How I Teach, How You Learn.

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 2^nd 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!