I have been, as periodically, too busy to post on some issues
that are of great interest. One of these has been the discussion
of expert-novice 'dominance' relations. It occurs to me to ask
what the stance of the novices is in these relations? do they
seek to resist the dominance of the expert, or accept/prefer this
relationship so long as they are learning what they want to
learn?
I have often found, particularly with students, that many of them
resent efforts at collaboration between an expert and themselves
as novices. They find such collaboration phoney, both in the
sense that it may mask other sorts of power invested in the
expert (beyond just knowledge), and in the sense that they
believe that responsibility for guiding learning _ought_ to
reside with the expert, because that is what works best.
We can say that in some ways such novices may either lack
alternative models, or just be too lazy to take responsibility
for their learning, or for an equal share of the dyad's agenda,
but I think it is dangerous to set aside (or dismiss as
acquiescence in authoritarian social models) what seems to be the
experience of many people and their preferences. I think we need
to be just as critical in asking why we seem to prefer or assume
the superiority of more egalitarian or symmetrical models of
learning relationships. Cross-culturally, as well, there are many
other cases of strongly asymmetrical power or initiative in
expert-novice learning. I think there is also considerable
evidence that it works pretty well, while it is much more dubious
how well more power-symmetric novice-expert learning works.
I personally believe that there is a somewhat pathological
inability in many middle-class intellectuals of the most recent
few generations in the West, and especially in the U.S., to
accept the responsibility of power in teaching relationships,
partly perhaps because of the failure of previous certainties
about the wisdom of tradition, and partly because of justifiable
suspicions about the abuse of power.
I am sympathetic to novices who like power to be visible rather
than deniable, and whose experience has shown them that they
often simply do not know where to begin, how to proceed, or what
questions need to be asked when learning in a new field. They
believe, rightly, that much of the initiative and control of
learning should be left to the expert. They ask only to retain a
reserved right to question or ask for a shift in emphasis,
pacing, or direction, when the expert's choices seem definitely
to be missing the mark for them.
There are also 'novices' and 'novices'. As several people have
pointed out, expertise is a construction and very much context-
dependent. Any expertise consists of multiple components, and
some of these, the less task-specific ones, can be shared with
some kinds of novices. Anyone, for instance, who has already
studied a number of foreign languages, no matter how much a
novice at some new one, shares part of the expertise of many
language teachers, and may even be the expert in these aspects,
compared to a monolingual or even bilingual native-speaker
'informant'. In fact an interesting sort of doubly asymmetric
case to study is that of the ethnographer and informant, or
linguist and informant, and the various less extreme cases where
one partner has more relevant expertise in one aspect of a task,
the other in another. These are of course also most clearly the
sorts of cases where other power factors may determine whose
expertise is more valued.
I certainly agree, however, that for people who want, in some
circumstances, to try other models, useful alternative models
need to be made available, and sometimes are lacking. I am not
particularly sanguine about the symmetric no-expert model (a last
resort, and sometimes better than going it alone: the 'blind
leading the blind', vs. 'two heads are better than one' -- as
folk wisdom shows, both cases occur), but the Wiz model is very
interesting.
I am thinking now not specifically of the Fifth Dimension, but of
the general cultural strategy its 'Wiz' deploys. Popular culture
for younger people for some time now and very intensely lately,
has developed a sort of cult archetype of the sneaky, semi-
fallible, good-humored Wizard who plays a deus-ex-machina role,
changing apparent inevitabilities, altering the rules of the
game, in a playful, well-intentioned, but not always convenient
way. This is power that is used responsibly for the most part,
but freed from responsibility. Not a teacher, not a King, not
even a warrior-priest, but a variant of the wise Fool. Not a
resource you can count on (which would weaken you), but a
possible resort that might help (i.e. a hope).
I can well imagine this sort of archetype being the basis for
many intelligent tutoring programs of the not-too-far future. A
sort of second-level help. The primary tutor is the expert who
leads, provides information, gently tests. The learner has
considerable control over pacing, direction, and depth in topic.
And when the learner gets stuck, and the primary tutor's help is
not wanted or not available, or when things get dull, or when the
wisdom of the program deems it desirable to toss in a little
serendipity/playfulness/unexpected divergence, we have the Wiz
ready to play his/her part.
Teachers/tutors are perhaps in our culture parental authority
figures, while the Wiz is the grandparent/godparent (fairy
Godmothers are our archetypal female variant) alternative. In a
child's real world there are often older adult figures who are
not power figures, but who have something special to offer: a
different sort of knowledge, experience, point-of-view. Their
wisdom is optional, not required; fascinating, not dominating.
Perhaps rather than trying to replace the expert-teacher role
with something less authoritative, the contextual change that is
needed is to add some Wizards and Fairy Godmothers to the
educational environment of all learners. I'd vote for it!
JAY.
JAY LEMKE.
City University of New York.
BITNET: JLLBC who-is-at CUNYVM
INTERNET: JLLBC who-is-at CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU