meeting of the minds

"Educators of adolescents must go beyond merely transmitting curricula if they hope to influence their students' thinking more deeply; they must share how they themselves think about or make sense of this content.  In short, there must be a meeting of the minds if educators are to play an influential role in the development of their adolescent students.  This meeting can occur around formal academic content as well as less formal social interactions, depending on the goals for the 'meeting'.  The key is that the educators' thinking be made as transparent as possible..."
This is Nakkula and Toshalis' intro (bottom of page 8) to Vygotsky's interpsychological development (bottom of page 9).  
What would __________say about this?
Ayers:  During meetings (of the mind, or otherwise) some form of a relationship gets built--especially if the meeting is face to face.  Ayers repeatedly stressed his message that teachers need to get to know their students in order to effectively teach each one, so I think he would encourage the meeting of the minds interaction between them.  N and T also mention "transparency" quite a bit in reference to the educators way of thinking----if a student can clearly see how the teacher thinks, there is a higher chance of learning because the student may take certain helpful cues from the teacher--"dispositions of mind" as Ayers called them.  So in a way the teacher has to make obvious her thought process, which is difficult to do because of the familiarity with the subject matter, social norms, etc.  Ayers would then cite the teacher he wrote about who had her class study something different each year (something new to her students and   to her), so they could learn alongside one another.  In this way the teachers thoughts may be made much more transparent to the student.   But I think N and T are also implying that teachers display a bit of vulnerability here as well.  If a teacher meets a student (in a mental meeting room) and they embark on the journey toward learning together, it might emphasize that they both need one another in order to succeed.  This would only strengthen their relationship, and the cycle would become a positive feedback loop (in biology, where a stimulus enhances particular response)
Smith:  I think Smith would agree emphatically with N and T's transparency bit.  Don't know if this makes sense but if an educator is explicit and subtle at the same time (what?), the student may be able to readily "absorb" her thought process.  I guess I mean "strongly hint" without giving anything away to the student.  This can be in the form of problem solving methods or some other type of critical thinking--and the student can pick up and internalize the cues subconsciously. 
Kolb:  I also think Kolb would be a fan of the meeting of the minds idea.  If an educator displays different ways to take in and experience concepts, students expand their potential to learn. Subject matter aside, I think that the push and pull of building on existing mental scaffolding should require an educator to touch on each phase of the learning cycle, which would in turn afford students the opportunity to test boundaries and construct themselves and the world they inhabit.   

A final takeaway from N and T is that in all of this, as the educator is guiding the adolescent student, he is also constructing his own life.  The idea of the educator coauthoring the student's life is important, but equally poignant is the awareness of the student as coauthor of the educators life.