A simple approach to emancipated teaching. As my friend Charley once said of a different activity, "This is a double black diamond!" To use this activity well you need to know what you are doing, and not doing, and why.
The teacher presents the students (I use these terms because this activity is one you can use to undermine those positions) with an object, giving no other instruction than to specify to whom the object belongs and when and in what condition it needs to be returned to the teacher. (The teacher can add other rules: every one should participate equally in whatever you do, decisions about what to do should be made democratically, the group should be careful to encourage quiet voices, etc.)
The students then proceed to do whatever it is they choose to do with the object. The teacher's job is to closely observe, taking notes so that s/he can reflect on the activity and later compare what s/he observed to what the students experienced.
The teacher can play a greater or lesser role, but should only ask questions to verify that students are carefully, attentively, observing. To keep them on their path. Students may ask for direction; the teacher should reiterate the basic framework: "I brought this here for you. It belongs to [x]. Please return it to me [time/place] in [y] condition. Otherwise, what you do with it is up to you."
I did this with a class of first year students at Meiji University, in Tokyo, giving them a geiger counter on loan from the Ministry of Education. The geiger counter came in a box with explanatory literature. I told them I needed it back in two weeks, in good condition. They opened the box, removed it, looked at it, and repeatedly asked me for direction. "What should we do? Are we supposed to use it? Do you want us to prepare a presentation?" They finally chose to measure a variety of places, including in Osaka, and prepared a report and presentation. Because they were not careful about reading the instructions they made several mistakes: e.g., failing to cover the geiger counter so as to avoid contamination of the instrument by dust or dirt. What was gratifying to me was the "proof" the activity provided of their capacity to learn without my teaching them.
As Ranciere writes: "The ignorant schoolmaster earns this title not because s/he knows nothing but because s/he has abdicated the "knowledge of ignorance" and has dissociated in this way her teaching from her knowledge. S/he doesn't teach students her knowledge but rather asks them to adventure in the forest of things and signs, to state what they have seen and what they think of what they have seen, to verify it and have it verified. What such a teacher ignores is the inequality of intelligences." (The Emancipated Spectator, trans. MN)
(Note that in my example the teacher chose an object that had political significance -- it was not long after the meltdowns at Fukushima Dai Ichi. This brings up the question of the role of dialogue between/among equal intelligences in the context of unequal positions (teacher/student). I see this is a productive tension, rather than a contradiction, because my ability to have a dialogue depends on their engagement with a shared object which they are free to observe and understand. This is a complicated question that I need to explore more. For Jacotot, the choice of the object was "arbitrary" and yet he chose "Telemaque." The point, perhaps, is that the starting point is always the product of a path, in that sense not accidental, and yet, from the standpoint of intellectual emancipation, arbitrary. Dialogue is a product of both.)