Opinion
Ayo Banjo Belongs In The Hall Of Fame
Published
7 months agoon
By Ifeanyi Igwebike Mbanefo
Ayodeji Ladipo Banjo, Emeritus Professor of English Language who passed on recently belongs in Nigeria’s Hall of Fame.
A gifted teacher and excellent administrator, Banjo raised thousands of eminent persons for Nigeria.
Oyewale Tomori, Emeritus professor of virology, former President of Nigerian Academy of Science and chair of West Africa National Academy of Scientists once told this anecdote about Banjo.
Shortly after graduation from University of California, Los Angeles, Banjo was posted to Government College, Ughelli as English teacher, replacing an expatriate.
Tomori and other students were nonplussed with the stringent attitude of their new teacher who was also stingy with marks. It was hard for them to comprehend why it was difficult to impress this young Nigerian; their former teacher, a mother tongue English language speaker, was more generous with marks.
But Banjo with his brilliant mind, a fierce sense of humor, and a kind heart was unflustered. With time, he proved to be the better teacher despite the fact that English was a second language.
Banjo belongs in the Hall of Fame because he helped, for almost two decades, to shape Nigeria’s literary culture as both scholar and chair of the Nigeria Prize for Literature, sponsored by Nigeria LNG Limited.
Because he felt a personal responsibility to fight for a better society, he used his several eminent platforms to push for change and encourage progressive ideas.
Banjo was full of grace, quiet dignity, deep understanding, wisdom, good humor, compassion, empathy, and humility.
Every writer, journalist, teacher and student of English Language in Nigeria owes Banjo a debt of gratitude.
Maybe because of the several critically acclaimed books he authored, including Effective Use of English: A Developmental Language Course for Colleges and Universities (1976), Developmental English (1985), Making a virtue of necessity (1996), In the saddle (1997), The Wages of Obsessive Materialism (2008), The Deteriorating Use of English in Nigeria: 1st English Language Clinic Lecture Delivered at the University of Ibadan on Monday, 23 April, 2012, Humanity in Context
(2016), Repositioning the Nigerian University System: Selected Speeches of Professor Emeritus Ayo Banjo in Commemoration of His 80th Birthday (2014) and Morning by Morning: The Autobiography of Ayo Banjo (2019).
Maybe because of his stratospheric rise from his native Oyo to the dizzying heights and success mountains. He was a former Vice Chancellor of University of Ibadan, visiting professor University of Cambridge and University of West Indies, President of the Nigerian Academy of Letters, Pro-Chancellor, universities of Port Harcourt, Ilorin and Ajayi Crowther, Fellow Nigeria Academy of Letters, Chairman, Sigma Foundation, Fellow of the Nigeria English Studies Association, Commander of the Order of Niger, winner Nigerian Nations Merit Award and chairman, of the Advisory Committee of the Nigeria Prize for Literature.
Or maybe because of his personal attributes: Banjo was a man with deep intellect, and compassion and a dignified presence. He did the right things and never sought the approval or validation of anyone or special interest. In addition, schooling in Lagos, Los Angeles, and Ibadan; teaching in Ibadan, Cambridge and West Indies and marriage across ethnic lines — Igbo and Itsekiri inlaws — gave him a cosmopolitan mindset.
However, a part of his legacy is personal for me, as I reflect on the work we did together promoting the literature and science prizes. And other projects. He was a great and useful ally. I couldn’t wish for a better mentor!
Our first contact was a telephone conversation facilitated by Professor Dan Izevbaye, then a lecturer with University of Ibadan. I had whispered to Izevbaye that I would like to meet Banjo to explore the possibility of inviting him as keynote speaker for the prize award ceremony.
Banjo’s voice, a deep baritone, cultivated, assured and friendly had floated down the speakers. And after pleasantries, he quizzed me about NLNG and the prizes. He was particularly interested in our vision and judging.
Banjo’s voice and polite conversation immediately put one at ease. But I did not forget my manners; I was in the presence of a national treasure, if ever there was one.
