0 evaluări0% au considerat acest document util (0 voturi)
9 vizualizări3 pagini
The editor summarizes the key themes across six articles in the journal's issue. [1] The articles cover diverse topics but both emphasize inquiry-based learning and the role and responsibilities of teachers. [2] Inquiry-based learning, whether explicit or implicit, is the common touchstone of the teaching/learning paradigm discussed. [3] The role and responsibilities of teaching include not only teaching students but also learning from students, and sharing knowledge to support learning across the community.
The editor summarizes the key themes across six articles in the journal's issue. [1] The articles cover diverse topics but both emphasize inquiry-based learning and the role and responsibilities of teachers. [2] Inquiry-based learning, whether explicit or implicit, is the common touchstone of the teaching/learning paradigm discussed. [3] The role and responsibilities of teaching include not only teaching students but also learning from students, and sharing knowledge to support learning across the community.
The editor summarizes the key themes across six articles in the journal's issue. [1] The articles cover diverse topics but both emphasize inquiry-based learning and the role and responsibilities of teachers. [2] Inquiry-based learning, whether explicit or implicit, is the common touchstone of the teaching/learning paradigm discussed. [3] The role and responsibilities of teaching include not only teaching students but also learning from students, and sharing knowledge to support learning across the community.
JOURNAL OF TEACHING AND LEARNING, 2012, VOL. 8, NO.
Editors Comments
A rich variety of subject matter is submitted to the Journal of Teaching and
Learning, in papers that increasingly cut across disciplinary boundaries. This is a testament to the reach of the journal and its readership. It does, however, present an ongoing challenge to find reviewers who are willing and able to review, and who have the expertise to provide a knowledgeable critique. I would encourage you, as a reader of this journal, to consider registering as a reviewer. By bringing your expertise to the table, everyone benefits. We all depend on the time and effort of our peers who review our papers for publication. On behalf of the Journal of Teaching and Learning I would like to extend a deep expression of gratitude to the reviewers for this issue, and indeed for each of our issues. We cannot do it without you. We do not aim to create themed issues but sometimes an issue, by chance or by zeitgeist, seems to constellate around a topic. It is as if a variety of individuals got on a bus at different stops, with different destinations in mind, but struck up a conversation and, for a short while, travelled in the same direction. The articles in this issue are, on face value, about widely divergent subjects: Community involvement requirements in Ontario (Harrison); the role of the principal in leading inquiry-based learning (Towers & Panayotidis); exemplary teaching practices (Ableser); teaching paraphrasing skills to ESL students (Choy & Lee); conflict management in the classrooms of novice teachers (Parker & Bickmore); and the ethics of dissection and politics of choice in the science classroom (Oakley). But as I read and re-read these papers, I found two threads that run through each of them. One, the model of inquiry-based learning, whether explicit or implicit, has become the touchstone of the teaching/learning paradigm. Towers and Panayotidis lead the reader through a primer on two different models of teaching and learning: inquiry-based learning which is formed on the Aristotelian model of phronesis receptivity, particularity, and appropriate actions; and the technical rationalist approach, which assumes essential, generalizable, and transferable knowledge and skills. Towers and Panayotidis then explore the role of the school principal in supporting teachers as they inquire into their own practices. Judith Ableser, in her attempt to construct ten unifying principals of exemplary teaching practices, through a meta analysis of literature that spans all disciplines and all levels, returns repeatedly to a mantra of reflexive teaching practice that focuses on the learner. The great weakness that Harrison identifies in Ontarios community involvement requirement for graduation is that it does not typically involve any critical inquiry; that it is a program that has been implemented and maintained without administrators, teachers, students, nor parents bringing critical and reflexive thoughtfulness to either its purported goals or actual effects. To which inquiry-based learning would ask, Where are we going? Is it desirable? What should be done? (Towers & Panayotidis). Oakley, in her discussion of the ethics of dissection in the science classroom, and the importance of offering students real choice along with alternative ways to achieve learning outcomes, uncovers a gap in perception between teachers and students. The majority of teachers surveyed claimed that they discussed the ethics i of dissection with their students; while less than a third of the students surveyed reported that they had discussed the ethics of dissection in class. The majority of students want to be given a choice; whereas, a minority of teachers thinks that would be a good idea. What seemed to be missing in this classic case of miscommunication was the model of inquiry-based learningreceptivity, particularity, and appropriate action. How different would the discussion about the ethics of dissection be if it began by teachers listening to the students (receptivity), and recognizing the differences of beliefs and prior experience (particularity), and then moved on to planning activities and learning strategies based on what they heard (appropriate action). This might seem to suggest that students are off the hook, so to speak. However, the responsibility for receptivity, particularity, and appropriate action falls to the learner as well as to the teacher. So what would that look like? Choy & Lee explicitly worked with inquiry-based learning strategies in their research on teaching paraphrasing skills to students learning English as a Second Language. They engaged their students in the learning and in the research process at every step. While using mixed methods of quantitative and qualitative data collection, they discovered limits to the effectiveness of inquiry-based learning. While the students increased their higher order thinking, i.e., their awareness of what and how they learn, it still left them struggling to apply that higher order thinking when they lacked some of the essential tools of vocabulary and effective writing skills. There may be a place for essentialized and transferable knowledge and skills, after all, for lower order learning under the guidance of the expert teacher. This discovery, however, is also part of a process of inquiry-based learning. The second thread that runs through each of the papers is the role and responsibility of the teacher. As I suggested above, it is not only the responsibility of the teacher to teach (Ableser); it is the responsibility of the teacher to learn; of the student to learn; and of the student to teach (to share knowledge and support the learning of others in a multitude of ways, including participating in research). The cycle of teaching and learning, the challenge of entering into discussion even when that may lead to conflict and dissent (Parker & Bickmore), the responsibility of reflecting on what and how we learn (Choy & Lee), and for thoughtfully implementing curriculum (Harrison) cannot be placed on teachers alone. These tasks and responsibilities should be borne and shared by the entire communityby administrators, boards of education, politicians, parents, teachers, and community partners. Unfortunately, the political pressure to be accountable in thin ways (Towers & Panayotidis) through standardized tests and prescriptive curriculum, with little support from administrators, but an abundance of surveillance and regulation by the system, works against thoughtful ways of teaching and learning. And as Towers & Panayotidis point out, too few of those teachers who engage in graduate work focus their studies on curriculum and pedagogy. Instead, many pursue administration (although why administration and curriculum are separate streams in so many faculties of education is a puzzle). Clarkes book review of Women and Educational Leadership by Grogan and Shakeshaft may provide a gentle wave in the right direction. To bring this issue full circle, the model of leadership that Grogan and Shakeshaft describe of listening, critiquing options, and integrating opinions to encourage change
ii JOURNAL OF TEACHING AND LEARNING, 2012, VOL. 8, NO. 2
sounds a lot like the Aristotelian model of phronesisreceptivity, particularity,
and appropriate action. We could all do with more of that.