An essay review of C. J. B. Macmillan's and James W. Garrison's a logical theory of teaching: Erotetics and intentionality

✍ Scribed by George L. Newsome

• Publisher: Springer
• Year: 1992
• Tongue: English
• Weight: 740 KB
• Volume: 11
• Category: Article
• ISSN: 0039-3746
• DOI: 10.1007/bf00402597

✦ Synopsis

More than two decades ago the editor of a work on teaching noted that although there "... is not complete agreement as to what a theory of teaching is or would be, educational writers all agree there is a need for it" (Hyman, 1971). Why there should be a need for it is less than clear. Nevertheless, philosophers of education, educational psychologists, and educators in general have struggled to define teaching and formulate theories about it. From Plato and Aristotle to Macmillan and Garrison the urge to theorize about teaching has persisted.

Although theorizing about teaching has not always followed from a definition of it, theorizing often does bring forth definitions. Unfortunately, there seems to be something about teaching which makes a truly adequate definition of it very difficult, if not actually impossible. As a result, most of the definitions of teaching that have been offered are either persuasive or stipulative. In either case, most of them seem to be partisan in one way or another in favor of some preconceived ideas about education or schooling. Although Macmillan and Galrison have tried to avoid partisanism, it appears that they have not been completely successful. Their definition of teaching stipulates that teaching, at least in its central core, is "answering questions that students ought to ask conceming the subject matter with which the teacher and student are engaged" (pp. 15-16). Some may view this definition as inadequate in one way or another. On its face it seems to be too narrow to encompass many activities that are commonly regarded as teaching activities.

Although the definition may appear to be too narrow, there are some important things that can be said in its favor. Even though the definition of teaching may be limited and possibly partisan, it is based upon some more fundamental aspect of teaching. For example, human teaching (as opposed to animals teaching their young or machines teaching people) requires a teacher, something to be taught (subject matter), and someone to teach (student or pupil). Macmillan's and Garrison's definition of teaching encompasses these elements in the interaction of the teacher and student in a sequence of questions and answers. The definition also has another advantage of clearly separating teaching from learning so that teaching can be studied without becoming entangled in the complexities of learning.

Granting both the narrowness and strengths of the definition of teaching, something more is required. It is common to think of teaching as one or more