I would say that rather than 'ensuring' learning, he's there to facilitate learning. Now, I imagine that the next riposte would be, “But by refraining from hostile argumentation, he'll be facilitating learning!” given what you appear to be outlining.

I think that the problem with the professor in question (who I watched on more than one occasion) was that he had a fundamental disrespect for his students. I mentioned that he was an annoying man; here's what annoyed me the most: on the overhead projector, he wrote almost everything he said, even the goofiest side comments — in sentences, even — every step of the way, rather than write only bulleted lists or key info. He would spend much of his time writing nearly everything that came out of his mouth, from the belief, it appeared, that his students who would be taking these notes would be copying everything he wrote, or his every word. Now, I was always several steps ahead of him, thinking, Get on with it!, while he scrawled out sentences. (Imagine me telling you this rather than writing it here, but also writing this post while telling you, hoping you'd copy all these words as your notes. Now imagine the time it would take for me to write each of these sentences right after I've said them — writing each before I spoke the next sentence. Then you'll have a pretty good image of what I mean by 'annoying.') And, I suppose some of his students were actually dolts and he may have been right that they'd not take good notes nor remember what he was saying if he didn't encourage such extensive, sentence-by-sentence note taking.

I'm not arguing that pure, unadulterated hostility every moment of a class would be a good thing, far from it. In the first place, I think that a professor who really understands his field and has a love of teaching/learning it will not lash out at every unusual or confrontational comment given by a student; rather, he'll notice the new but valid angle or else what key information the student is lacking. The most hostile teachers will be those who are the least competent in their fields — or maybe also those so far above their students that communicating with them is actually difficult work; too many intervening steps or gaps between student and teach, then, unless the professor has phenomenal patience and cares a bit more about teaching than his field.

But baby-stepping students, treating them tenderly for the sake of tenderness or else to try to 'ensure' learning or to avoid 'shutting them off' — as if, of course, such direct mind-to-mind control is possible — is treating them with disrespect. The professor may believe he his making them better students, but he's really disempowering them. If the student is 'shut off,' then the student will miss out, true; but his own mind is his own responsibility, not the teacher's. Of course, if I were to teach a course, I'd first outline this approach from the beginning, to let the students know what to expect.

BTW, I disagree that the reaction is 'a human reaction' that can only be trained away after countless hours of 'purposeful practice' — rather, I disagree that this is therefore justification for not requiring that practice, or of gaining that kind of control over one's own cognitive processes.

And there are other natural 'human reactions' that compete with this reaction, as well.

This is just bad teaching practice. The professor, as you describe him, was not maximizing his student's comprehension at all.

Consider my earlier notes on Biggs (1999) [1]:

“Sustained and unchanging low-level activity lowers concentration. Sitting listening to a lecture is such an activity. Yet it requires concentrated effort to follow lecture content….

The attention span of students under these [lecture] conditions can be sustained for about 10 to 15 minutes, after which learning drops off rapidly… A short rest period, or simply a change in activity, after about 15 minutes leads to a restoration of performance almost to the original level.”

The teaching you describe is one who is merely “facilitating” learning, to use your phrase, instead of “ensuring learning.”

“a professor who really understands his field and has a love of teaching/learning “

Why are you assuming these two qualities go together, especially if you only want professors to be able to facilitate (not ensure) learning?

Why should a professor take any less care for his student's minds than a 4G or 5G warrior does?

Because he's not trying to destroy them or supplant them or use them …? But I wonder if a distinction between 4G and 5G should be made; that one works by disempowering cognition (in an obvious manner) while the other works by empowering it (or at least by making them think they have been empowered to think on their own). That's an interesting question you ask, Dan, and it is one that is odd to consider while considering whether a professor should take a hostile approach!

“The teaching you describe is one who is merely 'facilitating' learning, to use your phrase, instead of 'ensuring learning.' “

I don't know that dull repetition is facilitation. If the student has learned from the first mention of an idea, then repetition of it via this professor's approach (writing it down) may be more like throwing water onto a dirt path: creating mud and slowing progress. Thinking of it this way, this teacher's role seems 4G to me.

If a professor isn't trying to use his students to help their comprehension, then he's some radical Behaviorist who I wouldn't want to take a class from! Of course yu should use your students to help them understand.

In a way, education if a form of cognitive domain-specific take-over, or a form of subversion. You change how they think about something in order to change their actions in some way. If a student leaves a class “unschooled,” then that “education” has been a waste.

