What’s in a Pedagogy?

In talking with Master Teacher Andrea Caban about Knight-Thompson Speechwork and how we teach it, I’ve begun to reflect on what a pedagogy is. Erik and Phil have both written extensively on the pedagogy of Knight-Thompson Speechwork, its origins and its principles. But Andrea and I have also been talking about its other aspects, the aspects that are slipperier to write about, harder to enumerate, eagerer(?) to avoid lists and charts and diagrams. We bandied about the ideas of “hard” versus “soft” teaching principles, or maybe the “form” versus the “content” of the pedagogy. That distinction got me thinking about what KTS is on paper and how we communicate that in person – and is there a way that we can optimize the connections between the two?
Dudley, thankfully, left us his famed “Principles, perhaps” at the beginning of Speaking with Skill, and, indeed, these principles form the philosophical core of the “content” of KTS. Complexity is acknowledged, standards are interrogated, and specificity and intelligibility are elevated above “accuracy” and cultural assumptions. In the text, the principles refer to “this work,” and rightly so, for all of the content of KTS is guided and shaped and challenged from the epistemological foundation of those principles. Everything that follows in SwS has the backbone of these principles undergirding it, and curious readers can follow the arc of the work with ease and enjoyment as they let Dudley guide them through terrain illuminated by his brilliance and wit.
What’s missing (for now), though, is the “how” of the pedagogy, the form in which the content can be presented by a teacher or coach in order to best help the student or client. Certainly, by reading between the lines and imagining Dudley’s rumbling voice, the reader can intuit the curiosity, the playfulness, and the empowering rigor of Dudley’s teaching style, which thankfully lives on in Phil, Erik, Andrea, and many others. But Dudley doesn’t tell his readers how he taught his classes, nor have we assembled a list of “Pedagogical principles, perhaps” to outline the ways and means in which we can share Knight-Thompson Speechwork that are entirely congruent with its content.
For example, when teaching or learning Omnish, how do we balance the silly with the specific? How do we create language around Omnish that encourages analytical curiosity while also pushing through discomfort and into discovery? Is the learning of Omnish a progression, a surprise, a revelation, or all of the above – and how do we do that? In the room, how do we give feedback on Omnish that is helpful, enriching, and nourishing, such that discovery and play are not hindered by the insight of a more experienced Omnian?
KTS teachers touch on many of these ideas in Teacher Certification, but I believe we can do more to foster discussion in our learning community of the “how” as well as of the “what.” Our work is a real, living body of knowledge that must also be communicated through the tender social membrane of the teacher-student relationship. As in many pedagogies, that relationship in KTS is more difficult to write about than the information being shared. Appropriately, that relationship may also best be served by the collaboration of many teachers and students, dialoguing and curating “Pedagogical principles, perhaps” that could not be developed by one wise sage alone. It is only through the collective experience of our community, working throughout the world, that we can begin to understand the “soft” strengths of Knight-Thompson Speechwork and how it provides a pedagogical approach that is inclusive, specific, and fun in ways that many speech pedagogies are not.
Were we to use the comments to start listing “Pedagogical principles, perhaps,” what would you include? What have you found most useful, as a teacher or student, when sharing “this work”? What aspects of Knight-Thompson Speechwork have you found most empowering or inspiring in your experience that are not spelled out in our currently published work?