Reflections 1: Education Foundations

Suren: 'Stan'

http://surenmendis.blogspot.com/2011/02/my-first-blog.html?showComment=1298936416409#c1481133895435568568

Andy: 'Tracy'

http://andyuni2011.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/a-welcome-note-2/#comment-2

Learning Journal 1: Education Foundations

For the purpose of tracing my own evolving knowledge of “How the history and philosophy of education will allow me to understand my role as a teacher”, I have opted to critically analyze only one scenario for all four blogs. In doing so I believe I may engage in a deeper exploration of the provocations addressed, as well as question my research material more thoughtfully. 

WAYNE;

A wise educator once suggested to me, “When attempting to address an intolerable problem, address  the 5 W’s first. Who am I? Where am I? When is it? What am I trying to achieve? Why am I trying to achieve it?” Whilst this philosophy of problem solving always struck me as nothing more than simplistic, they are questions that contextualize a situation, and thus allow us to inquire into it. 

In applying this home-grown philosophy to Wayne’s scenario, we are able to unpack the quandaries that make his experience as a new teacher problematic. 

Wayne is a teacher in an inner-city public school, who recognizes a divide in his classrooms’ intellectual standards. Neither standard of student engagement is satisfying to Wayne, yet he is stubborn in his willingness to evolve his teaching methods to address such an issue. Whilst analyzing this, we may reflect on two provocations; 1) What kind of teacher do I want to be? and 2) Will I be allowed to be that teacher?

What Kind of teacher do I want to be?

Wayne is teaching in a socio-economic and educational environment that is familiar to him. Thus he is determined in his teaching methods and confident and enthusiastic with his course content. Whilst knowing what kind of teacher he wants to be, he is not aware of what is affecting, determining and challenging this ideal. As a result, Wayne is not manipulating his teaching style to address the conundrum of his classroom, being that regardless of their intellectual abilities, all of the students are disengaged. Thus the kind of teacher he wants to be, is problematic. The statement that, “Wayne really enjoys the subject matter .... ensuring he has the depth of content covered,” suggests that he is focused on transmitting information directly to the students as opposed to facilitating their learning skills in order to discover the information themselves. Whilst we should not judge his teaching style, we may reflect on this approach and question if this is a feasible practice for a  teacher. Could Wayne’s idealistic and content-focused approach to teaching be the reason that his students are not becoming involved in the course material?

A “Subject-matter” approach to learning:

(Lanier & Little 1986) propose that a teachers background, philosophy of teaching and ideas about themselves as teachers are what construct their methods of teaching. Wayne’s subject-matter approach to teaching is one of, “declarative knowledge” (Anderson 1983) This concept suggests that Wayne’s approach to teaching his classroom is founded on his knowledge base of the subject. This means that his, “knowledge of facts and subject matter...inform the content of teaching,” as opposed to, “procedural knowledge” (Goodyear 1991) that encourages problem-solving. Whilst both approaches draw on the wealth of knowledge acquired by teachers, Wayne might be more successful in reaching his students by “mapping out subject matter” (Goodyear 1991) and thus facilitating their learning, as opposed to directly instilling subject matter. 

Will I be allowed to be the teacher I want to be?

As previously suggested, Wayne is not successful in his pursuit of the ideal teacher. What is unique in this situation is the subtle and almost subliminal nature of what is not allowing him to succeed. His classroom shows no apparent signs of disruption, challenge of authority or misconduct. However Wayne is able to recognize that his method of educating his students is not engaging on any level. Still he chooses not to manipulate his style to adapt to his segmented classroom. By not responding to the dynamic of his classroom, he is no closer to engaging them in his course content, no matter how prepared and thorough he may be. 

The duty of the teacher:

Peter Goodyear terms the job of a teacher as, “multidimensional”, in which we face numerous demands and have to, “make decisions which are compromises among various costs and benefits.” (Goodyear 1991) In conjunction with this, it is suggested that the success of a class isn’t the sole responsibility of the teachers approach to a lesson, but rather the students approach to the school curriculum (Resnick 1987). Each student will come from a different background, past experience and thus will absolutely have a unique approach to a task given to them. Consequently it is the duty of the teacher, in order to instruct effectively, to not only be aware of these differences, but be able to adapt their teaching methods to them. It is in this dimension that Wayne is not fulfilling his role as an educator, and is barring himself from identifying on anything but a superficial level with his students. 

References:

Resnick, L. (1987). Education and learning to think. (pp 1-61) Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Goodyear, P. (Ed.) (1991). Teaching knowledge and intelligent tutoring. (pp 260-275) Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Anderson, J.R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, (pp 320 - 323) MA: Harvard University Press.

Lanier, J., & Little, J. (1986). Research on teacher education, Handbook of research on teaching (pp 168-191) Macmillan. New York

Churchill, R., Ferguson, P., Godinho, S., Johnson, N.F., Keddie, A., Letts, W., Mackay, J., McGill, M., Moss, J., Nagel, M.C., Nicholson, P. & Vick, M. (2011). Teaching: Making a Difference. Milton, Queensland: John Wiley & Sons Pty Ltd.

Walsh, D., & Paul, R. (1988). The goal of critical thinking: From educational ideal to educational reality. (pp 10-16) Washington, D.C.: American Federation of Teachers.