente the classroom tech is so reliable that I don't even need notes or textbooks. I can walk in with no materials, log into a computer, fire up my Google Presentation, and get to work.

If there is any magic in it, it happens there. To walk in with nothing and create something wonderful using nothing other than what is to hand is the work of an illusionist. Behind the scenes, there's preparation and reading and notes and consultation, but the students don't see that, and they don't need to see it. If I've done it right, they're too occupied with the illusion to think about it.

At least, that's what I tell myself the good days are like. I know it's more like some stuttering, some swearing, the occasional funny joke, and the ubiquitous unfunny joke. Still, if I don't imagine something better, I have no incentive to improve. Even fictions have their function, in the end.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

RPG Systems: An Analogy with UI Design

The current game in our weekly role-playing group is Deadlands. The previous game was Shadowrun. Both rule systems lie closer to the “chunky” side of the spectrum. Shadowrun has a particular reputation for its complex and somewhat cumbersome rules, and while Deadlands has less overall complexity, the system has a degree of granularity that interrupts play more often than it enhances narration. I enjoy role-playing games because I like participating in a good story. The rules system provides a set of constraints for the characters, the setting, and the conflicts. They help give the narrative structure, a background against which the story will take place. Too few rules, and telling an interesting and well-developed story becomes difficult. Too many rules tend to get in the way of individual scenes or events. With the right balance, it’s possible for the game master, usually me, to be sufficiently fluent in the rules system to resolve any conflict without extended consultation of on

Some Thoughts on Dharma Decline

Many of these blog entries have concerned my main research in political philosophy, intellectual property and technology. Now for something a little different, I thought I would write up some thoughts on another area of interest: Buddhism. For those who don't know, I've taught courses in Buddhism since I began teaching, having learned a great deal from my undergraduate advisor, Donald Hanks, and Ashok Aklujkar, a now-retired professor of Indian languages, literature and philosophy for whom I served as teaching assistant during my time at UBC. Thanks to their instruction, I developed a solid knowledge of the Indian Buddhist tradition, and I've used what they taught me to deepen and develop that knowledge to improve my teaching and my personal meditation practice. While I don't want to write a full tutorial on Buddhist thought, I would like to discuss a notion that prevails in some traditions, and that discussion will require one to know a few basic ideas. At its cor

Justifications for Intellectual Property Part 1: Utilitarianism

There is no way this tutorial series would be complete without some discussion of justifications for intellectual property. While not necessarily a matter of law, some knowledge of the philosophical foundations will provide a better sense of the values at stake in intellectual property debates. Notice, for instance, that the tutorials on fair use were punctuated with appeals to values, social goods, and individual rights. Without an understanding of the moral and political framework against which the law stands, one can very easily find oneself in a stalemate, with one value pitted against another and no way of deciding which should prevail. To understand the jurisprudence around intellectual property rights, one has to have some idea of the justifying theories to which attorneys and judges appeal in their arguments and decisions. So, without further ado, let's get to the tutorial. There are three main ways of justifying intellectual property rights: the Utilitarian theory, th