What is "a sense of teaching"?

What is a sense of teaching? A philosophical exploration of the power relationship between “teacher” and “student” Andrew Dineen Unpublished paper as part of a Master’s in Education at Trinity College Dublin, 2015 Abstract Prompted by what is seen as central to all concepts involved in what teaching is, this essay attempts to explore the power relationship between student and teacher. Teaching is traditionally seen as the knowledgeable, as teacher, teaching the learners, as students. There are innumerable aspects that make up what teaching is considered to be and how it comes about. To name but a few, knowledge transfer, opening of the mind, communication, emancipation, creating valuable members of society, reproducing the status and so on. While some of these goals or attributes of teaching may be complementary, others may be considered antithetical. Arguably, many aspects of teaching may be considered equally relevant to assisting in looking for what “a sense of teaching” is, however, an exploration of the power relationship between teacher and student, highlighting the centrality of the relationship to teaching and learning, shall be the focus of this essay. Some of the perspectives drawn shall be taken from interpretations of Sidorkin, Adorno, Rancière, Dewey, Wittgenstein, Kant, Heidegger, Castoriadis, and Lee. Keywords: Relationships, power, seduction, truth, education, teaching, learning, love. “If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people together to collect wood and don't assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea.” ― Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (1984) A brief overview of what teaching is considered to be from a general perspective A traditional view of education and the task of the teacher is that of the transfer or teaching of knowledge and skills which can be used both in school and outside school, now and in the future by means of “…a somewhat impositional process…whereby the adult persuades, through reinforcements like praise and withholding of punishment…,” the child to become a “valuable members of society” (Burstyn, 1996, p.3). Influential international documents place a focus on “economic prosperity” by means of education as a way to maintain high employment (OECD, 2013, par.4). However, the Department of Education and Skills [DES] have a document entitled “Education for Sustainability” that states its objective as ensuring: “…that education contributes to sustainable development by equipping learners with the relevant knowledge (the ‘what’), the key dispositions and skills (the ‘how’) and the values (the ‘why’) that will motivate and empower them throughout their lives to become informed active citizens who take action for a more sustainable future.” (DES, 2014) While this statement emphasises a respect for sustainability, the question must be asked whether this idealistic rhetoric is able to compete with the powerful economic persuasion of the OECD, or during the short seven year tenure between government rotations it will remain rhetoric on a shelf. Professor Morrie Schwartz’s view of this conflict of interests is that: …no matter where you live, the biggest defect we human beings have is our shortsightedness. We don’t see what we could be. We should be looking at our potential, stretching ourselves into everything we can become. But if you’re surrounded by people who say ‘I want mine now,’ you end with few people with everything and a military to keep the poor ones from rising up and stealing it. (Albom, 1997, p.156). Are the economic focused goals of education facilitated by having the power imbalance of teacher over student, forcing a prescriptive, purpose-specific, government written curriculum of ‘truths’ onto people, rather than what education and teaching could achieve by creating emancipated people with abilities to critically reflect on all truths from different perspectives? Is this monetary driven focus of economic prosperity and reproducing the status quo really the primary goal of education or can education, that which must be “taught” and “learned” be seen as something nonmonetary and of incalculable value? An alternate view of teaching Adorno’s (Spatsecheck, 2010) concept of (full) education is in line with that of Bildung, described by Løvlie & Standish (2002) as the process of edifying people through culture and self-education. However, his “Theory of Half-Education” sees humanity in a culture of despair, where there is constant conflict between the demands of society and an individual’s autonomy. In this light Adorno saw education as an ongoing dialectic process between the demands of society and the emancipation of man. Kierkegaard (1843) argues against the socio-cultural element of Bildung and believes that the one must separate himself from society in order to become a free thinking individual. He argues that this means searching back to how one was before culture began to take hold. Could Kierkegaard be referring to the innate capabilities of children, for example the natural inquisitiveness of the “Why?” that children possess along with the powerful desire for independence. Wittgenstein’s beliefs emphasise that human activity is rule governed, that we are dependent on rules and the common, shared understanding of the language of these rules to make our meaning. This seems obvious, however, it is also complex due to the knowledge that governs these shared rules often