Teach Without Teaching, Learn by Creating: A Collection of Essays on Educational Philosophy from Yunnan University

Author: Wu Song, Editor-in-Chief
Publisher:
Publishing Date: 2006-11-01
Features: "Teaching for teaching not to teach, learning for creation" as a teaching philosophy should be relatively clear and understandable. However, not everyone can understand it. Therefore, it is necessary to explain and interpret the meaning of this concept. This interpretation can be carried out from the perspective of pedagogy or from the philosophical perspective. Broadly speaking, pedagogical interpretation refers to the process of imparting knowledge and skills to students. In the eyes of many, this has long been a natural and unalterable principle. However, essentially, imparting knowledge and skills is merely a carrier and external manifestation. In educational activities, whether it is the overall educational activity of humanity or the specific educational activity in schools, the purpose of teaching is not merely to impart knowledge and skills, but to move towards teaching not to teach and towards creation. In the overall educational activity of humanity, the purpose of teaching is to cultivate a new generation of people, to promote the growth, progress, and creation of the new generation, otherwise, humanity would have no way to achieve development. In the specific teaching activities of schools, each stage of teaching is merely a new starting point and process for the development of students' human nature. Each stage of teaching is aimed at helping students move towards new, higher stages of teaching, until finally stepping onto the platform of creation. If every stage or every teacher's teaching is teaching for teaching, and every student's learning is learning for learning, then such teaching would not only be endless but also meaningless. Specifically, in school education, in addition to the common points of enlightening wisdom, tempering character, and shaping human nature, there are many differences in teaching between universities and primary and secondary schools. The teaching of primary and secondary schools can focus on the imparting of knowledge and skills, with the aim of laying a foundation for students to enter higher stages of learning. The main task of university teaching is to inherit methods, explore the unknown, and cultivate innovation, laying a foundation for students' creation. If "transmitting the way, imparting knowledge, and resolving doubts" is a common task of all school education, then primary and secondary education can be biased towards imparting knowledge and resolving doubts, while university education should primarily focus on the level of "seeking the way." Universities are indeed temples of knowledge, but the main task of university students in this temple is not to acquire knowledge unilaterally, but to interpret the essence of knowledge, examine the truth or falsehood of knowledge, master the theory and methods of acquiring, applying, and innovating knowledge. In universities, it is better for teachers to teach people how to fish than to teach them fish, and for students to be taught fish rather than to learn how to fish. If general teaching-oriented universities still regard knowledge inheritance as the main task of teaching, then universities like Yunnan University, as national key universities and "Project 211" institutions, cannot avoid the heavy responsibility of innovation on the basis of inheritance. Since its establishment, Yunnan University has adhered to the educational aim of "promoting East Asian culture, researching Western academic achievements, cultivating specialized talents, and spreading the truth of justice and righteousness." After more than 80 years of development, Yunnan University has not only shaped and demonstrated the spirit of "uniting all schools of thought and being impartial to the world," but has also become a high-level comprehensive university and has clearly defined its future development goal of building a research-oriented university. As a research-teaching university, from the perspective of talent cultivation, it is obviously inappropriate to adopt adaptive teaching that primarily imparts knowledge, and it should advocate innovative research-oriented teaching that focuses on cultivating innovative spirit and innovation ability. Only in this way can innovative talents be cultivated and an innovative university be built. In this sense, the teaching philosophy of "teaching for teaching not to teach, learning for creation" is not only in line with the educational aim Yunnan University established when it was founded, but also the school's current positioning and future development goals, while also being an embodiment of the Yunnan University spirit of "uniting all schools of thought and being impartial to the world" in teaching. Therefore, establishing and practicing the teaching philosophy of "teaching for teaching not to teach, learning for creation" in teaching simply means that we are establishing and practicing such a teaching concept: the essence of teaching lies in nurturing people, and the core of learning lies in self-cultivation. The focus of teacher education is on "nurturing," and the focus of student learning is on "practicing." Confucius said, "Learn and practice in time." Here, "practice" clearly goes far beyond the usual interpretation of previewing, reviewing, or even internship. It should also, or mainly, include the meanings of putting into practice, cultivating character, nurturing temperament, immersing oneself, and tempering oneself. Based on this, the essence of our university teaching should be: teaching to nurture, learning to practice, with an emphasis on cultivation, and the value lies in creation. This is my interpretation of the teaching philosophy of "teaching for teaching not to teach, learning for creation" from an educational perspective. Philosophical Analysis If the teaching activity can only