Empowering Professional Teaching in Engineering. John Heywood

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ College was the first organization created for teacher training in the UK. It was incorporated by Royal Charter in 1849. By the mid-twentieth century it offered an associate diploma, a degree level licentiateship, and higher degree level fellowship that were intended for practising teachers in the school sector. The examination for the licentiateship was in two parts, subsequently extended to three: the first part might be described as the principles of education, the study of philosophy, psychology, history of education and administration. The second part related specifically to teaching and the subject that was being taught by the candidate; in addition to a written examination it required a 10,000 word dissertation related to the candidate’s experience of teaching during the preceding year; the third part consisting of three papers related to knowledge of the subject taught by the teacher. Strangely enough, given the focus on secondary education, part 2 could also be taken in “technical education” for which there was a specific subject examination to which the dissertation had to be related. In this part of the examination the College was encouraging teachers to become researchers into their own instruction, and in so doing to extend their “tacit” knowledge. This is how I qualified as a technical college teacher, and became interested in research in technical education. I extended that interest by taking the fellowship.

      The College recognized, as we are now beginning to recognize, that lectures were unnecessary if all that they do is to repeat what is already in textbooks. Any person sufficiently motivated could read the textbooks and learn to answer the examination questions. Correspondence colleges were quick to offer programmes to support candidates who valued tutorial support. The college also recognized the need to value practice, hence the dissertation in part two of the Licentiate. It was this experience as a technical college teacher, some 25 years earlier, together with my failure in Ireland to get the graduate trainee post-primary teachers in my course in the Applied Psychology of Instruction to relate theory to practice, and vice-versa that caused me to change the course into a series of action based inquiries. They were now required to evaluate certain instructional strategies and theories in their classrooms [1].

      As it stood, the programme required the graduate-student teachers to prepare a huge number of lesson plans. These generally contained a script for a lesson, often a modification from a textbook and little else. I had no means of knowing whether the students used them in this way or not, and came to the conclusion that they were rather a waste of time.

      I also wanted to improve the approach to lesson planning because children show they recognize when the organization of teaching and learning impedes the attainment of goals; that is, if they are asked, which more often than not, they are not. One has only to look at children at play to see that many of them bring structure and organization to what they are doing. It helps their learning. One of the judgements they make about teachers is the degree to which they organize what is to be taught, and how it is to be learned. They do not want their teachers to be chaotic.

3.2 THE SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING

      Students in higher education are no different. Lessons and lectures have to have a degree of planning if they are to be perceived as successful. Evaluation, if done properly, should yield insights that develop the teachers tacit or working knowledge. Evaluation and reflection turn teaching into a continuing activity of inquiry and, sometimes research. That is the “scholarship of teaching.”

      There were two premises behind this approach. First, the teachers were forced to take the strategies and theories of instruction that would normally have been given in lectures, try them out in the teaching situation, and determine their value for them. Second, for the trainee teachers to develop critical skill in observing the “happenings” in their classrooms, in order to prepare them to systematically investigate those they viewed as critical for the development of their teaching. In this way the trainees were forced to challenge their own pre-conceived theories which might be strengthened or changed as a result of these experiences. In so doing they would acquire a system of tacit knowledge.

      The process of each activity is outlined in Exhibit 3.1. It does not include the tutor’s activity in grading, or giving feedback on the assignment which is integral to the process. When the course began the five activities to be investigated during the year were (1) The teaching of concepts using examples. (2) The use of imagery in instruction. (3) The value of knowledge of student learning styles to the tutor. (4) The relative merits of expository teaching when compared with one or another form of discovery (inquiry) learning. (5) The merits of teaching a problem solving/decision making heuristic in problem solving and learning [2].

      The process might be described as pseudo-scientific experiment. The overall activity is no different to any other design activity as Exhibit 3.2 shows. The teacher had to design a lesson to test the hypothesis that they had taken or deduced from the literature. Then they had to design a test that is related to the content of the course as normally taught, and at the same time, they had also to evaluate the method (theory) of instruction used: A considerable task. The test had to be subjected to descriptive statistical analysis, and a substantial written evaluation had to be made.

      1. Academic Course: Introduction to activity (2 – 4 hours)

      2. Student Preparation

      a. Read the literature on the designated topic (provided)

      b. Select a small topic from the literature for investigation (this may be to replicate one of the studies reported in the literature).

      c. Design a lesson to test the hypothesis shown in (b); (this to include the entering characteristics of the pupils, a statement of aims and objectives, the instructional procedures showing how they will test the hypothesis, etc.)

      d. Design a pupil test of knowledge and skill which is directly related to the objectives of the lesson.

      3. Academic Course: (only if students require a seminar) to iron out difficulties (2 hours).

      4. Student Implementation

      a. Implement Class as designed.

      b. Immediate Evaluation. (Evaluation 1)

      i. What happened in the class?

      ii. What happened to me?

      iii. What have I learned about myself?

      iv. What have I learned about my pupils?

      5. One Week (or so) Later.

      a. Test Students- comment (Evaluation 2).

      b. Substantive evaluation (evaluation 3)

      i. How does what I have done relate to the theory which I set out to evaluate?

      ii. How, if at all will this influence my teaching in the future?

      6. Submit report at the required time.

Exhibit 3.1: The process of the “lesson plan” activity (Heywood, J. (2007). Instructional and Curriculum Leadership. Toward Inquiry Oriented Schools. Dublin, Original Writing for the National Association of Principals and Deputies—Chapter 5).

      I would argue, that these studies meet Elliott’s requirement for action research because they “study the social situation (classroom) with a view to improving the quality of action within it” [3]. Because it was action research it was not expected that the student teachers should stick strictly to the plan irrespective of difficulties experienced in the classroom. What mattered was that satisfactory reasons were given for the change in plan. The progress of teaching СКАЧАТЬ