“That's an interesting question you ask, Dan, and it is one that is odd to consider while considering whether a professor should take a hostile approach!”

Not at all – unless you believe a SysAdmin should be “hostile” to the population it serves!

“I don't know that dull repetition is facilitation. “

As I understood your use, “facilitation” meant minimal-effort and “ensuring” meant maximal-effort. You implied that proffors should facilitate, and not ensure, learning, because the onus of effort should not be on the professor.

Perhaps I misunderstood your use of these terms?

Another problem may be in the way 'hostility' is interpreted. This professor sought to do exactly what you imply; the girl had already thought he was hostile to her religion, merely because he didn't give her a good grade for her 'Christian' understanding of rainbows. So he minced words and, worse, minced understanding, in order to appear non-hostile.

There is this other thing I think I read behind your words: that because 'we wish' to educate, the burden is more on the professor than the student. I think that the professor's primary burden should be competency — knowing his field and being able to express what he knows — and that last part would mean, also, expressing it in a way that will not mince understanding. Being able to think horizontally and comparatively requires understanding the fundamental distinctions between things, and conflict can be very good for that. I do not believe the professor's primary burden is ensuring learning, but in providing the info and insight into his field; rather, the burden of learning is on the student.

“The fact that they cannot view legitimacy or its lack regardless of the [emotive?] manner in which an argument is given is the real problem.”

The problem is not that we can't, but we don't. It's a human reaction. I'm sure it's possible to train away from it, and become expert at a better style after only a few thousands or tens of thousands of hours of purposeful practice

“There is this other thing I think I read behind your words: that because 'we wish' to educate, the burden is more on the professor than the student.”

Well, I do think that the professor should be able to not just express what he knows — if that was the case, article writing is the entirety of education — but to be able to make his students understand his field. Saying that one species-typical understanding (the anxiety reaction to hostile commentary) is not a fair measure of this is an insensible as saying any other (the inability to hear hyper-acoustics, for instance) is not a fair measure.

“Being able to think horizontally and comparatively requires understanding the fundamental distinctions between things, and conflict can be very good for that.”

Yes, I agree exactly. If you don't care about making them agree, but just want them to be able to argue it ably, conflict is a fine way to go. And I don't mean this facetiously.

“I do not believe the professor's primary burden is ensuring learning, but in providing the info and insight into his field; rather, the burden of learning is on the student.”

So then what is he there for?

I think a good argument can be made that Universities should be academic tech schools — get them to read & write journal articles ably. But is this what you mean?

I do not much like the notion that professors should coddle their students or refrain from hostile responses, at the university level at least. The students are there to advance themselves, to learn, to seek an education; the professors are not there to spoon-feed it. If the student cares more about some idiosyncratic belief system, or about 'feelings', etc., the student should forgo higher education or at least find an education more suited to his purposes: like, a seminary school or ecclesiastical education.

Not all the burden lies on the student's shoulders, of course; but an accomplished professor should have less reason to mince words and positions (and understanding!) than this professor. It was obvious that he lacked self-confidence, particularly given the fact that this area of Missouri is quite conservative, in the neo-right Christian-right sense, and he no doubt feared some sort of reprisal. Or perhaps the reprisal would have been motivated by economics, and the desire of university systems to make money: as the customer is always right, so too the student paying the cash.

I agree completely that professors shouldn't be worried about “self-esteem” or similar etheral, useless concepts.

However, a combative stance does not necessarily educate in a way we wish. People pay more attention during hostile arguments, and remember more, but are less likely to view arguments prented this way as legitimate. So, if you don't get a room of broughbeaten students, or a room of students who learned that dullness is the best way to avoid confrontation, you get students who remember your argument and believe it is worthless.

An accomplished professor should be in command of his words. Professing is a form of public speaker that is closer to acting than chatting.

(I'll leave aside the issue of a physics professor opining on comparative epistomology )

Of all the times I have seen professors respond t comment, it seems that about 50% the responses are hostile and 40% are useless. Really, the only purpose of doing this is to improve the student's metacognition — in other words, to respond with a view on what teaching and learning strategies are used, and why. Hostile responses serve to shut-down student feedback, which may be preferable to thin-skinned professors but cuts them off from a source of feedback.

The unlearned conflation of physics and metaphysics is interesting. I wonder how common it is?