What makes a great teacher?

107 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Mon, 2010-02-22 15:43

Sven

Le T wrote:

Comparing the education of young children and young adults to dentists is absurd. The example shows exactly what people like Sven and Snert get wrong about education of children and young adults.

You are taking an "article" from The Onion seriously?!? Although I wasn't the one posting the link, I think Snert meant it as a joke.

Le T wrote:

Sven, you are not interested in evaluation of learning...

I disagree, but what you think I think is not really relevant.

How would you proposed student learning be evaluated? And, critically, how would you propose such evaluations be done such that one teacher in a classroom is not using a completely different standard for that evaluation than the standard being used by the teacher standing in the classroom next door who is teaching the same subject to the same grade?

Mon, 2010-02-22 15:52

#103

Snert

Quote:
Comparing the education of young children and young adults to dentists is absurd.

I hadn't realized we were discussing only the education of young children. I'm not here to criticize teachers, nor take away their autonomy. I was just taking a well-deserved swipe at the notion that testing students isn't really necessary, and that we should just assume that sitting in a classroom where learning might be taking place will result in learning taking place.

Mon, 2010-02-22 16:31

#104

Le T

Quote:
You are taking an "article" from The Onion seriously?!? Although I wasn't the one posting the link, I think Snert meant it as a joke.

Of course not. I was mearly pointing out that you and Snert think that "testing" is an important part of education. That is the essence of the disagreement in this thread in my opinion. You and Snert are applying a theory of education that says that students come to school knowing nothing, are given knowledge and can then be tested on how well they have retained this knowledge. This is training not education. This is what you would do to someone who was going to be doing root canals for instance.

Quote:
How would you proposed student learning be evaluated? And, critically, how would you propose such evaluations be done such that one teacher in a classroom is not using a completely different standard for that evaluation than the standard being used by the teacher standing in the classroom next door who is teaching the same subject to the same grade?

I would ask teachers to develop their own forms of evaluation and feedback with their students. You should question your desire for some form of objective testing of learning. It doesn't exist, it is a falacy. People have repeatedly told you this in the thread and included links, there is a huge literature on the subject. Read up.

Mon, 2010-02-22 16:36

#105

N.Beltov

Eloquently put, Le T. I might add that Sven's cookie cutter approach is also a suitable topic for criticism. Good teachers tailor the curriculum to the level of ability of their students and, as anyone who has a passing familiarity with public school classrooms knows, these levels vary very widely.

Mon, 2010-02-22 16:42

#106

Snert

Quote:
You and Snert are applying a theory of education that says that students come to school knowing nothing, are given knowledge and can then be tested on how well they have retained this knowledge. This is training not education. This is what you would do to someone who was going to be doing root canals for instance.

Actually, I tend toward being more of a Constructivist than a Behaviourist or Cognitivist, so I don't support the idea that learners are empty vessels who must be filled with the wisdom and knowledge of the teacher.

But no matter how you teach or learn, I do think it's crucial that this be demonstrable. What could possibly be the use of any learning that cannot be demonstrated? Does it make any sense to say that Bob took a course and learned all kinds of things, but is completely unable to demonstrate or use any one of them?

Mon, 2010-02-22 17:16

#107

N.Beltov

Snert wrote:
But no matter how you teach or learn, I do think it's crucial that this be demonstrable. What could possibly be the use of any learning that cannot be demonstrated? Does it make any sense to say that Bob took a course and learned all kinds of things, but is completely unable to demonstrate or use any one of them?

Bob may learn things that do not come out for many years afterwards. Teachers do many things, not all of which can be put under the microscope. And, as I have mentioned on this thread already, both creativity and critical thinking are "learning" that is very, very difficult to evaluate or test. Does this mean to you, then, that both creativity and critical thinking as goals of education should be jettisoned? (Since the demonstration of learning is so difficult)

Of course, for authoritarian educators, critical and creative thinking may be positively HARMFUL. What they want is obedience to routine, and a society of consuming drones.

Pages

Topic locked