achieve one-dimensional cultural and knowledge transmission from "teaching" to "learning," then this teaching method must have a logical premise: that "teaching" is the inevitable subject of this activity, while "learning" is passive, or even ignorant. The establishment of this subject-object dual relationship implies another more important logical premise: that even if "teaching" does not claim to, it is already a symbol of "correct" and "reliable" thoughts and knowledge sources. From the perspective of the development of human thought and knowledge, humanity has had a dream of an absolute "correct" and "reliable" subjectivity. That absolute subjectivity is the symbol of the divine or the pre-existing entity of divinity. Under this powerful educational logic, teachers become agents and masters of cultural inheritance, the "transmitters of the way, imparters of knowledge, and solvers of doubts," while students, as the recipients of education, seem to be nothing more than those who are enlightened or educated. The establishment of this obviously different dual role of "teaching" and "learning" in educational activities obstructs the realization of the true value of education and becomes a sign of the decline of authentic education in the process of civilization. In the past, from the educational activities of Confucius, where emotions and reason were intertwined, to the educational activities of Socrates and Plato, where they discussed and polished like cutting and polishing jade, we could feel the relationship between virtue and wisdom, and we could feel the humility and courage of teachers and students exploring the unknown together. Bertrand Russell said, "In Plato's dialogues, Socrates consistently maintained that he knew nothing, and that his superiority over others lay only in knowing that he knew nothing. But he did not believe that knowledge was unattainable." (A History of Western Philosophy, Volume 1, Commercial Press, September 1963, First Edition, March 1980, 8th Printing, p. 128) In fact, in authentic teaching, let alone broader educational activities, the imparting of knowledge through "teaching" and "learning" are not the fundamental goals, let alone the fundamental means of education. In my view, whether it is teaching or learning, they are merely starting points or processes for enlightening wisdom, cultivating thought, and discerning knowledge. This starting point or process transcends any knowledge framework because it has a purposeless purpose—reflecting on the known and exploring the unknown. In ancient Greece, knowledge was virtue, that was the era when knowledge emerged, was constructed, and gathered strength; while in the era of knowledge explosion, many knowledge has become an obstacle for natural people to transform into people with genuine value pursuits. Knowledge shapes people, therefore, knowledge can shape people's minds and transform their souls. However, unfortunately, knowledge can be virtue, or it can be an incorrect statement proven to be wrong. Any knowledge framework wants to obtain its lasting and stable influence through self-consistent means because it creates the mind of the inheritors, making them believe it is true. Essentially, the simultaneous skepticism and exploration of specific issues by teachers and students is the foundation of teaching and learning. Without this foundation, human minds may be constrained by knowledge and become alienated. The earliest prototype of higher education institutions—Plato's Academy—reflected this essence in its educational philosophy and methods, and these methods came from Socrates, Plato's teacher, more accurately, from the common sense of that era. Karl Jaspers said, "Teachers inspire students to have a sense of responsibility for exploring and seeking knowledge, and strengthen this sense of responsibility. This is Socrates' 'midwifery' educational principle. That is, to awaken students' potential, to prompt students to generate an internal, self-generated force, rather than to impose external pressure. This is not to develop students' special talents that appear by chance and through temporary experience, but to make students seek their own endless process in exploration. Socrates' teachers consistently opposed being the greatest suppliers of students; teachers should shift students' attention from themselves to themselves, while teachers themselves retreat to the position of hinting. There is only a friendly debate between teachers and students, without submission or dependence. Teachers have self-awareness and ask students to distinguish between God and the world." (What is Education, Life·Reading·New Sanlian Bookstore, March 1991, First Edition, p. 8) From a formal perspective, "teaching" and "learning" seem to be the purpose, but in essence, this is a misconception about judging educational activities. What we mean by "teaching for teaching not to teach; learning for creation" is to demonstrate such a teaching concept: "teaching" and "learning" are merely starting points or processes, and within this starting point or process, there is the purpose of creation. The value orientation and goal orientation are creation, and creation itself is also a starting point or process. Essentially, the starting point and process of teaching and learning should at all times reflect the exploration of truth on the premise that teachers and students are equal and maintain individual independence and autonomy. Without this premise, not only will students' creativity be obscured by the ever-expanding knowledge, but teachers' creativity will also be difficult to develop and flourish in the tempering of thoughts and problems. Of course, in all human teaching and educational activities, the logical construction of knowledge has become an irresistible rationality. Under this ever-expanding rationality of knowledge, people are becoming increasingly insignificant. Civilization has recreated people, but also alienated them. In the era of young