Skip to main content

Teaching and learning



Teaching is not the same as learning. While they each fulfill some part of the definition of "education", they are not education on their own.

Learning is probably more akin to the first definition of education, because it does not entail an authority from which the learning takes place. It could be from a person, a non-living object or an event involving both.

Teaching seems to be more inclusive of an authority which guides what is taught. Even when we say "this experience taught me", we're saying the experience involved something specific that was worth learning.

Is it necessary for the process of education to contain both of these; teaching as well as learning?

Image source courtesy of Projects Abroad.
Labels:

Comments

  1. SugaNovaMay 8, 2011 at 4:48 PM

    I dont know if we can separate the two as I believe that teaching inherently involves learning. For example when making a lesson plan a good understanding of the material is required to convey the main objectives. If the teacher is unable to understand such materials it hinders the process of those receiving the learning. For this reason I believe that education is about reciprocity and that teaching and learning go hand in hand.

    I think one can say a lot more about this as it is a big topic but I guess for now these are my initial thoughts

    ReplyDelete
  2. akMay 11, 2011 at 7:23 PM

    What you say makes sense. I think I was initially caught up with just the verbs "to learn" and "to teach". Doesn't the action of teaching - just that act, in the moment that it is happening - imply that there is an authority which is guiding the teaching?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tanzania is not Tasmania

Dear friends: Please let's stop refering to Tanzania as Tasmania. Here is why. Tanzania is located on the coast of East Africa, below Kenya. It is not origin of the the cartoon character from your childhood. Tasmania is an island which is part of Australia. The animal known to exist only on Tasmania is the Tasmanian Devil. Once again, you will see this is not the cartoon character you remember from your childhood. Let's summarize: Tanzania is not Tasmania.
Post a Comment
Read more

Policy Brief 2: Why is Tanzania Poor?

(Policy Brief # 2 Submitted December 6th 2007, for Econ 346 - Economic Development, Lafayette College) Over the course of the 20th century, Tanzania experienced a multitude of social, political and economic changes. It still remains poor today. The WorldBank classifies a ‘low income country’ – such as Tanzania – as one with a Gross National Income per capita of $905 or less (WorldBank Data 2006). As of 1992, Tanzania ’s per capita income was recorded at $110, and average per capita consumption was $0.5 per day (OECD 2000). Several possible factors have been blamed for contributing to current hardships, such as Julius Nyerere’s failed attempts to collectivize agriculture between 1961 and 1975 through his socialist Ujamaa policies as the first president of Tanzania (Pratt 1980). While pre-independence plans “focused on the commercialization of agriculture and the creation of industries that could reduce the need for a variety of imports”, post-independence interventions by the Gov
4 comments
Read more

Revision rinsed II

When discussing communication for development, we tend to argue against the models based only on diffusion of media technologies. That is, in pursuing a critical approach to development practices, we tend to support participatory approaches to technology use and engagement. Yet, we leave development practice in the abstract. We stop short at revised theory, and consult with practice initiators who attempt to materialize the abstract. Even there, we treat attempts as cases, and recriticize to align with still revised theory. It's time the field of communication for development confessed its efforts to change market-based activities. It's also time that it confessed that power in the market is strong, and at most times, stronger than the power of discourse. Instead, the field of communication for development should hold strong to the assumptions that structuralist development practice has not worked. That's that. Why go further to assume that a new theory is needed, or
Post a Comment
Read more