Aristotle teaches us to move our students from the known to the unknown. We cannot learn new things without some attachment to what we know already. This insight alone greatly guides the teaching enterprise. But there seems to be innate within this principle another principle that needs more attention. If we are leading minds from what they know to what they ought to know, we must prepare their mind for reception of that “new” idea. Without proper preparation, the mind is asked to “jump” into a new idea without proper connection to what is already known. This is a problem many teachers should be on guard against in their teaching.
The problem I think often comes from the teacher’s own expertise and experience with the subject at hand. Even new teachers have already learned most of what they are leading the student through. Because their mind is already accustomed to the movement from old to new that they are now calling their students to make, they don’t properly prepare and manage that movement for their students. The mind needs to be ready to receive a new idea, have a clear sense of how this idea connects with their overall knowledge, or it will not become a part of them but will remain some factoid to be forgotten as soon as it is assessed.
Consider the teacher who is now pushing (let’s say) thirty-five years of age. They, if they are possessing the heart of a learner, have been adding to what they know twice as long as their high school pupils. They are more skilled at learning, have more knowledge from which to add, and long ago (15-20 years ago) accomplished the feats of learning they are now asking from their students. To their own mind this stuff is “easy.” It is a familiar, well-worn path in their mind. But for the student, each day brings new ideas. Or at least each week. And their minds need preparing for each new thing. The teacher must understand the student’s needs enough to plan for this preparation.
What the preparation looks like will differ based on what is being taught. Language, mathematics, to some extent the natural sciences all build on previous learning in clear and ordered ways. History tends to be chronological (knowing what has come before, here is what happens next). But many fields in the humanities, philosophy, theology are not as incremental. One of the great crimes of modern literature instruction is its inability or unwillingness to connect studied works into a meaningful whole. I won’t decry the sad state of the New Humanities and why this is so here, but I will mention one popular view that seems intent on destroying this habit of preparation.
Progressivism in education makes this preparation difficult by calling the student to break with the past. If the past is obsolete, it is logical that my own past is becoming obsolete, therefore each new learning experience is expected to stand on its own two feet. I have not met many progressivists willing to actually state this, but the logic of their position is clear. Don’t look back, look only forward. But looking back seems not only necessary, but the most efficient means to learning something new as well. If A, B, and C, then surely D rather than Y, correct?
The learning mind, given the tools to teach itself, by high school should be a highly intuitive thing. Much of preparing that mind for something new is simply a review of A, B, and C so that they themselves begin leaping to D, E, and maybe even F. As teachers, we are pursuers of the truth, not dispensers of mystic knowledge. We are not waiting to reveal secrets, but excitedly trying to impel our students past us into truths perhaps even still new to us.
I am convinced the best learning of new material comes from a contemplative teacher who remembers, who reconstructs their own past learning so as to lead their students down the same path. They are not there to tell them what is true, but rather to lead them, compel them, prepare them to go down the path of truth themselves. This again reiterates a common theme on this blog: questions are the most powerful teaching tool in the world. Ask them to remember what they know, then ask them to anticipate what would come next. Remember what it was like when you were where they are? What is the next question?