nzherald.co.nz

Trent Kays: A teacher's imperative is to allow opinions to be shared

9:30 AM Friday Oct 19, 2012
Teachers need to show children having an opinion isn't a bad thing, writes Trent Kays. Photo / Thinkstock

Teachers need to show children having an opinion isn't a bad thing, writes Trent Kays. Photo / Thinkstock

Every semester, I enter my classroom with almost zero knowledge of my students' interests. So as a rhetoric and writing teacher, I ask them to employ that which is most beneficial to them in their lives: discourse.

I want to know what they think, why they think it, and how they see themselves in the elegant mess we call the world. Indeed, it becomes partly my charge to help students understand how their perspectives are relevant to my course.

I believe that by relating their interests to the focus of the course, they can become invested in learning instead of simply students there to be fed information. All teaching is inherently collaborative, and it's an act in partnership with students.

The worst thing a teacher can do is tell students what and how to think. According to Brazilian philosopher Paulo Freire, this type of teaching borders on intellectual violence upon another, and where teaching is meant to be a liberating affair, it becomes one of systemic oppression.

In many circumstances, I tell my students the classroom is a space for learning. It is a space to explore and discover ideas without fear of being dismissed or lambasted. I tell them their perspectives, life experiences and ideas are equally important to mine and the subject material at hand.

After hearing this, many sit astonished at the idea their opinions are actually going to be heard. Unfortunately, I hear from students all too often that their opinions, perspectives and ideas are secondary to their teachers' or even not valued. I find this preposterous. Education is about enlightenment and not the subjugation of one idea for another.

Accordingly, as I read Patrick Stokes' recent article - "No, you're not entitled to your opinion" - I wondered exactly how a highly educated teacher could hold such a perspective.

Following his argument, I understand that his ideas of truth and opinion are drawn from Plato. Plato's dedication to the certainty of objective truth poses a significant problem when wagered against post-modern understandings of the world in relation to the individual.

There is no objective truth because objectivity does not exist; there are only degrees of subjectivity. An opinion without evidence can be truth as much as fact with evidence can be a falsehood.

Facts are socially constructed, and they only exist because humans are willing to define and name them. This act of naming almost always positions one thing as the opposite to another. The bizarre form of dialectic at work here doesn't negate the issue that humans construct, name and set these things in opposition.

Objectivity is to eradicate bias, to say that one thing is and the other is not; however, at the root of this act is the actor, and the actor is never devoid of bias. Pierre Bourdieu suggests that opinion is a form of unspoken truth held by the society in which the opinion arose and exists.

The context of these truths is as important as the truths themselves. Outside of the context of a situation, the truth arising in said situation can be understood differently. Nothing exists outside of context.

So, in Stokes' classroom, his directive that students are not entitled to their own opinions may be a truth of that situation. However, in the larger world, his directive does not hold up. Students will encounter many truths and many situations challenging what they once considered a truth.

Plato's contempt for doxa is invalid in 21st century society.

I most certainly do not think Patrick Stokes is a poor teacher; he probably is an excellent one. Yes, students should be taught how to structure argument, how to use language to affect action, and how we can use evidence, empirical and anecdotal, to succeed in its premise.

But to say that a student isn't entitled to their opinion is to devalue the student. It is to suggest that the teacher's way is the right way, and the student is less than the teacher. These are hardly correct.

Without students, teachers would not be needed, and, conversely, without teachers, students would be lost. It's a symbiotic relationship based on respect.

This is why I always tell my students they are co-learners in my courses. We learn together, we collaborate together, and we try to figure out rhetoric and writing together.

When we approach argument and our students, we need to understand that the goal of education is to liberate them from whatever oppresses them. If opinions are the unspoken truths of our world, then it's our job to speak them, let students speak them, and show students how to construct their arguments with whatever truths are available.

* Trent Kays is graduate instructor and rhetoric and writing studies PhD student at the University of Minnesota.

Jon (New Zealand) | 11:30AM Friday, 19 Oct 2012
Oh dear oh deary me. Lets clarify one point the phrase "how to think " is ambiguous it can either mean "how to analyse" or is another term for "what to think"

Take a look around the world and look at the problems caused by our inability to think fairly honestly , how can you then argue that it is not important to teach children how to think, ie analyse

You see your argument suffers from the problem that you are trying to propose a truth while arguing there is no such thing.

This woolly thinking has the potential to cause far more problems in the word as it straightjackets those whose responsibility it is to maintain law and order, as all actions and opinions are true.
Jared () | 11:30AM Friday, 19 Oct 2012
You obviously did not read Patrick Stokes' article correctly. Having an opinion is fine, as long as you can argue for it with evidence. If I was of the opinion that gravity was a lie, would I magically float up into space?
Justin Drinnan () | 11:30AM Friday, 19 Oct 2012
This article cuts right to the guts of the biggest problem facing all of us today. Do we want children who can think and question or do we want children and future adult citizens who obey without question because they are told it is in their individual best interests?

The top down hierarchical control and command style of leadership pervading public and private spheres a like may have merit in a military organisation but will not provide the participation and ownership of the values essential for the creation and continuance of a strong democractic society.

When dealing with children I have noticed that if they perceive that something is unfair then some of them become difficult to engage. Some willingly submit and have already learnt in their experiences that life is not fair and they are expected to accept what they are taught as 'the way of things'.

The idea that we live in the best of all possible worlds can only be realised if our children believe that they can make it the best of all possible worlds and their thoughts and opinions are valued.

Let them speak. Guide them to develope ideas and arguements. Prescribe rarely. Throw out cliches, let them learn to think
Copyright ©2013, APN Holdings NZ Limited