Summary:
The chapter 19 of this week’s readings, Svinicki & McKeachie’s (2014) discusses other strategies that promote more active learning and make learning authentic and meaningful to students which they refer to as laboratory learning. They explain laboratory learning to be the kind of teaching and learning which students get firsthand experience of concepts. They assert that firsthand experience is the best way of learning as it gives learners the opportunity to practice the concept being learned therefore the best way to connect theory to practice. The styles the authors discuss include expository (has pre-ordained result(s) which mainly emphasizes on manipulation skills), inquiry (usually student-led without predetermined result(s) where students formulate their own problem based on the information at hand), discovery (usually teacher-guided inquiry where the teacher construct the setting with a prescribed outcome in mind and control discussions so that s/he directs students towards it in order to make knowledge more student’s owned) and problem-based (where context is created for students to formulate/generate their own question based on the information provided by the instructor) instruction. The authors give examples to illustrate how each of the strategies could be used in different disciplines. Among these styles, the authors show the most used, expository, though it is poor at promoting deeper learning. This discusses the commonalities between laboratory (usually for the sciences) and studio (for the arts) learning and their importance to promoting authentic and deeper learning for students. The authors stress on things that make laboratory/studio instruction effective and achievable: careful planning to ensure all students participate, stating the goal(s) for the choice of strategy clearly, and ensuring that the chosen strategy aligns with the methodology of the discipline.
Loughran’s (2006) chapter 6 discusses the importance of teacher educators examining how they connect the belief they proffer aligns with the way they teach. The author advocates the need for teacher educators to be conscious of the kind of teaching they do in the classroom and making sure that it aligns with what they teach their students as students tends to learn what they see their teachers do more than what they hear them say/teach. He discusses how the knowledge in the use of different strategies is not enough when it comes to teacher education. He stresses on the need for teacher educators to be constantly reflective of their teaching so that they (teacher educators) ensuring being fully grounded in profession to enable them be able to address the underlying features of teaching and learning. Loughran explains that aligning our beliefs with the real teaching we do in the classroom help our preservice teachers (PSTs) know how the teaching procedure works and also know the complexities and why it works, implying that it teaches the PSTs the congruency of the ‘whats’ and ‘whys’ about teaching. The author discusses the importance of establishing trusting relationship in teacher education.
Reflection:
This week’s readings, to me, seem very connected as the authors emphasized the appropriate and effective methods used by teachers in their teaching to ensuring deeper learning. Both chapters challenged me to reflect on my past and present teaching. Svinicki & McKeachie’s (2014) chapter 19 reminded me of how I have used the ‘expository’ approach in teaching in the past on my own with the intention of the using ‘discovery’ style. It was through their discussion of the different style that made me aware that what I have been using was expository instead of the discovery I intended. Also, after reading this chapter I realized that the studio instruction is used mostly by the fine art instructors in some of the Ghanaian High Schools and universities. From my own experience, most instructors in the humanities in my country are of the view that studio learning is just for the fine art instructors and their students. I remembered how most of us (faculty in the Dept. Basic Education at the University of Cape Coast-Ghana) had problem with the fine art instructor when she mentioned at one of our staff meetings that she wanted to introduce studio instruction. Most of us thought that she was going to waste the student’s time and that these students were being trained to be teachers and not artists (I was ashamed of myself for being that ignorant). We were being the ‘living contradiction’ explained in the first paragraph of Loughran’s (2006) chapter 6. From my understanding of the studio instruction, we were each (faculty that were against studio teaching) using it partially in our instruction in that we made students do fieldwork and even prior to that, students did peer teaching to enable them practice what they were learning. We all believed in the effectiveness of connecting theory to practice and advocating students get firsthand information of their learning but abhorring their real strategy (studio instruction) that can get them there.
Another big thing I learned from this chapter was that I made a good choice for choosing USF College of Education for my doctoral program because their training links so well with the studio instruction or situated learning. Both their undergraduate and graduate programs link theory-practice so well. On the authors’ discussion of the ‘wet’ and ‘dry’ laboratories, I was wondering if the peer teaching which we call in Ghana, ‘on-campus teaching practice’ (OCTP) is a type of ‘dry’ laboratory because that is where student teachers are given the chance to tryout teaching strategies on their peers for supportive feedback before they go into the real classroom for their internship. Another take away from this chapter was higher probability of situated learning retaining students from underrepresented populations in the classroom. I saw the use of situated learning appropriate for Ghanaian students in that it has the capability for ensuring educational success of bilinguals as it breaks the barriers of language problems.
