Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-L] teaching credentials +- qualifications +-administration



Cute, but it doesn't really say anything about the research and how it can
be used. This actually verifies my claim because the ed schools do not teach
management, they teach about it. So the teachers come into the classroom
with no mental tools to deal with the situations. Of course Modeling is
designed to teach how to deal with cognitive development, but it has no
components in the afferent domain. Indeed that is largely ignored in
teacher training.

I went through a program later in life which had a large number of extremely
experienced teachers. The professors had been in the classroom for a number
of years, so they were not without experience that might have been valuable.
But by and large they didn't use IE methods in their college teaching, so
their experience was moot. In addition they really did not have training in
psychology. They were not aware of the research in either cognitive science
or classroom management. Only one professor knew the research in science
education, but did not get students to practice it.

The big problem is the lecture problem. Telling people what to do in
specific situations does not train them very well. The teacher training is
generally done by lecture or slightly modified lecture and the students
never have the opportunity to change their paradigms. I changed mine all by
myself by actually getting into the research and learning it on my own. But
there came a point where I had to just say to myself, NO, I won't do what I
am tempted to do. I won't do the easy conventional thing. I had to steel
myself and force change. But immersion programs like Modeling training make
that sort of thing much easier. Unfortunately I have yet to see any similar
national programs dealing with the classroom management issues. The
management issues need to be not just dealt with in the context of
conventional education, but in the context of inquiry and IE. Conventional
teaching is much easier because you can keep them in neat little rows in a
Gestapo like environment. But that kills their thinking.

It is easy to be dismissive of research, but there is a large body of it
that shows how things work. There is strong research in economics,
psychology, cognitive science, climatology, biology, physics, education...
Education is one of the fields where not only do you need to be trained in a
specific subject, but you also need training in psychology, cognitive
science, and pedagogy. The latter needs to be done at a practical level,
and not just from books as is often done. Schools attempt to attack this by
having cutesy little one day inservices on pop psychology. If you dare to
question what the presenters are saying you are ostracized.

While it is certainly true that one needs to understand that some problems
are your problems and others are the students' problems, that does not
address the issue. You can not solve their personal problems. But it is
possible over a period of time to change their paradigms. The fact that
they come into classes with low executive functioning is a problem that you
have to deal with. This should have been dealt with in the early elementary
level, but not only is it not being addressed, but they are removing the
only place where it is developed, recess.

Reuven Feuerstein has developed programs that vastly improve cognitive
functioning. When his patients go to college they almost always study
psychology because they want to help other the way they were helped.
Everyone has heard of Piaget's taxonomy of cognitive functioning, but he
also made one for moral development which is the basis of the modern theory
of moral development. So even moral development may be learned.
Understanding of students' development in all domains is important, but is
not really taught in ed schools, let alone how to promote development in all
those domains. And there is a correlation between improved cognitive
development and development in other domains. But many people who become
competent is something technical like math can examine their own thinking in
that subject, but often never learn to examine it in other domains.
Learning to become competent improves self esteem much more than being
praised. I submit that "wanting" to change can be learned, but not through
the conventional education teachniques. Students are being trained to be
"stupid" and as a result destructive.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


Having gone through teacher training, I can say it
generally does not
do much to change the student's attitudes or improve their
skills in teaching.
It needs a good dose of interactive engagement to change
attitudes and
skills. Part of the problem is also our society which thinks that
"those who can, do, and those who can't, teach". The attitude that
competence is inborn is another big barrier. Research shows that
incompetent people think they are very competent, but when
trained to
recognize competence, they change. They become more
competent. But
this can't be done by just telling people they are
incompetent and need to improve.

How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb?
Just one, but the light bulb has to WANT to change.
How many prospective teachers exit their ed courses (maybe
taught by someone who left the classroom with one or two
years experience) thinking they are ready and blow up after a
year because it was nothing like they were told it would be
and they couldn't adapt?