I apologized for speaking to him over the phone; I had intended coming to meet him in Ibadan, if I had an appointment. He waived aside my effusive apologies.
Then I asked if he would consider being our keynote speaker. In our first year, we had Prof. Barth Nnaji and Prof. Wole Soyinka, I offered.
Banjo who did not give me an answer said there were issues he would like to discuss with me, particularly the ban against foreign based writers. I listened carefully and then inquired if he would like to attend the next meeting of the Advisory Committee on Literature. We had pencilled him down for the keynote address, but we were sure he would add greater value serving on the committee.
A long pause. Then he reminded me that he had certain objections and we may perhaps not be comfortable with his views. I laughed and said “be our guest”.
The next day I sent him reading materials.
Like many Nigerians, Banjo had erroneously assumed that Nigeria LNG Limited introduced the ban (or exclusion clause) against foreign based Nigerian writers.
For a long time we resisted giving a direct response to the controversy raging in the press about issues regarding the prize. And I deliberately did not brief Banjo about them before the meeting.
Three issues stood out. One was the exclusion clause in the communique Siene Allwell-Brown and I signed with members of the Association of Nigerian Authors (ANA) and other members of the Advisory Committee for Literature Prize. The second was NLNG’s alleged high-handedness in replacing some writers on the Advisory Committee with new members. And the third was the no-winner verdict by the judges read at the 2004 award ceremony by Alhaji Abubakar Gimba.
We had erroneously believed that the controversies, lacking any merit, would go away. But they grew instead, because, as years passed, the arguments of unhappy former advisory committee members became more and more sophistic.
At the exploratory meeting on the prize, it was agreed that a four- year cycle of prose, poetry, drama and children’s literature would give writers enough time to prepare for a rich harvest.
The idea to ban foreign based writers came from ANA members on the committee. And It had a widespread support amongst the writers in the meeting. Another issue that got the enthusiastic support of the committee was the October 9th (or nearest Saturday) date for hosting the prize award ceremony yearly, proposed by Professor Femi Osofisan to commemorate the date of the first shipment of LNG from Nigeria.
We protested against the ban, but considered it a lesser evil compared to their demand that members of the advisory committee could nominate judges and also compete for the prize.
It would, in our view, be incestuous, for anyone to play both roles. We had insisted that committee members interested in the competition should resign. No one should be allowed to appoint judges in his own case!
Before the appointment of the judges, members who wished to compete were asked to leave.
The call for entries and judging process went smoothly — the long list, the short list and the final list containing the “winner, first and second runner up”.
On the night of final deliberation, I was invited by the judges. At the meeting, it was clear that something was amiss. The books on the final short list had too many errors – grammar, syntax, spelling and other flaws, they said. The least number of errors in each book was 60.
Some of the judges wanted to know if NLNG would permit that the authors on the final list make corrections and republish so that their books would be error free. My response was that the revised books would be different from the ones entered for the competition.
I asked why the books could not be approved in their current state. The response was that they would reflect poorly on Nigeria literature if the prize winning books were riddled with grammatical errors. They judges would also be considered incompetent by their colleagues and general public.
Were the rest of the books not dropped for the same reasons? I asked.
Cleaning up the books meant that the judges simply aided one of the candidates to win. The public would be interested in the criteria for choosing the ultimate winner. And why others were not given similar privileges.
In the circumstance, they decided not to award the prize.
It was then a hostile review meeting that Banjo attended. In my welcome remarks I thanked everyone for their contributions and reminded them that NLNG had stoically borne the blame for their decision to exclude foreign based writers. I also requested that we expand the partnership to include other stakeholders.
There were various suggestions, including the Nigerian Academy of Letters. This was approved and Banjo, Izevbaye and Prof. Theo Vincent, who were members of the Academy of Letters were asked to consult with their colleagues.
Banjo argued unsuccessfully for the lifting of the ban on foreign based writers at that meeting and subsequent ones. He kept at it, for years without success and at some point NLNG unilaterally announced the lifting of the ban.
