Research Journal of Educational Methods
Online ISSN : 2189-907X
Print ISSN : 0385-9746
ISSN-L : 0385-9746
A Critical Analysis of Kihaku Saito's Teaching of Poems" : What to Accept, What not to Accept
Noboru ABE
Author information
JOURNAL FREE ACCESS

1994 Volume 19 Pages 103-113

Details
Abstract

As I examined some of Kihaku Saito's teaching, which even now are highly evaluated in this field, I have found some significant problems with his brilliant work. In this study I have tried to clarify these problems according to his method of teaching. For example, one of the typical ways of his asking questions is through "ambiguous questions", which aren't easy to answer since the answers aren't clear or obvious to the students. For example, "What kind of-was written?" or "What kind of picture is it (if it is a picture)?", etc. However, it might be possible for any teacher to use these types of questions. However, the teacher should give assisting words or hints to the students, but Saito never did in his class. He never uttered, "Where did you find the idea from the sentences?" or "Where was that technique used?", and the objective of reading and understanding the material was thoroughly unclear to the students. What I have pointed out reflects his other teaching methods. He would give answers and explanations to the important points before his students gave enough answers on their own. He would begin to explain after only two or three different answers were given. Also, he quickly showed other qualities of poems in his class by using other works of poets, models of creation, or classical works, such as "The Man-You-Shu". He would ask questions and direct the understanding according to those works. Many misreadings occurred from mixing "ambiguity" and "arbitrariness" of the poems. As a result, Saito seemed to have no idea that the most fundamental way of reading poems is nothing but to read each word and phrase objectively. This lack of understanding caused most of the problems in his teaching. It is necessary to clarify these negative aspects of his teaching method because he was such an excellent theorizer and doer that I think even his faults would help our progress in the study of the methodology of teaching.

Content from these authors
© 1994 National Association for the Study of Educational Methods
Previous article Next article
feedback
Top