ED 4134 Item 1 Hattie

Descriptive Reflection

Professor John Hattie set out to define the attributes that form a quality teacher. He believes that once these attributes are justified (by his own and others research) they can be used to develop and defend high quality teacher education programs. Hattie highlights the fact that in the past unsatisfactory teacher performance and consequently student performance, has often been dealt with by means of a reorganisation of systems already in play, he gives the example of decreasing class sizes. Hattie distinguishes between expert and experienced teachers by describing how expert teachers stimulate deep learning, as opposed to surface learning, in their students. Expert teachers differ from experienced teachers in three main areas – the way they represent their classrooms, the degree of challenges they present to students and the depth of processing that their students attain (Hattie, 2003).

Critical Reflection

Hattie is a breath of fresh air among the many psychological theories being battered around. After proposing the development of teacher training programs with the view to a renewal of focus on the success of our teachers to make a difference it is refreshing to note his effort in obtaining a broad range of data to defend the program. Hattie’s research seems to take from many of the psychological models and combine them into a practical, scientifically supported approach to learning. Hattie is not a psychologist and this is evident from his lack of wanting to push either an obvious cognitive or social framework of learning. However, although the article focus is on teachers and Hattie justifies the teacher as being the next major influence on student learning, I would like to know more about his opinions on peer learning and whether he places any value on it.

References

Hattie, J (2003). Teachers Make a Difference: What is the research evidence?
Retrieved on March 28; 2007, from
http://tonymcarthur.edublogs.org/files/2007/02/hattie_teachers_make_a_difference.pdf

http://www.education.auckland.ac.nz/staff/j.hattie/

ED 4234 Item 1 Glasser

Descriptive Reflection

Behavioural psychotherapist William Glasser developed a model of behavioural therapy he renamed Choice Theory in 1998. Choice Theory was originally designed for use by anyone who worked in a social profession. More recently Glasser’s theory has been revamped for specific use in school environments. Choice Theory works on the basis that almost all behaviour is chosen. Glasser argues that when an individual consciously takes responsibility for their chosen behaviour they begin to actively engage with a more positive approach to daily life (Wikipedia, 2007). In his book Control Theroy Glasser argues that we spend too much time on discipline in schools when rather we should be concentrating on effective learning strategies. He suggests that effective education is about “using and improving knowledge” and advocates a policy of open learning in schools. Glasser lists seven caring habits that when utilised by teachers will help produce strong peer and student/teacher relationships and create a constructive learning environment.

Critical Reflection

In theory Glasser’s model of behavioural therapy seems reasonable and even achievable. However, there are issues about the overall effectiveness regarding the actual implementation of his theory. Unless all children are to be schooled in a Glasser quailty school from a very early age the idea of “open learning” risks gaps in their education. Open learning possesses potential time management problems and could lead to an increase in learning diversity ranges within a class. In Critera for a Quality School Glasser proposes that trust and respect eliminate discipline problems, but not incidents. Kids will be kids. Although the concept of encouraging positive attitudes is a good idea it is not realistic to expect all school age children to actively engage with this theory. Glasser also fails to acknowledge external influences and pressures such as individual temperament, hormonal changes in adolescents, economic stresses at home etc.

References

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Glasser

http://wglasser.com/whatisct.htm

http://wik.ed.uiuc.edu/index.php/Glasser,_William

http://wik.ed.uiuc.edu/index.php/Control_theory

http://www.wglasser.com/quality.htm

ED 4134 Item 1 Bruner

Descriptive Reflection

Jerome Bruner’s Constructivist Learning Theory is based on the concept of categorization. Bruner states that a person of any age, even very young children, are capable of understanding any concept provided the instruction is within the realm of their ability to comprehend and perform. This is similar to the concept of domain specific learning. Bruner’s idea of building up specific knowledge is based on Bloom’s Taxonomy .

Bruner requires the following principles for learning; a readiness to learn, an appropriate teaching method that suits the student and an effective sequence in which to present the material if this is successful the end result should be that the student reaches a point where they can go beyond the given information and draw their own conclusions based on their individual knowledge and problem solving ability (Wikipedia, 2007).

