Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a Pedagogy of Teacher Education: Understanding Teaching
and Learning About Teaching. London: Routledge. Chapter 3 Chapter 3 of the book, Developing a Pedagogy of Teacher Education is “Teaching: a problematic enterprise”. It talks about the complexity of teaching and of teaching about teaching. The author references Schon, 1983, describing teaching as an “indeterminate swampy zone”. The chapter outlines the difficulties teacher educators face when trying to hone their craft and engage in continued reflection and inquiry related to their own practices. Of particular note to me was the author’s reference to noticing, unpacking, examining, analyzing, and understanding teacher’s knowledge. These themes are examined further the work of Dr. R. West Burns, in her pedagogical framework for teacher educators. Loughran aligns with the idea that novice teachers may not have the skills to dissect what is observed, and that a skilled teacher educator may need to point out and discuss the elements that went in to making a lesson look easy. Additionally, all teachers bring their own ideas and experiences with them and this can influence what they notice and what they consider to be problematic and worthy of further investigation. Loughran talks about modeling for pre-service teachers, and that this in itself is not enough. The modelled teaching must be examined and critiqued, with the instructor allowing themselves to be vulnerable and open to this process. “Modeling carries with it the hope that as students of teaching see their teacher educators teach in this way that they will be encouraged to risk doing the same.” (pgs. 39-40). My connection to this is in the two graduate classes I’m taking this semester. Both my professors, Dr. Burns and Dr. Jacobs, don’t just talk the talk, so to speak, they walk the walk. They model the type of teaching they have us read about and discuss, showing us what it looks like in practice. They apply the strategies and concepts, allowing us to experience first-hand how we can implement these ideas in our own classrooms. Conversely, I have seen non-examples of this at the university as well. There are professors who teach inquiry, self-study, collaboration and student based learning, while doing so in a traditional lecture PowerPoint format, what Friere refers to as the “banking method” (Friere, 1968). Loughran quotes Jason and Karl, colleagues of Dinkleman, saying “it drives me crazy when people employ poor educational practices to try to communicate what good educational practices are” (interview 9/9/99, pg. 38). I can relate! It does indeed make me crazy to see this. I want the best for my students, but it’s outside my boundaries to intervene in another teacher’s classroom. I can only hope to make my own modelled practices a better example of what we hope our pre-service teachers will carry out into their classrooms. Another idea that caught my eye was the concept of management versus control. The author talks about the difference between the two, in that one can manage without having to control. Teacher learning is referred to as a complex system. It is “important in thinking about coming to understand the complexity of teaching for it is in managing the many inter-relationships in a pedagogic situation that the skill, knowledge, ability and professional autonomy of teachers comes to the fore” (pg. 35). I think many teachers confuse control with management, and if an educator is on the “edge of chaos”, as Loughran puts it, that they are not employing “good” teaching practices. Principals who would come around and judge the quality of your teaching based on the silence of your students were a particular point of contention to me in the past. As research shows, students who are passive recipients of knowledge are less likely to master the content than those that engage in direct active exploration and dialogue. To be truly effective, we as teachers have to not only analyze our own practices, but be willing to step outside our comfort zone, try something new, develop new practices, and challenge existing routines. Change and evolution are not easy, but are a part of good teaching.
2 Comments
10/8/2015 06:11:10 pm
I really enjoyed reading about the connections that you are making to other courses, and I am touched that you "notice" (now after reading the chapter) the methods to my madness. In a sense, reading the chapter was really a way of using the pedagogical skill of pointing. By asking you to read the chapter on writing, I pointed (indirectly) to help you notice these aspects in our course. Now, I'm going to point again through questioning to get you to articulate more specifics in your noticing and also to have you unpack what you are noticing. So... what are some examples of high stakes and low stakes writing that you see in this course? Do you see examples of high stakes and low stakes writing in undergraduate courses you are teaching?
Reply
Wendy
10/9/2015 02:56:49 pm
Denise,
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
April 2016
Categories
All
|