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.
A very well structured and well researched response. Your comments on his need to change his teaching style are particularly well put. The'declarative knowledge' vs 'procedural knowledge" is very interesting. Wayne definitly needs to modify his teaching style if he wishs for things to change in his classroom. Perhaps he is too caught up in his own interests and ego in relation to the subject matter he is teaching, or perhaps the style of teaching he imploys in simply not cohesive with the school itself. Whatever the reason, he has, as you say, a 'duty' to engage his students on a deeper level. If this means changing his teaching philosophy then he has to do what his best for the students; to be the teacher he needs to be rather than the teacher he wants to be.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the insights!! Good job.
applefortheteacher (http://applefortheteacher.wordpress.com/) has left a new comment on your post "Learning Journal 1: Education Foundations":
ReplyDeletePoor Wayne’s story seems to me to be a classic case of not ‘one solution or approach being right for all’. Wayne thought he was going to be able to easily relate to his students as he comes from the area that the school is located in – he grew up there, he socialised there and he completed his teacher education there. Like you said, he thought due to his familiarity that he was well prepared for his classes, yet the teaching environment and his students have not met his expectations at all and it appears that his efforts have not been recognised by, or satisfied his students needs. I certainly agree with your observation that due to Wayne’s passion for his topic he is teaching the course materials in a rather dictatorial way as opposed to actively engaging his students in the learning process.
For PPLE this week, I read an article that was by a teacher who was experiencing a classroom situation very similar to that of Wayne. The article outlined initially the teacher’s situation – she was a very passionate English teacher who was struggling to engage her students in topics that she was extremely passionate about and which the students needed to know now due to a compulsory test that all students must face. The teacher outlined a process that she learned about how to stimulate students learning so that they just didn’t satisfactorily meet the requirements of the course, but the students successfully met them, meaning they could go and apply them outside of the course in their everyday lives or in the future work circumstances.
Leslie Leong (2005), the teacher, outlined 12 steps that can, and have helped, to improve students’ interest in learning:
1. Understand the learning process
2. Know your students
3. Know what your students care about
4. Know your students by name and their experiences
5. Show students you care about their success
6. Remind students of life-long learning
7. Be a storyteller
8. Engage students in class activities to promote creativity
9. Engage students to ask questions and participate
10. Respect students comments and opinions on class materials
11. Be a role model
12. Assess deep learning
Perhaps Wayne needs to take a step back from his closeness to his course materials and get to know his students better and about what they need from the materials. The diversification of society and the students that now make up our classes mean that Wayne and other teachers need to adapt and change the way they do things (Marsh, 2008). The Difference Approach outlined by Iris Young and Nancy Davis (cited in Lecture) advocate that teachers need to recognise the difference in individuals and their individual learning needs and adapt to what is best to them. The mass approach does not work and it is in fact what creates disadvantage in the classroom. I suggest Wayne needs to take some time to reflect on his approach and re-examine ‘What kind of teacher he wants to be’.
Great post Fleur – I really enjoyed reading your thoughts!
Resource:
Leong, L. (2005), ‘Improving Students' Interest in Learning: Some Positive Techniques’, in Journal of Information Systems Education, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp. 129-132. (Retrieved 25 February 2011)
Marsh, C. (2008), Becoming A Teacher; Knowledge, Skills and Issues, Sydney, New South Wales: Pearson Education.
test reply
ReplyDeleteThanks Fleur, an excellent look at how there are often issues that result in a split in classroom motivation.
ReplyDeleteYour argument on how Wayne should engage in a more "procedural knowledge" approach is extremely valid, however I feel that this may not engage the students that wish to just learn the facts.
The student that don't want to be there could defiantly benefit from this approach as it may spark interest, however i feel that this approach may have to be coupled with a more direct “declarative knowledge” (Anderson 1983) method could benefit them and challenge their more deep thinking in well structured research and assessment tasks.
Overall a great first post!
Great Post Fleur
ReplyDeleteI thought it was very well written and you seemed to have the appropriate amount of background knowledge on the subject. I particularly liked the five Ws and the way you linked them to this case. It seems like Wayne needs to revisit the “what am I trying to achieve?” and the “why am I trying to achieve it?” questions. If he loses sight of these two objectives, his pedagogy is going to crumble like a tower of cards. Based on the approach you took, I thought you linked the appropriate two provocations to your reflection. The questions “What Kind of teacher do I want to be?” and “Will I be allowed to be the teacher I want to be?” are both extremely relevant to Wayne’s case. Wayne appears to have the innate desire to be a traditionalist teacher, seemingly content at presenting information to the student at face value, or as you have put it “Declarative Knowledge”. With respect to that, I agree that the implementation of “Procedural Knowledge’ may be more appropriate. I also liked how you highlighted the important fact that Wayne is being pushed out of his comfort zone of teaching. I believe that this is both a challenge and an opportunity for him to grow as a teacher.
One of the things that occurred to me as I was reading Wayne’s case is that it is quite likely that the two student groups have a different attitude towards the teacher, the unit and possibly, education as a whole. The disengaged group may be failing to see the value of what’s being taught to them. Veronika, in her blog, suggested that these students may be from a non-academic background (vbkorr.blogspot.com). They may not recognise an education as an important commodity to have. These students require inspiration; they need to see the beauty and the relevance of the subject matter being taught to them. The other student group, on the other hand, appear to be quite goal driven and assessment oriented. They appear to be caught up in the competitive battle to progress further in academiaWayne’s strategy for coping with these students will require him to delve further into the root of each student group’s attitude. If he knows his student cohort, he can come up with ways to effectively teach them. As you so effectively put it, each student comes from a different background and “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.”