Consciously, we teach what we know; un-consciously, we teach who we are.
Hamachek (1999, p.209) cited in Korthagen (2004).
Occasionally, I read something that really strikes a chord with my thinking and my experience; Professor Fred Korthagen’s (2004) In search of the essence of a good teacher: towards a more holistic approach to teacher education, is such an article. It has inspired me in a number of ways. Firstly, it has helped me further focus and justify my doctoral study which was aiming to compare the New Zealand and Malaysian pre-service teachers’ beliefs as to the purpose and practice of primary education. I am consequently considering asking what it means to be a good teacher to those groups of people. Secondly, it gave a voice to concerns I have about the focus on ‘core competencies’ that I have experienced in the UK and New Zealand, and instead calls for more attention to be paid to ‘core values’ – amen! Thirdly his exploration of the power of Gestalts (“an unconscious body of needs, images, feelings, values, role models, previous experiences and behavioural tendencies...” (p.85) and how it these rather than a teacher’s training that often are triggered when responding to a classroom situation, resonated with both my experience as a teacher and teacher educator. Finally, I found his model for reflection extremely practical. I could see myself using it in a number of ways.
So – why not read the article?
Maybe, I should broaden my study, perhaps instead of focussing on just pre-service teachers, I should ask teachers, children, principals, parents and teacher trainers in these two countries, “What makes a good teacher?” Would there be a marked difference between the nations? Or would the roles mark the bigger difference?
By the way, what does make a good teacher?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
"By the way, what does make a good teacher?"
Wow this is a tough one! How can you quantify without measuring all the variables?
I'm interested to know...
What are the outcome measures? (results?, happy kids? happy parents?, all of these?)
I think the inclusion of kids and parents is essential. In fact, they might be the most sensitive diagnostic indicators (sorry...I can't stop using this mumbo jumbo pseudoscientific babble).
Somehow I think you need to incorporate time course data.....that is.....you need some kind of ongoing data capture, especially if the outcomes are subjective. By "subjective" I mean opinions and feelings.
Could you provide some insight into the study design methods? Would be interesting to see even if I am only a consumer of education and not a provider anymore.
Ta
I can see how this has direct relevance to the teaching of nurses and other health professionals. It goes beyond this to what impact this then has on future practice of health professionals in the work place and how they respond to patient's clinical needs and need for knowledge as well as that of colleagues with regard to peer teaching. Fascinating.
Dave Peters and Blair D, sorry for the slow response to your points – I needed time to think!
Dave, your question about outcome measures is important. The easiest way to answer it is with results, yet this is flawed. Testing of kids has become a national preoccupation in the UK and US – some one recently suggested that the US ‘No Child Left Behind’ strategy should be renamed ‘No Child Left Untested’. Tests are problematic, not least because of the inverse relationship between validity and relevance. Clearly we can test reading or mathematics, but there are lots of factors, which will impact on the results; parents, DNA, environment, learning style, the weather…. Furthermore, presumably we expect more than the teaching of these basic skills from our teachers. I want my children to learn those skills so that they might be able to function effectively in society, but they will also need to learn to deal with Others, compromise, be creative, feel positive about themselves, collaborate, research, organize themselves, stay safe and a whole host of other things too. How to we even begin to assess the delivery of such things?
Of course, you are right when you suggest that parents and children are the “most sensitive diagnostic indicators”, but even that is problematic – in some schools the parents may be so sensitive they become disruptive and others they may play a very small part. As you know, all this is very messy. Schön talked about the ‘swamps of practice’ as opposed the high ground of research. Much of what we need to know cannot be researched very effectively in a clinical positivist fashion.
So then what is a ‘good teacher’, I would argue it is one that helps individuals to ‘actualise’ themselves and become ‘happy’, contributing adults who help make a better, happier world – so test that????@#@#@#
Blair, your point about Nurses’ beliefs is so relevant. I wouldn’t want to be nursed by someone who had a distorted view of the sick. If someone didn’t value human life, Others, and basic human values, I wouldn’t care if they had advanced skills – someone with the right values with adequate skills would be my preference!
Post a Comment