being tacit knowledge, “deeper than our ability – or the capacities of language – to articulate” (Burbules& Smith, 2005, p. 426). Schön (1991, p.49) describes the same concept as “knowing-in-action” and believes a competent teacher knows more than they can articulate through language, and the knowledge one possesses is most evident in the actions, the “feel” one has for something, and it is through this inexplicable sense of teaching that learning takes place. Kessels and Korthagen (1995, p.18) share a similar concept in their description of “knowledge as phronesis”, the teachers actions and “…understanding of specific concrete cases and complex or ambiguous situations” as often being inexplicable. This is due to the teachers skill in allowing the concrete situation govern over and adapt episteme rather than trying to fit abstract epistemic knowledge into a real life situation. This ties in with Wittgenstein’s concept of “learning how to go on” as a means of overcoming rules that might be seen from a different perspective and thus have different meaning or can be “followed in more than one ‘correct’ way”. Could the integration of Wittgenstein’s idea of “learning how to go on” in relation to following or not following the strict adherence of rules, be used as a means of escaping from the structural binds of schooling, enforced by a government influenced by the external economic policies of Europe and in turn allow teachers to bring flexibility into their practice? Truth and Lies In the transfer of knowledge, is the provision of “truth” (as enforced by teaching as we know it), detrimental to the emancipation of the student? Henry Adams emphasises: A teacher is expected to teach truth, and may perhaps flatter himself that he does so, if he stops with the alphabet or the multiplication table, as a mother teaches truth by making her child eat with a spoon; but morals are quite another truth and philosophy is more complex still. A teacher must either treat history as a catalogue, a record, a romance, or as an evolution; and whether he affirms or denies evolution, he falls into all the burning faggots of the pit. He makes of his scholars either priests or atheists, plutocrats or socialists, judges or anarchists, almost in spite of himself. In essence incoherent and immoral, history had either to be taught as such _ or falsified. (Adams, 1905, p.127) The Socratic method of education (Brickhouse & Smith, 2000, p.53) advocates for a dialectic style of critical enquiry in order to destabilise what is considered “truth”. Skjærvø (2005, p15) points out that the power relation that dictates what “truth” is spoken by the teacher to the student is where most caution must be observed. He continues by emphasising the importance of always taking precaution “when conducting the ritual”, when teaching, in order to prevent any potential damage that the teacher’s own misconceptions or personal truths might cause the learner. Skjærvø (2005, p15) explains that the prophet, teacher and poet Zoroaster – saw the universe as man’s struggle between aša “order” (often translated as “truth”) and druj “lie”. Skjærvø explains Zoroaster’s cardinal concept of aša which is only by asking what or who is aša, how is aša created and where does aša exist, and then what part does free will play in this equation? Skjærvø highlights Zorzaster’s belief that the purpose of all creation, is to sustain aša, to sustain truth, however, Zoroaster believed that a: …concept of reality, that is, what ‘really, truly is’ (Av. haithya, OInd. satya) as formed by observing the sensory data of nature and the inherited knowledge of his trade can still be wrong, and although he knows—he thinks—what is real, the danger of delusions caused by the powers of the Lie is ever-present. (Skjærvø, 2005, p15). Reflection, Critical thinking and Critical pedagogy Rodgers (2002) attributes the roots of reflective thought as we know it to John Dewey. Individual development, a crucial part of teacher development, student development and in turn societal development, has its roots firmly planted in the concept of reflection (Dewey, 1910/1997). Dewey describes reflective thinking as the ability to suspend judgement while further inquiry is taking place and the acquisition of an attitude of suspended conclusion is most important in the development of reflective thinking, which in turn leads to enhanced critical thought. Dewey defines the processes of accepting something at once without thought as “uncritical thinking” (Dewey 1910/1997, p.13). He emphasises the personal changes experienced in moving towards critical reflection, for example, rather than accepting plausible ideas hastily, one instead accepts the idea as a working hypothesis to guide investigation and unearth new facts; not taking the idea as a final conclusion. Critical thinking and critical pedagogy have been influential in shaping educational writing since the early 80’s (Burbles and Berk, 1999). Burbles and Berk (1999, par.1) emphasise “the term ‘critical’ as a valued educational goal: urging teachers to help students become more sceptical toward commonly accepted truisms.” Critical Pedagogy sees society essentially separated by relations of unequal power, and considers the ability to reflect and deduce meaning alone isn’t enough without the accompaniment of action in order to address this power imbalance that preserves, legitimises and promotes an unjust status quo through transmission of “knowledge.” Nietzsche’s (1874) work shares this view and is repulsed by the “laziness” of mankind in his underachievement: There exists no more repulsive and desolate creature in the world than the man who has evaded his genius and who now looks furtively to left and right, behind him and all about him. (Nietzsche, 1874) Critical thinking authors generally share the same concept and advocated for people to develop better critical thinking skills and in turn this could have a “general humanizing effect, across all social groups and classes.” Critical thinking and critical pedagogy would argue that critical education can lead to liberation and “enlarge the scope of human possibilities” Burbles and Berk, 1999, par.3) For the teacher to facilitate the development of critical thinking, must he not first be at that high level of critical thought himself? May he have to “unlearn”, realise his ignorance and teach that which he does not know? Teaching Ignorance Peters (2010) explains Socrates belief, that to attain the knowledge of one’s own ignorance is a noble pursuit and does not require the presence of a teacher, whereas the art of sophism, a method of teaching philosophy and rhetoric that uses trickery to teach the values arête or virtue, requires a teacher. Knowledgeable ignorance is: To be wise is to give up the quest for knowledge and, thus, to deny the pedagogical task associated with such a quest. This is not the end but the transformation of teaching, one that effectively places the value of pedagogy outside of itself: the philosophical root of ‘knowledge exchange’, derived from the ascendant God of Plato but destined for the mundanity of the marketplace. (Peters 2010, par.2) Peters (2010, par.3) describes “ignorant ignorance” as being “ignorant of the truth that it itself obscures” and inhibits the truth seekers from their objective of finding their truth, that is, knowledgeable ignorance. Dunne (2013, p.625) believes that “effective teaching and learning occur between” the humility of the knowledgeable ignorant and the hospitality of the knowledge of the other. To apply Winans’ (2006) queer theory perspective to a related conflict; that of emancipation versus suppression, it is not enough to simply add "the other" into education, the other in this situation being an alternate perspective to the teacher as facilitator of status quo reproduction. The tensions surrounding the dominant cultural assumptions must be named and engaged with and the complex relationship to power must be examined. Reciprocal Love (Respect) and Emancipation Burbules and Smith (2005) explain the difficulties that adults have in understanding the behaviours of children. Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (1999) in The Little Prince explains how “Grown-ups never understand anything by themselves, and it is tiresome for children to be always and forever explaining things to them.” Smith points out that those parents/adults who “…have the patience and the tact to attend properly to the sociocultural practices…” of children may actually begin to relate to and understand children’s behaviour (Burbles and Smith, 2005, p.426). Must we not, as teachers, be constantly open to new ways of looking at things, diverging from the traditional social science view of seeing “undesirable” behaviours as “non-conformative?” (Lovett, 1996). Peters (2001) explains that Wittgenstein’s “style of ‘doing’ philosophy is pedagogical” and through his jokes, narratives, ‘wrong answers’, dialogues with himself, pictures, drawings and so on he attempts to provide us with the opportunity to shift our own thinking. Can this “shift in thinking” be what a sense of teaching should be? If the primary goal of teaching could be seen as creating learners who are able to shift their thinking then should teaching style not mirror what is to be learned and rather than having a prescriptive curriculum that teachers have to follow could teacher faith in teacher autonomy not lead the way? Lee (1971) believed that having set structures, patterns and specific trained ways of doing things would infringe on the capabilities of a person to deliver their potential within circumstances that are without what has been specifically learned; that: Formulas can only inhibit freedom, externally dictated prescriptions only squelch creativity and assure mediocrity. Bear in mind that the freedom that accrues from self-knowledge cannot be acquired through strict adherence to a formula; we do not suddenly “become” free, we simply “are” free. (Lee, 1971, p. 24) Tubs (2005, p.335), through Freire and Ellsworth, believes that “critical education involves the critique of the shadows that hold the students prisoners to ideologies, be they political, textual or cognitive.” Freire, (2000) describes two possibilities for what education could be; that which facilitates integration of the learner in to the social world or that which creates the men and women of critical thought and emancipation. “Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity”. According to Kant’s (1784) theory of enlightenment it is easier for people to go along with rules and formulas and never have to use their own understanding. That leaves us with a society of permanently immature individuals reliant on guidance from “benevolent guardians”. Therefore it ought to be the aim of those benevolent guardians to develop a child’s understanding of the world; but more importantly to give them the scope to use their own understanding