Humility, Listening and ‘Teaching in a Strong Sense’

My argument in this paper is that humility is implied in the concept of teaching, if teaching is construed in a strong sense. Teaching in a strong sense is a view of teaching as linked to students’ embodied experiences (including cognitive and moral-social dimensions), in particular students’ experiences of limitation, whereas a weak sense of teaching refers to teaching as narrowly focused on student cognitive development. In addition to detailing the relation between humility and strong sense teaching, I will also argue that humility is acquired through the practice of teaching. My discussion connects to the growing interest, especially in virtue epistemology discourse, in the idea that teachers should educate for virtues. Drawing upon John Dewey and contemporary virtue epistemology discourse, I discuss humility, paying particular attention to an overlooked aspect of humility that I refer to as the educative dimension of humility. I then connect this concept of humility to the notion of teaching in a strong sense. In the final section, I discuss how humility in teaching is learned in the practice of teaching by listening to students in particular ways. In addition, I make connections between my concept of teaching and the practice of cultivating students’ virtues. I conclude with a critique of common practices of evaluating good teaching, which I situate within the context of international educational policy on teacher evaluation

Who Are the Stakeholders in Environmental Risk Decisions - How Should They Be Involved

[Excerpt] In the United States, as in other countries, public participation in environmental policy decisions has come a long way. In its infancy, it was limited to public hearings concerning decisions that were, for all practical purposes, done deals. Overturning public agency decisions could be accomplished only through expensive, often protracted, usually futile court cases, and then only if the issue was justiciable and the plaintiff had the funds and standing to sue. In recent decades - especially since the 1960s - opportunities for public participation in the U.S. have been overhauled. Access to documents has been assured through federal and state freedom of information acts. The public may be asked to help - scope the issue at hand (i.e., determine its salient features) early in the decision-making process. Informal question and answer sessions often supplement the formal, one-way testimony of public hearings. No longer are decisions typically made behind closed doors. Public comments usually are documented and accompanied by written responses from the decision-making agency. Administrative reviews of decisions are often a first recourse, before bringing suit. And, standing to sue is more broadly interpreted. But public participation has two inherent deficiencies. First, it fails to differentiate among members of the public. Second, it preserves an us/them distinction between the decision-making agency and citizens. As a remedy, stakeholder involvement - which does differentiate among citizens and does help to lower us/them barriers - is an increasingly popular supplement to conventional public participation, especially on controversial issues involving environmental risks