Karl Marx, the spirit and knowledge of humanity were still in the stage, but young Marx had already felt the sorrow brought by "alienated labor" to human existence. Here, we should extend this judgment of "alienated labor" from the worker labor Marx spoke of to all fields of knowledge, science, and spiritual creation so that we can better reflect on the situation of people facing their own creations in civilization in educational activities. Schools are directly facing this situation, and teachers and students are the ones who are constantly facing choices in this situation. In contemporary educational activities, pure rational values are gradually being instrumentalized, and knowledge education is squeezing spiritual education. However, the true purpose of education is to realize the transformation and growth of natural people into spiritual subjects who are good, grateful, and lofty. As university administrators, our task is to promote students' transformation and growth, and to reduce as much as possible the alienation of civilization and knowledge from people, that is, to reduce "alienated labor" in teaching. "Teaching" and "learning" are broad categories, and so is creation. Teachers are both on the side of "teaching" and on the side of "learning"; students are both on the side of "learning" and on the side of "teaching." These two categories are included in the human essence mentioned in "Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844." Marx said, "The essence of humans is free and conscious activity, that is, labor." Knowledge creation also belongs to the essence of humans, and it is also the core value in the essence of humans. However, "alienated labor" in educational activities also turns this essence into an alienated essence. It is very common for the labor of spiritual creation to become "alienated labor," so the realization of authentic educational activities is a very difficult value presupposition and choice. This may be a kind of destiny, and it is also a kind of limitation in the history of human creation and recreation of knowledge and spiritual history. When we explain the teaching philosophy of "teaching for teaching not to teach, learning for creation," we must also point out that reliable knowledge creation and spiritual creation are merely apparent goals, not ultimate goals. The ultimate goal of creation is a repeated approach, reflection, and manifestation of the connotation of human essence. It is precisely at this moment that we reflect on science, knowledge, and the spirit, constantly realizing the fullness and liberation of human minds and intellects, so that people can "poetically inhabit" the earth, showing a great purposeless purposefulness. From this perspective, the presupposition of truth and any logical deduction about truth also need reflection. Our educational and educational management activities should be designed around this creative purpose. Only in this way can the purpose and value of creation be truly realized. In conclusion, from a speculative perspective, in the educational and teaching activities of schools, whether between "teaching" and "learning" or between management and teaching, we must prevent dualistic oppositional relationships and prevent one side from presupposing a "truth" premise as a measure for the other. Of course, facts and theories are often difficult to reconcile. In the 18th century, the French Enlightenment philosopher Condorcet, in his famous "General Outline of the History of the Progress of the Human Mind," divided the history of the human mind into ten eras, and in the description of one of these eras—"humanity forming into tribes"—Condorcet pointed out that "in this era, we can observe certain initial signs of a system that have both positive and negative effects on the progress of the era: they are accelerating the progress of knowledge while at the same time spreading errors; they are enriching science with new truths while plunging people into ignorance and the servitude of religion." Condorcet then pointed out that at this time, people had already formed a "class,"ing scientific principles, technological methods, religious secrets and rituals, as well as legislative and political mysteries. As a result, humanity was divided into two parts: "one part was destined to teach others, and the other was created to accept belief; one part arrogantly hid what they claimed to know, while the other respectfully accepted what others were too disdainful to reveal; one part wanted to place themselves above reason, while the other humbly abandoned their reason and lowered themselves to a position below human dignity, acknowledging that others had privileges over their common nature." (Condorcet's words are quoted from "General Outline of the History of the Progress of the Human Mind," Life·Reading·New Sanlian Bookstore, May 1998, Beijing, First Edition, p. 15) Therefore, our teachers and administrators today must have such an aspiration: to prevent the division of people in education and academic power. At the same time, we must constantly reflect on ourselves, and we must use our own practical actions to inspire teachers, students, and administrators, as well as people inside and outside the academy, to regain lost self-esteem and endowments, and to jointly create a better future for education and life. From the perspective of the logic of thinking and the completeness of the article, the interpretation of the teaching philosophy of "teaching for teaching not to teach, learning for creation" should not only have theoretical analysis but also practical elaboration, that is, the design of a talent cultivation model that is compatible with this philosophy. Therefore, in addition to "pedagogical interpretation" and "philosophical analysis," this article should also have a third part, "model design." However, due to reasons such as time, energy, and newspaper page space, the "model design" can only be discussed in a separate article.