I see Loughran’s (2006) assertion that teacher educators need to be constantly reflective on their practice to ensure that their teaching aligns with the beliefs they profess to be true. As he rightly illustrated in chapter 6, my own experience and that of others show that students learn more from how we teach than what we teach. With regard to my reflection on how I teach, I can attest to the fact that my teaching has mainly been modified and is being modified by the good things I see my instructors do in their teaching more than the strategies I am taught. I connected this with the strategies I read in Svinicki & McKeachie’s (2014) chapter 19, and agreed that student teachers would understand best when they see their teachers use it in their instruction. When I assessed my teaching with “Table 6.1” I could see that I have not done much effective teaching in my teaching career and this reminded me of the assertion that learning in the teaching profession is a long life practice.
I also began to look into my teaching philosophy (assignment) I submitted recently and saw that I am ‘biting’ more than I can ‘chew’. I agreed with Loughran (2006) that some of the things we proffer to believe in are far from what we actually practice in the real classroom. I acknowledged that teaching philosophy is evolving, but from my understanding, if we do not make conscious effort to reflect and notice the pitfalls in our own teaching and make intentional effort to better them, our ‘beautiful’ and ‘wonderful’ teaching philosophies will come to nothing. I see teaching philosophy as an embodiment of the principles he talked about and the critical review of it leads to unpacking. He explains the principles/philosophy to be windows into which one assesses his/her pedagogical thoughts and actions. I realized that to be an effective teacher educator, ‘disturbing practice’ should be a habit and character. I see this chapter as laying emphasis on the chapter 4: Making the tacit explicit, where that author advocates teacher educators not to only tell but model as well as how to deal with uncomfortable practice to their PSTs to equip them on how to solve problem in such situation in their own teaching. His use of illustrative exemplars were very insightful because they make readers see at least what others have done about the concepts under discussion in a real life situation.
Reference
Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning
about teaching. London: Routledge.
Svinicki, M., & McKeachie, W. J. (2014). McKeachie’s teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college
and university teachers (14th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
The chapter 19 of this week’s readings, Svinicki & McKeachie’s (2014) discusses other strategies that promote more active learning and make learning authentic and meaningful to students which they refer to as laboratory learning. They explain laboratory learning to be the kind of teaching and learning which students get firsthand experience of concepts. They assert that firsthand experience is the best way of learning as it gives learners the opportunity to practice the concept being learned therefore the best way to connect theory to practice. The styles the authors discuss include expository (has pre-ordained result(s) which mainly emphasizes on manipulation skills), inquiry (usually student-led without predetermined result(s) where students formulate their own problem based on the information at hand), discovery (usually teacher-guided inquiry where the teacher construct the setting with a prescribed outcome in mind and control discussions so that s/he directs students towards it in order to make knowledge more student’s owned) and problem-based (where context is created for students to formulate/generate their own question based on the information provided by the instructor) instruction. The authors give examples to illustrate how each of the strategies could be used in different disciplines. Among these styles, the authors show the most used, expository, though it is poor at promoting deeper learning. This discusses the commonalities between laboratory (usually for the sciences) and studio (for the arts) learning and their importance to promoting authentic and deeper learning for students. The authors stress on things that make laboratory/studio instruction effective and achievable: careful planning to ensure all students participate, stating the goal(s) for the choice of strategy clearly, and ensuring that the chosen strategy aligns with the methodology of the discipline.
Loughran’s (2006) chapter 6 discusses the importance of teacher educators examining how they connect the belief they proffer aligns with the way they teach. The author advocates the need for teacher educators to be conscious of the kind of teaching they do in the classroom and making sure that it aligns with what they teach their students as students tends to learn what they see their teachers do more than what they hear them say/teach. He discusses how the knowledge in the use of different strategies is not enough when it comes to teacher education. He stresses on the need for teacher educators to be constantly reflective of their teaching so that they (teacher educators) ensuring being fully grounded in profession to enable them be able to address the underlying features of teaching and learning. Loughran explains that aligning our beliefs with the real teaching we do in the classroom help our preservice teachers (PSTs) know how the teaching procedure works and also know the complexities and why it works, implying that it teaches the PSTs the congruency of the ‘whats’ and ‘whys’ about teaching. The author discusses the importance of establishing trusting relationship in teacher education.
