Mary Warnock has discussed the pedagogical argument
In this book chapter, Mary Warnock has discussed the pedagogical argument and given her opinion on knowledge and teachers’ neutrality as they interact and teach their students. She states that there are advocates for teachers’ neutrality based on two major grounds. However, their two grounds of arguments are not totally distinct. The first argument states that teachers should be neutral to avoid converting teaching into indoctrination. According to Warnock, indoctrination is that kind of teaching whereby the teacher imposes on her pupils the body of doctrines that he holds. A pupil trusts and accepts everything he or she is being taught by the teacher, whether right or wrong.
The second argument for the advocates of neutral teaching is that children should learn through discovering by being allowed to experiment and to make trials and errors. After that, they can create genuine arguments based on their observations without relying on teachers‘ opinions. She, however, states that there are situations whereby teacher neutrality may not apply when teaching; for instance, when teaching to ride a bicycle or a car. The biggest objective of teaching how to do things is to get learners to know exactly how that thin should be done. Therefore, there may be no room for being neutral.
In her opinion, Warnock concludes that a teacher has an obligation of not being neutral if he has to pass knowledge to his learners. She says that teachers’ non-neutrality is necessary because of some evaluative judgments and the nature of morality. Considering age, a teacher can be younger than his or her learners. However, a teacher will always be superior to his learners in a teaching environment. The moment a teacher tries to be neutral, he will obviously fail in his teaching. My question is, when should learners argue their points without depending on their teachers?