in making decisions. This could lead to an enlightened society of mature free thinking individuals. Rancière (1987/1991) believes that if you give people the opportunity and belief that they can learn, then they will learn. Through Jacatot, Rancière advocates for “…equality of intelligence…” and believes that everybody can and must learn something, then, learning will follow learning. He also emphasises that “…one can teach what one does not know” (Rancière 1987/1991 p.101). The task of the teacher is not to create scholars with abundances of knowledge but to create an educative environment of shared respect for the perspectives of others, where “emancipated and emancipating men” and women come to “be” (Rancière, 1987/1991, p.102). He highlights that “public instruction”, as to what should be done by society, only serves as a wedge between emancipation and he who is searching for it. Rancière through Jacatot uses the term “stultification” to describe the process of the student being subdued in his journey through learning by having to rely on the teacher to explain what has been learned. He continues by explaining that to teach without emancipation is to stultify the learner (Rancière, 1987/1991, p.18). The emancipator of men and women doesn’t have to worry about what is being learned by the emancipated, for the emancipated “…will learn what he wants, nothing maybe.” The learner will have a calmness and understanding that learning can take place when desired “because the same intelligence is at work in all the productions of the human mind.” Emancipation in this essay is primarily in reference to mankind. However, it must not be limited to the human race. Burbles and Smith (2005, p. 430) laud Wittgenstein’s work for its ability to “challenge us to rethink easy generalizations about the superiority of some forms of life over others, and to interrogate the course of prescriptions about what is ‘normal’ and what is ‘deviant’.” The power relationship: Zembylas (2007) through Campbell, highlights that the division of power can be identified by observing who must suppress emotion and who gets to express emotion. Sidorkin (2000), through Buber, emphasises that the establishment of a reciprocal relationship is necessary for the formation of an ideal educational environment, however, he (Buber) argues that pure balance of power is impossible due to the perceived authority of the teacher. Consequentially, this means that “…regardless of teachers’ intentions…” it is impossible to reach a true balance in the relationship between teacher and student (Sidorkin, 2000, p.5). Sidorkin highlights the need for teachers to have more authority in schools in order to facilitate the development of the student-teacher relation. He continues by exploring the difference between “authority” and “power”, authority being the ability to control the behaviour of the student and power seen as the “…ability to exercise influence over another person” (Sidorkin, 2000, p.5). Sidorkin believes teachers are without power until they have established a relationship, however, this leads to the danger of the teacher possessing too much power once the relationship is established. Sæverot (2011) warns of the dangers that this may bring and emphasises that the responsibility of protection lies with the more powerful individual in the relationship, the teacher. Sidorkin (2000, p. 5) offers a solution to this paradox through the use of Bakhtin’s concept of disassociating mutuality from equality. “Polyphony…, the principal of engaged co-existence of multiple yet unmerged voices…, a fascinating fusion of ethical and esthetical considerations applied to human relations” is the key to overcoming these relationship difficulties. This concept acknowledges the power imbalance in the student – teacher relationship but still provides for a dialogue of mutuality. If the goal of education, what the teacher is to “teach”, is that which creates “emancipated and emancipating men” (Rancière, 1991) and women, then the teacher’s task, what “a sense of teaching” is, is to write the polyphonic novel, where, according to Bakhtin, the author creates “…heroes that are fully independent of their creator” (Sidorkin, 2000, p.5). How to write a polyphonic novel Is this truly possible within the current system? Evans (2005) highlights the possibility of an escape from the current bureaucratic system of education in place at universities, not through the collapse of the systems of power but the prospect of “academic disorder” brought about through a shift by scholars away from the classic model of education and instead focusing energies elsewhere. Dunne (2013, p626), through Johnson’s interpretation of Molière’s L’Ecole des femmes, introduces the concept that “…learning takes place most rapidly in the crucible between conflicting teachers…,” that of the mimetic and that of the didactic. If this concept were to be applied to the interpretation of Adorno’s (Spatsecheck, 2010) description of education; an ongoing dialectic process between the demands of society and the emancipation of man, could it be assumed, the teacher facilitating the reproduction of the status quo to be the mimetic and the other teacher (the teacher of other) to be the didactic. Is it then in this melting pot of suspended knowledge that we begin to truly see what “a sense of teaching” is? The skills of the teacher to create an environment where the student can begin to learn to “suspend knowledge.” How