My Pratt’s Teaching Perspectives Inventory came back showing that I was high in both Transmission and Apprenticeship. Given the fact that I believe that the classroom is a place where students should have the opportunity to master the subject that they are learning, and that they should then use that mastery to make a difference in the world at large, I was not surprised by those findings. I do believe that there is something to the premise that education should take place with the learner’s point of view in mind, but I don’t think that should be the center of the planning process. When I take my car in to have it repaired, I don’t expect the mechanic to make his repairs with my thought processes in mind. When I go to the doctor’s office to have some tests performed, I don’t expect the medical staff to approach the task with my point of view in mind. Instead, I want them to put their expertise to work so that my car runs smoothly and that any medical problems that I may have receive prompt, effective treatment.
This is not to mean that I think that the classroom should be a place where factual matter is doled out with the students remaining passive recipient information. I use almost no lecture in my classroom methods; instead, I use Socratic seminars and group discussions to maximize the amount of understanding. With regard to written assignments, I provide individualized conferencing so that students understand areas of improvement without having to sit through whole-group editing and revising sessions. I only use that sort of instruction when the entire class (or at least a majority) is laboring under the same misapprehension when it comes to the writing process.
I don’t think that anyone can be an effective teacher without thinking of the long-term effects of what they are doing in the classroom. I’m not doing what I’m doing because of the massive salary, the lavish surroundings or the motivational powers of the administrators on my campus. I’m doing what I do so that I can change the world, one student at a time. That doesn’t mean that I ask my students to agree with my politics: my calling is to help students improve their critical thinking skills and improve their ability to communicate, both with the spoken and written word. If they also emerge with a love for literature, all the better.
Reflective Paper #2
After taking the Prosser and Trigwell assessment for approaches to teaching, my score indicate that I am closest to Approach B (teacher-focused strategy with the intention that students acquire the concepts of the discipline). This is consistent with some of my own philosophical ideas about what teaching should be able to accomplish – and what it should be about.
I do think that the students should be the focus of what we do in the classroom as teachers. After all, they are the ones who are depending on the teacher in order to gain the skills and competencies that they need to succeed in the world after they leave our classrooms and either move on to university or into the career world.
However, while the students should be the focus of what we do, focusing the strategy on the students makes the teacher into a uniform, replicable entity rather than taking into account the individual strengths of the teacher’s personality. Consider two different teachers of an Advanced Placement English Literature and Composition class. The syllabus for the course requires instruction of a variety of interpretation strategies as well as exposure to a wide variety of American, British and other sources of literature. However, one teacher might be particularly strong at teaching the writing process for the analysis essays required to pass the examination, while the other might be strong at interpreting and analyzing literary techniques in works of poetry as well as prose. The two classrooms are likely to operate quite differently, as the class where the teacher is strong in writing process (but weaker in analysis) is likely to involve more individual conferencing and peer editing sessions than the other class, which is likely to heavily rely on class discussion to show students the way to interpretation, leaving them more on their own when it comes to devising strategies for the writing process.
Does that make one classroom better than the other? No, because in both classes the students are gaining concepts that they will need to succeed in the spring, when they take the Advanced Placement test for college credit. However, some will have had more exposure to the interpretation process while others will have had more exposure to the writing process. Both are necessary, and the different classrooms thrive because they use the strength of the teacher as their organizing principle, which is appropriate so long as the core competencies are taught.
Reflective Paper #3
When I consider what my academic identity is as a teacher, I keep coming back to the strengths of the inquiry-based learning process. I don’t believe that students will truly take ownership of their learning if they are not involved with determining their areas of interest and then pursuing those areas as closely as possible in the completion of projects and other activities in which choice is appropriate. There is a considerable body of research indicating that student engagement is much higher when their inquiry is allowed to form the basis of their choices (Lee 2011; Novak and Gowin 1984; Brew 2003). While my self-reflection has helped me to think that the teacher should design projects that allow the teacher to work toward his or her strengths in the instructional process, once the student has the necessary skills or is in the process of refining those skills, the students should be allowed to follow their own areas of inquiry whenever possible (Justice 2007, Knowles 1975). Internal reflection is a must for any profession but particularly in a field as affective as education.
The most obvious benefit of inquiry-based learning is greater student engagement (Candy 1991). However, students who do not have the skills necessary to begin inquiry-based learning need scaffolding before they get started. Consistency across perspectives as well as internal consistency in the classroom in this vein begins with introducing students to your norms for pursuing their areas of inquiry, but it also involves showing students how to take responsibility for each step of the process. Students who have been accustomed to have learning and inquiry processes spoon-fed to them may be at a loss when they are given the freedom to pursue their own lines of wonder and interest. When that happens, it’s up to the teacher to show the student how to build a line of inquiry and pursue it (Hudspith and Jenkins 2001). For teachers who are new to the profession, using peer and professional validation to build a set of best practices is key. That is crucial for helping students know how to pursue their own lines of critical thinking later in life, whether in higher education or in the career world (Prince and Felder, 2006; Riordan and Roth, 2005; Spronken-Smith and Walker, 2010). The institutions of higher learning and companies out in the real world need graduates who can perform those critical thinking skills, and it is our job to help our students reach those skill levels before they leave our halls (Barnett, 2005; Bell, 1966).
Bibliography
Barnett R (2005). Reshaping the university: New relationships between research, scholarship and
teaching. Maidenhead, United Kingdom: McGraw-Hill.
Bell D (1966). The reforming of general education. New York: Columbia University Press.
Brew A (2003). Teaching and research: New relationships and their implications for inquiry-
based teaching and learning in higher education. Higher Education Research and Development 22(1): 3-18.
Candy P (1991). Self-direction for lifelong learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hudspith B & Jenkins H 2001. Teaching the art of inquiry. Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: Society
for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education.
Justice C (2007). Inquiry in higher education: Reflections and directions in course design and
teaching methods. Journal of Innovative Higher Education 31(4): 201-214.
Knowles M (1975). Self-directed learning. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Lee VS (2011). The power of inquiry as a way of learning. Innovative Higher Education 36(3): 149-160.
Novak JD & Gowin DB (1984). Learning how to Learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Price MJ & Felder RM (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education 95(2): 123-138.
Riordan R & Roth J (eds) (2005). Disciplines as frameworks for student learning: Teaching the
practice of the disciplines. Sterling, Va: Stylus.
Spronken-Smith R & Walker R (2010). Can inquiry-based learning strengthen the links between
teaching and disciplinary research? Studies in Higher Education 35(6): 723-740.
