Pedagogy- How important is it?
It has been interesting to share Greg’s post and Chrissy’s posts 1 and post 2 about pedagogy.
I am of the opinion that it is vital for us as practioners to know the answer to the WHY? question. There are many teachers of various generations that I know or know of who struggle with the WHY? question. I have had to take a stand on this issue recently when a colleague of mine answered me by saying:
“I really don’t think we should concern ourselves with the background to why we have identified these traits as being gifted and talented, we should just concern ourselves with classroom practise.”
I totally agree with her about focusing on our classroom practise but we still need to understand the purpose behind what we do, simply replying to the question “Why do you run your reading programme like that?” or “How did you determine these as valuable traits to worthy of additional time and resources?” with the words “Because Marg told me to” really isn’t going to cut, especially in an ERO year!
My main focus has to be on the classroom teacher, me specifically. What values and beliefs to I hold to as I develop my classroom practise.
In 1997 Julia Atkin wrote an article entitled “Enhancing Learning with Inforamtion & Communication Technology: Promises, pitfalls & practicalities”
She uses the term ‘Learning Technologist’ as one possible alternative to ‘teacher’ – Learning technology she states is the applied science of learning. I do prefer this term to facilitator, coach and teacher, the reason being that the Learning is placed at the heart of the role:
In a world rich in information technology, the authority of the teacher no longer lies in being the one who knows. Rather it is in being the one who knows about knowing and learning and in being the one who has deep understanding of aspects of the powerful ideas and processes captured in collective human wisdom.
She identifies a Learning Technologist as on who:
-
recognises that effective learning requires active construction of meaning by the learner and is active in designing and negotiating appropriate learning experiences;
-
• is mindful of the learning styles and needs of each individual learner and promotes and affirms their individual ways of knowing;
-
• intervenes where necessary to help the learner use strategies and processes which take them beyond their style to enhance and maximise their learning;
- • teaches the learners about their own learning.
Let us consider for a moment the value of contextual, transformational learning, Julia puts it like this;
-
intrinsic motivation
- need/purpose/perceived challenge
- curiosity
- relevance
- inner drive
• teacher passion
• direct experience
• learning/teaching strategies which stimulate and integrate multiple ways of knowing
But which, if not all of these, does the learning technologist have control over ? Point one is something I have struggled with for sometime, how do you develop intrinsic motivation into our students.
What does this model look like for the ECE teacher? the primary teacher? the secondary teacher?
One concern of mine is contextual pedagogy, “We are in a decile 1 school, these kids are needy, they need structure, routine, discipline- this changing pedagogy that you talk about is really good decile 10 schools. They don’t have the same issues that we have. What we have gonig on here is a historic, schoolwide approach to education. Everyone needs to do the same, OUR children can’t handle change. It is working for us now and has done for the past 20 years, we slot technology in where we can, that’s enough isn’t it? Our kids aren’t that connected anyway.”
It is through our conversation, in school and over the edublogosphere, that we can address these key issues:
-
deepening understanding of learning and how it is changing
-
the development of learning strategies to meet the needs of the 21st century
-
the development of collaborative, student-centred learning
- developing approaches for learning to learn.
I saw another good quote you would love today in a book I was reading about behaviour management:’I have done it that way for 29 years and 2 terms, so why should I change?’
Interesting ideas. I don’t know, however, if finding a new name for us is necessary. I agree with what seems to be your implied point that by labeling us as other than ‘teachers’ we can engage ourselves and others in a discussion of what we really do — instead of relying on longstanding stereotype-driven views of teachers and the teaching profession. And I don’t like ‘facilitator’ or other jargon.
I’m a teacher, and good teachers can only be defined as such by doing those things you put forth in your post. I’m interested in reading more — it sounds like you and I have some ideas in common.
jdg
I’m not sure i understand what was meant by ‘teaches the learners about their own learning.’ But it gets me thinking about he value of pointing out to students the progressions they go through in the learning that they accomplish. Identifying how this happens and that it is indeed happening can be encouraging to students, particularly the ones who struggle.