That was only the beginning.
A few years later, a judge colluded with a candidate and a former committee member and submitted an entry without declaring a conflict of interest. Because of the breach, we introduced a two-step judging process — Nigerian judges and an international subject matter expert, who will read the three books on the final short list and offer a verdict.
Banjo also played an active role in our efforts to set up a Gas Department in Rivers State University of Science and Technology, Port Harcourt in affiliation with Imperial College, London. It was a proposal eagerly supported by Dr. Chris Haynes, the Managing Director. After several failed efforts to engage the management of the school, we called on Banjo to broker a meeting.
Again, the Vice Chancellor was unavailable when we arrived his office for a pre-scheduled meeting. Attempts to get his attention was unsuccessful. We waited for hours!
When the VC’s staff learnt that Emeritus Professor Banjo came with the delegation, all hell broke loose. Suddenly, everyone was pleading for just five minutes for the VC to arrive.
As the meeting progressed we discovered that the university faculty was unhappy with a clause in our agreement with Imperial College London for exchange of faculty and grooming of staff of RSUST, who will in time, take over from the expatriates.
Many RSUST staff will be trained at Imperial College London as part of the program. RSUST staff were hostile to the idea of exchange of staff; they wanted to fill the slots immediately.
Deflated and incredulous, if Banjo felt the school’s management and faculty had committed some kind of offense against education or dishonored the citadel of learning, he did not show it.
He made no spectacle out of their choice to throw away such a golden opportunity. Advising the faculty on virtues of patience was the most ostentatious show of his disappointment.
There were more fights!
NLNG broke ranks with Academy of Letters because it wanted total control of the prize without the participation or interference of other stakeholders. The request was not acceptable to NLNG.
Our position was informed by our experience with the science academy. Meetings of the judges of the science prize were always uninspiring and the outcome did not seem to serve national interest.
As administrators we took our case to Emeritus Professor Umaru Shehu, Chairman of the Science Committee and Banjo and they approved that since science is universal, the decision of the judges should be sent to a subject matter expert overseas for confirmation.
After that, no prize was awarded for science for over five years, because international scholar, after international scholar returned a “don’t-award” verdict. They did not see any merit in the recommended works!
The Academy of Science leadership was scandalized that its decision was constantly challenged. They complained that Nigerian scientists were no longer adequately recognised and asked for full control of the prize and judging process.
NLNG responded that the primary purpose of the prize was to recognise new ideas and original, actionable solutions that could help resolve national scientific and technological problems rather than to honour individuals.
We proposed a fundamental change in the idea behind the prize. In a nutshell, NLNG proposed that rather than honour individuals, the academy should identify and advertise national problems for scientists to provide solutions.
To ameliorate the situation, NLNG launched in 2014 a University Support Programme as part of its commitment to develop education and complement government and stakeholders’ efforts.
NLNG spent about USD12 million (USD2 million per university) to build modern engineering laboratories and/or furnish them with cutting edge engineering equipment to aid teaching and research in six universities across Nigeria’s six geopolitical zones.
The six universities and regions were University of Ibadan (South-West); University of Ilorin (North-Central); University of Port Harcourt (South-South); University of Maiduguri (North-East); Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria (North-West); and University of Nigeria, Nsukka (South-East).
After parting ways with the Science Academy, ANA and Academy of Letters, the two prizes rested on Banjo and Shehu’s shoulders. NLNG in managing the prizes benefited from their considerable clout, wide contacts, integrity and prestige.
It was an assignment they took seriously. Banjo ensured that he read every book entered for the competition. He searched for the integrity of a story and was always on the lookout for a story that carried moral weight. But he never interfered with the judging process.
If there was a moment—a single incident — when the nation’s merit system was challenged, it came on the eve of the nation’s 50th Anniversary as NLNG prepared to honour 25 of Nigeria’s greatest scholars, artists and writers and 25 of her greatest scientists, some of them posthumously.
