ANST - Big fish/small ponds, classes, and disgusted newcomers

[Mike C. Baker]

> From: Casey&Coni <weed at sage.net>
> Subj:Re:ANST - Big fish/small ponds, classes, and ...
> Kihe Blackeagle wrote one of the most lucid and pertinent
> responses I've seen on the net to date...

Am I allowed one small moment of blushing, or at least
appreciation. Ya didn't have to, ya really didn't.
 
> He did scan me incorrectly at a few junctures, however... to wit:

Arrgh.  I was a little fearful of that.  I've got to get to more
events, I really do (just remember that I'll be introducing 
myself as Amra). Helps to know my correspondents in 
advance...
 
> While I agree with much of the sentiment here, I must
> say that with a safeguard of three of them in one place
> reviewing the material there is little or no chance that
> you will get all three with no academic acuity.

I think one of the keys that would make such a panel more 
likely to succeed would be adopting one of the other 
suggestions -- not all of the members from the same 
area / household / specialty(ies).

Still not sold that we _need_ such a system, but perhaps some 
type of rating system isn't such a bad idea either. Keep it 
voluntary to make it stronger, make it an additional entry in the 
course catalog for an event -- could make for a nice extra. We'll 
come back to this later...

> You don't have to *be* a teacher to know good teaching
> when you see it 

Yes I thoroughly agree.

> since undeniably these people's duty in the sca is to judge
> just that in another forum, I think it follows that it would be 
> valid here as well.  I am not asking peers to be the "expert"
> measure; rather, I am simply asking them
> to be competent judges of quality and instructional ability.  

Some people are excellent at the act of creation, and still not
very good as judges -- or at least at expressing themselves 
constructively when asked to function as judges.  Also, when 
faced with radically differing conclusions from their own I've 
seen all too many people reject negatively out of hand.

> You continue:
> > (We also have far too many Peer-wannabee types who have
> > set themselves up as local "authorities" on the
> > basis of titles and proven their incompetence
> > by opening their mouths.  I pray that I do not appear as one 
> > that I will never descend to such a level.) of these, and
> You have struck on the nerve that got me going on this
> rant in the first place.  You have nothing in common with the
> folk you speak of, sir. 

Dieterich, unless you have been speaking to people who 
know me and have seen me teach / lead discussions, I'd 
rather you not draw that conclusion until you have seen 
that I can produce.  (Errr, I don't _think_ you've been in 
one of my class audiences yet -- and on-line doesn't count
for anything more than on-line...)  I appreciate the 
confidence, of course, but I'd rather not present myself 
as something I may not be even inadvertently.

> Of course, we're debating issues which are not marshal in
> nature, so am I really qualified to judge? ;P

By your own logic, yes, actually.  What are we doing in 
this exchange if it is not a form of teaching, an academic 
debate? We're "judges of quality and instructional ability" -- 
in a far more unstructured manner than the proposed 
review panel, perhaps...
 
> >Datum:  this vetting procedure really does not encourage
> > research into "fringe" matters, or topics which may
> > have distinctly (sometimes vehemently)
> > differing opinions / fact-sets, or classes which are really
> > outlines for participatory discussion.
> If the judges duty were simply to insure preparedness,
> valid research, and a semblance of 'teacher fu', I don't
> see how this is so.  

Therein lies the critical consideration.  So long as the process is
limited to these points, there is no need to drive beyond to 
peerage-level members of the review panel.  
 
> Okay, here is where my method admittedly breaks down.  
> Concerning professionals, I think either an exemption clause
> or an annotated remark in the course listing is in order.
> (*class will be presented by Dr. Henry Snockbottom, noted
> archeological expert on ear spoons in Byzantium and
> curator of the Hagia Sophia Ear Spoon Honorarium Collection).

A notation I would hope to find given in any extent! Now, about
those narfing irons and gorfim trimmers... 
(Narfing Irons & Gorfim Trimmers = herald humor -- ask Daniel
"Watch This Space" de Lincolia for the background)
 
> As for the small groups... maybe another similar listing in 
> the course book:
> 1. != fully checked out class; given before and passed 'official'
> stamping process.
> 2. @=class given before but not yet had the super duper stamp 
> of spiffiness.
> 3. ?=class being given for the first time and not yet checked 
> out for spiffability.

A "spiffy-rating"? I like it, and so would some other people I can
think of. Suitably warped for most purposes.

I'd probably twiddle with your categories.  I think that any such
system would work best / be most effective in an ongoing structure 
such as RUM, RUSH, or another on-going voluntary academic 
structure.  
 
> A system for ease of the students, that's what I'm after.

YES! We agree that could be the benefit.  The discrepancy is
whether or not the SCA (at least in Ansteorra) needs or would 
accept such a system. 
 
> You spoke of a terrible class you recieved from someone who 
> was later elevated... and what I'm suggesting here is that even 
> our own peers seek to validate their classes to avoid this; 
> perhaps even twice the requirements of a non-peer (and none 
> from your own area!) to avoid any back-patting ideas.
> Will it work?  I dunno, what do you think?

That would be up to the peers to respond to.  On a voluntary basis,
how many established Knights or Laurels would accept the concept? 

Part of the ultimate concern might become what would happen if a
course (or at least the presenter for a course) were _not_
acceptably
spiffy?  We've not got all that many who appear willing to attempt 
teaching as it is -- we can't afford to lose even one if there is
any 
hope of correcting their materials, technique, or research. What 
remediation could be put into play in a non-threatening way such 
that we would not drive off anyone?
 
> Any of you laurel teacher-fu types out there wanna comment 
> on this?  You've been surprisingly quiet and I fear a lynch party

> is gathering for me...

Put it this way -- I ain't leading it from the non-peer side of the
equation. I ain't following anybody else, either. We're just having

a nice chat and proposing new alternatives. Send the lynch party 
my direction first: I know a few archers, siege engineers, bards, 
artisans, fighters, and such...

I will continue to raise concerns as I see them and offer solutions
if they occur to me. I'll adapt and adopt that later philosopher's 
position as well: every one of us has every right to speak their
mind.

The corollary being, of course, that those who open their mouths
and leave no doubt as to their ability can always be laughed at 
under the same rules.  (It helps to remember that we are really 
laughing at ourselves when we do so...)
 
> signed,
> ummm... Hanse Schneider

<gryn> "Awright, ya bum -- Hanse up!"

Mike C. Baker
SCA: Amr ibn Majid al-Bakri al-Amra (Steppes, Ansteorra)
"Other": Kihe Blackeagle (the Dreamsinger Bard)
My opinions are my own -- who else would want them?
e-mail: kihe at ticnet.com OR kihe at rocketmail.com


============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.