Reflection:
This week’s readings, to me, seem very connected as the authors emphasized the appropriate and effective methods used by teachers in their teaching to ensuring deeper learning. Both chapters challenged me to reflect on my past and present teaching. Svinicki & McKeachie’s (2014) chapter 19 reminded me of how I have used the ‘expository’ approach in teaching in the past on my own with the intention of the using ‘discovery’ style. It was through their discussion of the different style that made me aware that what I have been using was expository instead of the discovery I intended. Also, after reading this chapter I realized that the studio instruction is used mostly by the fine art instructors in some of the Ghanaian High Schools and universities. From my own experience, most instructors in the humanities in my country are of the view that studio learning is just for the fine art instructors and their students. I remembered how most of us (faculty in the Dept. Basic Education at the University of Cape Coast-Ghana) had problem with the fine art instructor when she mentioned at one of our staff meetings that she wanted to introduce studio instruction. Most of us thought that she was going to waste the student’s time and that these students were being trained to be teachers and not artists (I was ashamed of myself for being that ignorant). We were being the ‘living contradiction’ explained in the first paragraph of Loughran’s (2006) chapter 6. From my understanding of the studio instruction, we were each (faculty that were against studio teaching) using it partially in our instruction in that we made students do fieldwork and even prior to that, students did peer teaching to enable them practice what they were learning. We all believed in the effectiveness of connecting theory to practice and advocating students get firsthand information of their learning but abhorring their real strategy (studio instruction) that can get them there.
Another big thing I learned from this chapter was that I made a good choice for choosing USF College of Education for my doctoral program because their training links so well with the studio instruction or situated learning. Both their undergraduate and graduate programs link theory-practice so well. On the authors’ discussion of the ‘wet’ and ‘dry’ laboratories, I was wondering if the peer teaching which we call in Ghana, ‘on-campus teaching practice’ (OCTP) is a type of ‘dry’ laboratory because that is where student teachers are given the chance to tryout teaching strategies on their peers for supportive feedback before they go into the real classroom for their internship. Another take away from this chapter was higher probability of situated learning retaining students from underrepresented populations in the classroom. I saw the use of situated learning appropriate for Ghanaian students in that it has the capability for ensuring educational success of bilinguals as it breaks the barriers of language problems.
I see Loughran’s (2006) assertion that teacher educators need to be constantly reflective on their practice to ensure that their teaching aligns with the beliefs they profess to be true. As he rightly illustrated in chapter 6, my own experience and that of others show that students learn more from how we teach than what we teach. With regard to my reflection on how I teach, I can attest to the fact that my teaching has mainly been modified and is being modified by the good things I see my instructors do in their teaching more than the strategies I am taught. I connected this with the strategies I read in Svinicki & McKeachie’s (2014) chapter 19, and agreed that student teachers would understand best when they see their teachers use it in their instruction. When I assessed my teaching with “Table 6.1” I could see that I have not done much effective teaching in my teaching career and this reminded me of the assertion that learning in the teaching profession is a long life practice.
I also began to look into my teaching philosophy (assignment) I submitted recently and saw that I am ‘biting’ more than I can ‘chew’. I agreed with Loughran (2006) that some of the things we proffer to believe in are far from what we actually practice in the real classroom. I acknowledged that teaching philosophy is evolving, but from my understanding, if we do not make conscious effort to reflect and notice the pitfalls in our own teaching and make intentional effort to better them, our ‘beautiful’ and ‘wonderful’ teaching philosophies will come to nothing. I see teaching philosophy as an embodiment of the principles he talked about and the critical review of it leads to unpacking. He explains the principles/philosophy to be windows into which one assesses his/her pedagogical thoughts and actions. I realized that to be an effective teacher educator, ‘disturbing practice’ should be a habit and character. I see this chapter as laying emphasis on the chapter 4: Making the tacit explicit, where that author advocates teacher educators not to only tell but model as well as how to deal with uncomfortable practice to their PSTs to equip them on how to solve problem in such situation in their own teaching. His use of illustrative exemplars were very insightful because they make readers see at least what others have done about the concepts under discussion in a real life situation.
Reference
Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning
about teaching. London: Routledge.
Svinicki, M., & McKeachie, W. J. (2014). McKeachie’s teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college
and university teachers (14th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.