does the teacher create this environment? The formation of the relationship (power of seduction) If teaching happens as a process of the student-teacher relationship, then a prerequisite to the relationship must be the formation of the relationship. Without reference to Sidorkin or Bakhtin’s concept of polyphony, Sæverot (2011, p.564), through Kierkegaard, describes how it is possible for the teacher to create the respectful relationship through a method of seduction in existential education. Sæverot describes existential education as a way to live life rather than that of requiring specific knowledge. Sæverot acknowledges objective truth, such as the biology necessary for the medical profession, as being exact knowledge. However, he sees other truths, subjective truths, entirely dependent on the individual’s perspective on the specific circumstances where he exists at a moment in time. This, for Sæverot, is Kierkegaard’s existential truth. Seduction, for Sæverot, aims to “deceive or bring” the student to the edge of truth, but it is the student that must make the existential choice and “…take the final leap into a new attitude to life…,” not the teacher’s truth but a subjective truth, “the truth that is true to me” (Sæverot [Quoting Capoto], 2011, p560), an individual perspective of the student that must always be available for critique. Nietzsche’s (1874) work shares this idea; that the individual must make the leap themselves and he warns against following the truth of another: Nobody can build the bridge for you to walk across the river of life, no one but you yourself alone. There are, to be sure, countless paths and bridges and demi-gods which would carry you across this river; but only at the cost of yourself; you would pawn yourself and lose. (Nietzsche, 1874, par.3) The choice, between taking the leap or not, in itself is empowering for the student. Sæverot highlights the influences modern pop icons can have on children and warns of the dangers the teacher faces if he was to dismiss these icons outright and offer an alternative perspective. It the teacher approached education in such a way the likelihood of students developing a defensive attitude is very strong. This, in turn, will greatly inhibit any future attempts made by the teacher to captivate the students. Instead what Sæverot (2011, P.558) suggests is for the teacher to “…not reprimand the students, take them seriously, be an attentive listener and slowly but surely add something that enriches the pupils’ present form of existence.” This seduction offers the student the gift of critical thinking, and at the same time making it seem that the student discovered it for themselves. The power of the teacher here is a secretive power and caution must be taken so that the language of seduction does not demand praise or thanks for the teacher, for if that were to happen then the seducer would be the centre of the event and the gift would be lost. The power of the aesthetic must be acknowledged in this seduction, for the aesthetic speaks to the “sensual and the emotional” rather than to the “logic and concept orientated aspects” which might need to be escaped from in order to “take the final leap” (Sæverot, 2011, pp.567, 558). Maria Montessori’s work also speaks about the aesthetic, the beauty and order of the environment and the teacher, “the most living part of the environment.” She emphasised that: All the apparatus is to be kept meticulously in order, beautiful and shining, in perfect condition. Nothing may be missing, so that to the child it always seems new, complete and ready for use. This means that the teacher also must be attractive, pleasing in appearance, tidy and clean, calm and dignified. (Montessori, 1988, p.253) Sæverot (2011, p.567) makes clear that the aesthetic is linked to the formation of the relationship where learning takes place and not to the “beholders knowledge, prior experience, mood and the like.” Conclusion What is “a sense of teaching?” There have been many concepts highlighted above, from international economic focused policy, to the teaching of ignorance, to Emancipation, and the crucible in between, where the rules of truth and lies are melted to be reformed by the critical thinker to create a cast of “what is true to me,” one that remains in the fire and is constantly reforming in the search for the other. What cements all these concepts into what a sense of teaching could look like is the quality of the relationship, a relationship of reciprocal love between the teacher and the student, a relationship of an evident power imbalance. It has been described through polyphony, how this power imbalance can be acknowledged by teacher and student, and over come through the “…principal of engaged co-existence of multiple yet unmerged voices…” (Sidorkin, 2000, p. 5). This relationship would come to be through the skills of the stealthily teacher who creates an environment by means of seduction, where the student learns to suspend knowledge until further enquiry has taken place (Sæverot, 2011). If “schooling” was to encompass what “a sense of teaching” is (a the skilled teacher capable of creating an environment that develops critical thinking, where the learner takes the leap towards a new way of thinking, one that creates emancipated and emancipating men and women capable of effecting change in the world and willing to do so.) ….and shifted to include the shifts in thinking mentioned above, then teacher and