In-der-Blog-sein

CultureCat on the pedagogical imperative.

My dissertation didn't have to do with pedagogy, but I put in a section in the conclusion about pedagogy anyway, as I wanted to align myself explicitly with composition, and I was coming out of a program that (at the time) was more known for technical communication.

“It’s not necessary,” [a faculty respondent writes], “to write five chapters about Heideggerian philosophy’s importance for broadening our conception of the rhetorical basis of epistemology only to turn to the last chapter and talk about teaching Heidegger to first-year students. I have seen people try similar moves, [and] have heard colleagues make such demands.

Like this faculty member, my committee members didn't think it was necessary, and I suspect that they felt it was a little tacked-on. But they didn't make me take it out. All this being said, I have four thoughts about the pedagogical imperative:

1. A pedagogical implications section is not necessary, but it's impressive if the researcher can explain implications for pedagogy. Along the lines of the argument that you don't really understand something unless you can explain it in clear, simple terms to a non-expert, it would really be something if the person in the Heidegger example COULD connect that research to first-year writing.

It seems to me that there are two factors that make Heidegger's way of thinking difficult. The first is the need to question the ontological assumptions on which the modern world operates. The assumptions are implicit, not spoken, so the typical path is to first revisit (learn) the pertinent bits from the history of philosophy, in order to make ontology an issue. The second factor is the lack of a concensus on how to describe or speak Heidegger's way of thinking, at least in English. Ontology is simple, once those factors are addressed, and one gets it.  ¶ 10:42 AM