I
was introduced to a new way of describing the ways in which a teacher can carry
out their instruction. According to
Barnes in his text “From Communication to Curriculum”, an “interpretation”
teacher sees the act of writing as a means by which a student can make personal
connections to ideas, make interpretations and formulate opinions that are
unique to themselves. On the other hand,
a “transmission” teacher uses writing primarily as a means of measuring the
students’ performance based on set expectations and criteria. After reading these descriptions, I
immediately began to think about what type of teacher I am. I admit to being a “transmission” teacher,
but I have to wonder if this can be attributed to the fact that much emphasis
has been placed on teaching to curriculum expectations, and of course, with the
introduction of activities like EQAO and TLCP’s, the pressure to expose
students to certain skill sets within a certain time frame becomes
paramount. I then concluded that most
Elementary school teachers must fall into the category of “Transmission Teacher”.
I was quite surprised, however, when I read that a questionnaire given to
primary teachers indicated that they tend to be more on the interpretation end,
and this was also confirmed after engaging in a discussion with my counterparts
during the last seminar – most had indicated that they were more “interpretive”
in their approach. I immediately began
to feel insecure about how I’ve been teaching my students over the past 5
years! As I offered it some more thought
and asked the opinions of some of my colleagues, we concluded that your
teaching practice can/is dependent on the circumstances in which you’re
teaching (i.e. teaching grades 3, 6, 9 - EQAO grades that call for an
accelerated curriculum). I feel as though “transmission teachers” may be on the
rise, especially as our schools are becoming more data driven, and student
success is now being gauged by test results. It seems to me, that there are fewer
opportunities for teachers to promote longer periods of inquiry and discovery
within their classrooms. Or am I wrong?
Another
interesting theme that was discussed in a couple of the articles is one that is
of great importance to me – that is the recognition of multiple intelligences
and the teaching practices that are developed in response to this theory. I truly believe that the demonstration of one’s
knowledge is not limited to reading, writing and math – the 3 ways that have
become the key skills of the “elite” learner. I also believe that a person’s
personality type (introvert vs. extrovert), can have a profound effect on the
acquisition of certain skills (i.e. depending on the individual, working in
group situations can either inhibit or promote learning). There are a growing
number of students with diverse abilities and it is important that teachers
keep abreast of the varying abilities they are sure to find within their
classroom. While all students should be able to demonstrate a certain level of
competency in literacy and numeracy, there are non-traditional ways in which a
child can be made to develop their understanding of a particular concept. It
has been said that what a student learns is dependent on how they learn, so
before concluding that a student has a “weakness” when it comes to a particular
subject area, it is the teachers responsibility to review their instructional
practices, and perhaps discover that it was a matter of HOW that student received
that information. Teachers need to plan for a diverse population of students
and give their students tasks that acknowledge their abilities, they need to be
flexible in their instruction, and provide opportunities for authentic
assessment practices.
Another
interesting point that came up for discussion was the idea of “perspective”
and/or “perception” and the fact that no single reality is held by the
majority. I have come to understand that the multiple realities that exist are
a result of the different environments, social dynamics, levels of education,
and overall experiences that are unique to and individual. I think it is extremely important to remember
this fact, when working in a situation in which you are dealing with a wide
spectrum of people (i.e. education!). As educators, the methods and attitudes
that we bring to the classroom are inevitably different. This of course is a
result of the unique perspectives we bring to the table. What makes sense and seems logical to me in
my classroom dynamic, may not necessarily seem logical to the teacher next
door, who also happens to be teaching the same grade, and has received the same
training at the same institution. Many things will factor into how we approach
our students and design our programs, so as consistent as we would like to be
as educators, it may be fundamentally impossible!
This
is the sort of thing that leads to debates about what can be considered
effective pedagogy. The hundreds of theories that exist about any aspect of
teaching and learning are theories that were developed as a result of one individual’s
unique perspective. We tend to agree with theories that are very similar to
ideas that we have already developed on our own, or that match theories that we
had previously adopted. In my experience over the past 5 years, I have found
that what worked for me in my 2nd year of teaching, may not
necessarily work for me now. Whether it be
a change in my perspective, or the fact that the profile of students I work
with year to year are significantly different – the bottom line is that
teaching is an extremely fluid profession and as a result, belief systems are
constantly shifting as well. Perspective is a powerful thing, but even more
powerful than that, is experience!