Again, Banjo was tapped to head the panel. The final selection was widely adjudged fair and just, a hard to comeby verdict in a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-religious country such as Nigeria. He binned all nominations in his name saying it was inappropriate to be both judge and competitor.
Whether or not our country gets better, a central question historians are sure to ask about Banjo’s era is why Nigeria lost its soul despite the presence and labours of giants like Banjo.
Many good men lost their souls and their way in Nigeria, but not Banjo. He held tight to what was most valuable about his work: his credibility as an arbiter of truth and broker of ideas.
One hopes historians and biographers will tell the story of this great man who never lost his footing. His autobiography, Morning by Morning, was a good beginning.
Mbanefo, former spokesperson of Nigeria NLNG is the author of the widely acclaimed book The Story of NLNG. He lives in Canada.
You may like
By Leo Igwe
The Advocacy for Alleged Witches (AfAW) is concerned over the reported arrest of two men accused of being ‘witchdoctors’ in Zambia. The arrest underscores the potency of witchcraft fears and the connection between occult anxieties and the country’s politics. These individuals were accused of trying to bewitch the Zambian president, Hakainde Hichilema. The police claimed that they had charms. They planned to use the charms to harm the president. The report says the two persons have been charged under Zambia’s Witchcraft Act. The Act criminalizes “possession of charms”, “professing knowledge of witchcraft”, and “cruelty to wild animals”. The police found the two with assorted charms, including a live chameleon.
This development is utterly embarrassing and shows that the Zambian government is slowly losing its focus and bearing.The country has many socio-economic challenges. Suspicion of bewitchment or possession of charms should be the least of its worries at this time. There should be no place for witchcraft and possession of charms in modern politics because there is no evidence for these beliefs and practices. Zambian authorities should not weaponize the Witchcraft Act or use it to justify this incident. Zambian law does not recognize witchcraft. Zambia’s Witchcraft Act criminalizes naming or imputing witchcraft. It prohibits accusing or threatening to accuse any person of being a witch or a wizard. In this case, it is the police who are breaking the law.
Otherwise, how did they know the two individuals were ‘witchdoctors’? Did these persons identify as witch doctors? If not, the police are liable because they named and imputed witchcraft and have to prove that these individuals have witch-doctoring powers. The police claimed to have charged these individuals for possessing “assorted charms”, including a chameleon. Really?
The police in Zambia have questions to answer: What are charms? How did they know that what was in their possession were charms, not pets? Is a chameleon a form of charm? What makes possession of a chameleon possession of a charm? When and how does a chameleon become a charm? The police need to answer these questions and more before one takes them seriously.
Again, did the individuals describe what was in possession as ‘charms’? If they did, does confessing or designating something as a charm make it a charm? And if they did not, the police are liable because they need to prove how those possessions translated into charms.
In addition, the police claimed that the duo wanted to bewitch the president. What does that mean? How did they know? Are the police not contravening a provision under the Witchcraft Act by professing knowledge of witchcraft? Can one harm another person using a chameleon? They claimed that the two persons wanted to use the charms in their possession, including the chameleon to harm the president. How did they know that? What is the evidence for that?
The Advocacy for Alleged Witches calls for an end to this state-sponsored witch hunt. There is no evidence of harm through witchcraft or charms. The Zambian government should desist from witchcraft- related infractions and violations including arbitrary arrest, and detention of innocent citizens. These allegations are baseless and absurd. The arrest was politically motivated. This development demonstrates that Zambian authorities are out of sync with their duty and obligation to uphold the rule of law and protect accused persons.
Zambian authorities need to act in compliance with the 2021 UN resolution, which urged states to take measures to combat abuses linked to witchcraft beliefs and ritual attacks. End witchcraft allegations in Zambia. End witch hunts in Africa now!
Dr Igwe directs the Advocacy for Alleged Witches.
