The issue has arisen of "learner-centered" versus "conversational" views of learning [See ITForum #12]. Steve Draper [28 Apr 96, 29 Apr 96.a, 29 Apr 96.b] argues against the "learner-centered" view. Andy Gibbons [4 Apr 96] argues for replacing the controlling teacher with a companion. Ron Oliver [30 Apr 96] defends the "learner-centered" view against Steve's attack by arguing that the teacher still plays a key role--in setting up "the required learning opportunities."
The problem I have with the "learner-centered" view, and with the "equal partners" view of a conversational model (e.g., teacher as companion), is that it flies in the face of educational reality. Learning as a natural mode of personal inquiry, as part of being-in-the-world, is certainly learner-centered and a valuable model to remember when trying to figure out how to teach. But academic learning is not of this type. The knowledge we set out to teach in school and university is precisely not the kind you can acquire through a purely learner-centered "personal-scientist" approach. It is "someone-else's-view-of-the-world." Necessarily, it is received knowledge, a collective understanding, a negotiated perspective, a cultural artifact (of a rather abstract sort). It is what a community of scholars and others currently believe about the world. This kind of knowledge is simply not discoverable, or achievable in an equal partnership between teacher and student. There is an inevitable asymmetry in the relationship.
Our educational institutions attempt to acculturate students in the received knowledge of a small group with privileged access to the development of "scientific" knowledge--small s, includes history, poetry criticism, etc. The asymmetry is embodied in the fact of assessment and accreditation. This is where your match with the current cultural norm is checked and certificated. How could it be otherwise, given the nature of the stuff we are trying to learn in the academy?
So although I like the conversational model because it is iterative, interactive, and it gives the learner better access to the teacher than the instructive model (or even the constructivist model, which underestimates the importance of the discursive aspect of academic learning), I would not try to argue that it equates teacher and student. The component activities give the teacher the tasks of initial statement of the concept, setting the goal, providing feedback on actions, and reacting to the student's articulation. The student does not get to do these. Therein lies the asymmetry.