student could mutually share in this monumental paradigm shift in education. In the words of Friedrich Nietzsche: Let the youthful soul look back on life with the question: what have you truly loved up to now, what has elevated your soul, what has mastered it and at the same time delighted it? Place these venerated objects before you in a row, and perhaps they will yield for you, through their nature and their sequence, a law, the fundamental law of your true self. Compare these objects, see how one complements, expands, surpasses, transfigures another, how they form a stepladder upon which you have climbed up to yourself as you are now; for your true nature lies, not hidden deep within you, but immeasurably high above you, or at least above that which you normally take to be yourself. Your true educators and formative teachers reveal to you what the real raw material of your being is, something quite uneducable, yet in any case accessible only with difficulty, bound, paralyzed: your educators can be only your liberators. And that is the secret of all education. (Nietzsche, 1874, par. 4) References Adams, H. (1905). The education of Henry Adams. Blackmask Online. Albom, M. (1997). Tuesdays with Morrie. An old man, a young man and life’s greatest lesson. London: Time Warner Paperbacks. Burbules, N. C. & Berk, R. (1999). Critical thinking and critical pedagogy: Relation, differences, and limits. In Thomas S. Popkewitz and Lynn Fenler, (Eds.) ‘Critical theories in education’. Routledge. Burbules, N. C. & Smith, R. (2005). ‘What it makes sense to say’: Wittgenstein, rule-following and the nature of education. Jim Marshall on Wittgenstein’s Contributions to Educational Philosophy. Educational philosophy and theory, 37(3). Burstyn, J. (1996). Educating tomorrow’s valuable citizen: New directions in collaborative teaching, learning and research. DES. (2014). ‘Education for sustainability’ The national strategy on education for sustainable development in Ireland, 2014- 2020. Dublin: Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Education-Reports/National-Strategy-on-Education-for-Sustainable-Development-in-Ireland-2014-2020.pdf de Saint-Exupéry, A. (1984) Airman's odyssey. Florida: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich de Saint-Exupéry, A. (1999). The little prince. Herts: Wordsworth editions Ltd. Dewey, J. (1997). How we think. Mineola, N.Y.: Dover Publications. (Original work Published 1910) Dunne, É. (2013). Love foolosophy: Pedagogy, parable, perversion. Educational philosophy and theory, 45(6), 625–636. Evans, M. (2005). Killing thinking. London: Continuum. Freire, P. (2005). Pedagogy of the oppressed. (Translated by M. B. Ramos). New York: Continuum. Friedman, M. (1965). Martin Buber's final legacy: "The knowledge of man". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 5(1), 4-9. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/1384249.pdf?acceptTC=emotion Lovett, H. (1996). Learning to listen: Positive approaches and people with difficult behaviour. London: Jessica Kingsley. Montessori, M. (1988). The absorbent mind. The Clio Montessori series, (Translated by C. A. Claremont). Oxford: Clio Press. Nietzsche, F. (1874). Schopenhauer as Educator, in Untimely Meditations, third part. Cambridge University Press. OECD. (2013). Education indicators in focus. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/skills-beyond-school/EDIF11.pdf Peters, G. (2010). Ignorant teachers/ignorant students. In T. Claes and S. Peterson (Eds.) 'The idea of education'. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/206845/Ignorant_Teachers_Ignorant_Students_Jacotot_and_Ranciere_in_the_Art_School Peters, M. (2001). Philosophy as pedagogy 1: Wittgenstein’s styles of thinking. Radical pedagogy. Pihlgren, A. S. (2008). Socrates in the classroom. Rationales and effects of philosophizing with children. Retrieved from http://www.paideia.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Ann-Pihlgren-Dissertation.pdf Rancière, J. (1991). The ignorant schoolmaster: Five lessons in intellectual emancipation. (K. Ross, Trans) Stanford CT: Stanford University Press. (Original work published 1987) Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking. Teachers college record, 104(4), 842-866. Schön, D. (1991). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Aldershot: Arena, Ashgate. Sidorkin, A. M. (2000). Toward a pedagogy of relation. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.ric.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&context=facultypublications Skjærvø, P. O. (2005) Introduction to Zoroastrianism. Retrieved from http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~iranian/Zoroastrianism/Zoroastrianism1_Intro.pdf Sorkin, D. (1983). Wilhelm von Humboldt: The theory and practice of self-formation (Bildung), 1791-1810. Journal of the history of ideas, 44(1), 55-73. Retrieved form http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2709304.pdf?acceptTC=true Spatscheck, C. (2010). Theodor W. Adorno on education. The encyclopaedia of informal education. Retrieved from www.infed.org/thinkers/adorno_on_education.htm on 12/01/15 Stamp, R (2013). Of slumdogs and schoolmasters: Jacotot, Rancière and Mitra on self-organised learning Winans, A. E. (2006). Queering pedagogy in the English classroom: Engaging with the places where thinking stops. Zembylas, M. (2007). A politics of passion in education: The Foucauldian Legacy. Open University of Cyprus. pg. 16