By Tony Afejuku
The other burning issue, apart from Farotimi and Babalola’s, which I wish to take a look at – and which I am taking a look at now – relates to what is happening in our capital territory. What is this burning issue – which our human rightists and civil society organisations and personages are surprisingly and un-satisfactorily not inclined to focus attention on and examine as they should? I may be wrong, but it surely seems to me that this issue, this burning issue, which is of more importance than Farotimi and Babalola’s – which has been given undue adulation – is deliberately being neglected and depreciated by proclaimers and heroes and heroines of human rights, justice, equity and equality of rights in your country my country our country. Why, why, why and why, why, why? Anyone who has any iota of patriotic sensibility, feeling and judgment well watered and buttressed by a very great influence upon his or her critical judgment will keep on asking the question I am asking.
Mr. Nyesom Wike, as almost everybody who can read and write a little knows, is the current minister of your, my and our Federal Capital Territory. His post or office is akin to that of a governor of a state. As the immediate past governor of Rivers State who was drafted, after his two terms there expired, to continue in the FCT as its new minister-governor or governor-minister under the auspices of a party he is not a true member of, Mr. Wike cannot but be seen as a lucky man. He is in every possible and impossible way. Minister-Governor Wike is a lucky man and a very fortunate one indeed. No former governor of Rivers State (or of any Nigerian state), as far as I know, has achieved what the famed political rouser of rabbles has achieved in one short gubernatorial life-time, and at a relatively young and fertile age. His dual achievement with and in two different political parties at this delicate point of Nigerian politics indicates to our politicians and us all that there is always time for a reminder that there are ready-made high rewards for arch-angels of betrayals. And Mr. Wike may go down in Rivers and Nigerian history as both an arch-angel and an emperor of betrayal of us all if we attempt to indicate what I have defined here as his dual achievement.
We can roughly divide, briefly, Wike’s political development into two periods. During the first, excluding his lower political positions before he became the governor of Rivers State, he quickly adapted his style to that of an emperor who became a rabble-rouser of rabble-rousers whose gubernatorial efficiency moved from stiffness to stiffness. He did not at any time feel that he needed suppleness to govern Rivers State. “Let the heavens fall if they must fall!” We are not there yet in this attempted analysis of the stiff-hearted and stiff-minded one. True? But he is already demonstrating this characteristic in Abuja. False? Judge and give the answer yourself.
Even after he left Rivers State a short while ago as governor, he is still trying to control happenings there to the political discomfiture of his hand-picked successor, his erstwhile “boy” and “son” – with whom he has fallen out. As the minister-governor or governor-minister of the FCT, Wike is occupied with the other taste of the emperor-juggernaut formulator – doing the work of two key political masters in one room and desk of political jugglery. Since his appearance in the FCT, minister-governor or governor-minister Wike has allegedly attempted to recover or transform for Abuja what is not traditionally or socially Abuja’s, for example, the city’s social idiom and landscape and terrain as well as its environs. In doing this he sometimes over-steps his bounds and mark of human/inhuman decency/indecency and psychological understanding of human nature, if you follow well what I am saying; he has so far become at best not really better than a typical pedestrian Nigerian lawyer and officer of political power: in his explorations so far in the Federal Capital Territory we have come to the realization, as T. S. Eliot would say, that “it is so often true that only by going too far can we find out how far we can go.” But one has to be a very negatively obstinate and self-serving emperor and a thorough-bred arch-angel of betrayal of the people and masses to justify such perilous and perfidious expeditions and adventures.
Last week, I saw on Arise Television “The Morning Show” Chief Rita Lori-Ogbebor, the dutiful widow of the late Nigerian supreme patriot and soldier, Colonel Ogbebor (of Benin stock) battling, so to say, to wrest the legacy of her late husband from the tight grip of the adventurous FCT minister-governor who has registered his name and signature in the hearts and consciousness of the people as the depriver of their possessions. The three anchors of “The Morning Show” were in their respective ways splendid in their structures of remarks and questions to Chief (Mrs.) Rita Lori-Ogbebor whom I have had occasions in times past to call patriotically Rita A-K 47 on account of her natural right to fire her beautiful tongue at any person, usually an enemy, of just actions. When she made the case she made to protect the estate of Paulosa Nigeria Limited, her late husband’s aforesaid legacy in the FCT, she was in her natural territory, habitat and element where even at age eighty-four, she never ever loses her stability – although she unusually restrained herself in the Arise Television appearance. Dr. Reuben Abati, Rufai Oseni, and Ayo Mairo-Ese clearly explored seriously but delightfully the mind of the mother-hen of Warri – my other coinage and appellation I gave her in my poetry. Her “The Morning Show” appearance enabled me to see the poignant cry de profundis of the FCT inhabitants whose property and residences in different guises have been demolished. She did not say anything that was out of joint. She spoke and came out as a mother, protector and symbol of the people who have suffered – and are suffering – from the state of affliction and anguish Wike’s demolitions have placed – and are placing – the people.
Ojy Okpe in her delicious and delectable “What is Trending” slot on the same show, showed without exaggeration but with further elaboration what people in and outside Abuja/FCT think of the mighty Wike’s demolitions, a burning issue that the Senate has asked “Let Heaven Fall” minister-governor Wike to halt as the committee the Senate set up on the issue starts its work. Of course, we cannot but assume that Chief Rita Lori-Ogbebor, Mrs. Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan as well as Mrs. Ireti Kingigbe, the senator representing the FCT in the Senate and other patriotic senators diligently did what they did on the floor of the Senate when the burning issue was tabled for debate with the gracious understanding and authorization of the Senate President.
I need to state further that the “The Morning Show” anchors did well and extremely so by giving the minister-governor the opportunity to air his anti-Paulosa story. His senior special assistant on public communication and social media, Mr. Olalere Olayinka, stood in for him. After he gave the reasons for the clamp-down, his responses to the questions the anchors put to him followed the usual pattern of denials by artificial men in power – denials that they always use to intimidate and betray the people. In fact, Mr. Olayinka’s ploy to ride easily over our dear Rufai Oseni, a wholesome representative of the deprived, that the chap (or is it guy?) and his boss always employ their colloquial speeches and remarks to dishonor, failed. Yes, the ploy failed woefully. In stanza after stanza of the exchanges between Mr. Olayinka and the Arise anchors, he deteriorated – and his deterioration was hall-marked when he unwittingly revealed that the Paulosa land had been acquired by his minister-governor’s close cohort, an act that was nothing short of gross abuse of power and authority.
Because the Senate is already using its authority, power and privilege to resolve the burning issue, hopefully, in a way that the late Colonel Ogbebor’s legacy and family will not be subjected to any kind of degradation, I will utter no more words for now. I trust, however, that the liberties the Senate is taking – or has taken – are for the sake of order to favour the down-trodden.
As for the minister-governor, the PDP emperor at large, here is an immortal quote from Marcus Aurelius, the magnificent and authentic Roman Emperor and philosopher (A.D. 121-180): “If it is not right, do not do it; if it is not true, do not say it.” You lose nothing by giving us a slice of your humanity by your right acts and correct words. Everything changes and passes. Be humane as a human being.
Afejuku can be reached via 08055213059.
By Leo Igwe
Recently, I facilitated a critical thinking workshop at the Bay Wreath Schools in Lagos. The theme was critical thinking and teacher development. As the theme stated, the workshop was on teaching, about teaching, and for teachers. It highlighted the pedagogical value of critical and reflective inquiry. The workshop exposed teachers to critical mental habits and skills. It emphasized how critical thinking would enhance expertise in the learning and delivery of subjects in classrooms.
I used the opportunity to discuss questionstorm as a method of teaching and learning. Questionstorm is a way that I operationalized critical thinking for primary and elementary schools. Questionstorm is the ability to interrogate all objects and materials. It is a habit of questioning ideas and experiences in all areas of human endeavor. Simply put, questionstorm is a question-driven inquiry. Children are naturally curious. They thirst for knowledge and understanding. Unfortunately, the school system kills children’s curiosity and dampens their interrogative appetite. The school system places much emphasis on rote learning and memorization. It makes the generation of answers not questions or problems the test of knowledge, and the determinant of intelligence. Teaching is largely a drudgery, a monotonous exercise, and a process of depositing knowledge on passive recipients, the students. Teaching entails dumping information on learners whose duty is to cram and reproduce during tests or examinations.
This teaching praxis has been criticized and blamed for the poor performance of students post-school (college and university) and their inability to think independently, creatively, and innovatively. Other teaching methods have tried to address these gaps and limitations. There have been suggestions to make teaching and instruction more active, and more student/learner/child-centered. One such method is the Montessori method. The Montessori method discourages grades and tests as ways of measuring achievement or determining intelligence and excellence. It emphasizes hands-on learning and the development of real-world skills. While the Montessori method stresses the practical approach to learning it says very little about the authoritarian teacher-to-student approach that is the mainstay of teaching and learning in classrooms. Teaching follows a pattern that leaves students and learners in the margins and unable to question and contribute to the learning process. Teachers present what is to be learned such as a text, and then generate questions that students respond or address to demonstrate knowledge of what has been taught. The student’s or learner’s main job is to answer questions, to look for or find answers or solutions. The teacher’s work is to get students to look for, and provide answers, and reproduce what they have been taught or told. But students are answer-depots. Students are not memory banks or reserves. They are active minds and thinking agents.
With questionstorm as a teaching method, the mode of instruction would change. Teaching becomes a cooperative endeavor that actively involves teachers and students. What is taught in the classroom is a collaborative note, not the teacher’s note, not a handout to students. Teachers present or generate texts or objects for learning, in response to intense questioning of the object or material by students, teachers provide information as required for that subject, topic, level, and time frame. No two instances of teaching – of the same topic or subject- are or should be the same because the input of students and teachers is not predetermined.
This is because of an overlooked principle in teaching and learning, that I call the “uncertainty principle”.
The uncertainty principle underlies questionstorm because knowledge is not fixed. Learning is a fluid process. All that is to be learned is uncertain, it is unknown and never determined. No teacher can say beforehand what is to be taught or learned because no one knows exactly the questions and answers or replies that would arise when a topic is presented or taught in a particular class. A topic or learning material elicits unique responses and exchanges that both teachers and students cannot exactly know or predict a priori, before the fact.
Teaching is a shared task and responsibility. Class notes are fluid materials. They are not texts cast on educational stones and delivered by teachers to students to copy, cut, and paste as is often the case. Class notes are not written or produced by teachers for students but by teachers with students. Teachers’ notes are incomplete and insufficient. They account only for a part, not a whole of the learning process and material. Students’ input completes and complements the teaching material and learning process. Thus every class note is unique because it is a product of a specific collaborative endeavor, a product of particular teaching and learning agents and circumstances that cannot be repeated or replicated.
Thus, as a teaching method, questionstorm is set to facilitate teacher development and improve the quality of instruction in schools. Questionstorm will help realize a paradigm shift in education and learning. I hope educators, teachers, and school managers will embrace this method of teaching and learning.
Dr Igwe directs the Critical Thinking Social Empowerment Foundation.
Inline image
NEW TIMES CULTURE
Fear Of Witchcraft And Politics In Zambia
Black Saturday As 10 Confirmed Dead, Others Injured In Abuja Church Stampede
Tinubu Congratulates Civil Service Commission Chair Olaopa As He Turns 65
Top Stories
-
Latest News14 hours ago
Black Saturday As 10 Confirmed Dead, Others Injured In Abuja Church Stampede
-
Opinion2 days ago
Burning Issues: (FCT Minister And Paulosa) (2)
-
Metro3 days ago
AfAW Decries Court Acquittal Of Suspected Murderer Of Alleged Witch In Enugu
-
Latest News4 days ago
Why We Set Up Kojola Dry Port – Abiodun
-
Opinion3 days ago
Questionstorm As A Method Of Teaching