Critical Reflection

Like Piaget, Bruner’s ideas are classified as cognitive constructionist theory however Bruner seems to be a bit more in tune with the concept of domain specific learning, as opposed to Piaget who generalised broad stages of development. Bruner’s stages of development in children are based on three representations but these stages are not as rigid as Piaget’s and “translate” into one another. As teacher’s we can take from Bruner the concept that just because a student possesses an advanced understanding in one subject area this does mean this immediately apply to other areas of learning. As facilitators of learning we need to be aware of how best to guide students in making discoveries for themselves.

References

http://tip.psychology.org/bruner.html

http://en.wikapedia.org/wiki/Categorization

http://tap.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/10/3/353

http://www.teachers.ash.org.au/researchskills/dalton.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Bruner

ED 4134 Item 1 Piaget

Descriptive Reflection

Jean Piaget’s Cognitive Development Theory is concerned with the measurement of children’s cognitive development which he organized into the following four stages;

Sensorimotor Stage (birth to 2yrs)
Preoperational Stage (2yrs-6/7yrs)
Concrete Stage (6/7yrs-11/12yrs)
Formal Operations Stage (11/12-adult)

Piaget comes from a cognitive constructivist school of thought because he believed a child advanced to the next stage once a state of equilibrium had been reached through the self construction of knowledge. He saw children as “independent explorers” who were “active in the problem solving process” (Silverthorn, 1999).

Piaget taught us that children’s reasoning and thought processes differ to adults. After testing Piaget’s Cognitive Development Theory across hundreds of cultures it seems he was reasonably accurate in describing the content and sequence of learning. Piaget’s concept of stages has been applied to many other aspects of human development (Sigelman et al, 1995).

Critical Reflection

Piaget made a sweeping claim that broad stages of development exist whereas more recent research suggests that cognitive development is more likely to be domain specific and continuous. Unlike Vygotsky's social constructivist view, Piaget's stage theory suggests an endpoint in development(Sigelman et al, 1995).

Piaget failed to distinguish competence from performance. As Sigelman et al point out “when a subject failed a task Piaget assumed it was because they were unable to grasp the concept he was testing” He did not account for other influencing factors of performance such as motivation, verbal abilities, memory etc. (Sigelman et al, 1995). Piaget often neglected social influences because he was more concerned with identifying cognitive structures that influenced performance.

By critiquing the work of Piaget and Vygotsky we begin to recognise the importance of both cognitive and social develpoment theories and the impact this research has on being able to cater for different learning styles. As teacher’s we can manipulate and mix learning theories to extract the best results from individual students.

References

Sigelman, C. K. & Shaffer, D. R (1995). Life Span Human Development. 2nd Ed. Brooks Cole Publishing. Pacific Grove, California.

Silverthorn, P. (1999). Jean Piaget’s Theory of Development. Retrieved on March 28, 2007 from http://tonymcarthur.edublogs.org/files/2007/03/piaget.htm

http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/construct.html

http://tip.psychology.org/piaget.html

http://tap.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/10/3/353

http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/~chenml/411/Gelman1998.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Piaget

ED 4134 Item 1 Vygotsky

Descriptive Reflection:

Lev Vygotsky’s Social Development Theory is a social constructivist model emphasising the impact of social influences on cognitive development ‘Cognitive growth occurs in a social context and evolves out of the child’s social interactions’ (Siegelman et al, 1995).

He believed learning occurred in what he dubbed the Zone of Proximal Development. This is the area of difference between what a child can accomplish alone and what they can accomplish with the guidance of more mature thinkers (Wikipedia, 2007). Vygotsky argued that children learn more sophisticated cognitive strategies through interaction with more competent individuals. By internalizing advanced problem solving methods the student is building a scaffold.

Vygotsky also had clear views about the importance of how language shaped thought. He described how social speech becomes private speech and later inner speech. Although Vygotsky’s research primarily concentrated on the cognitive development of children, he saw learning as a life long process (Riddle, 1999) .


Critical Reflection:

Interest in Vygotsky’s Social Development Theory is being revived on account of dissatisfaction with the conditioning approach to learning. Prensky’s Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants essay argues that today’s students are ‘hardwired’ differently meaning traditional student / teacher interactions are becoming a less effective method of learning.

Vygotsky’s emphasise on guided learning can be appropriated in a contemporary learning environment where teacher’s are being encouraged to take a more passive role. The concept that children internalise methods of problem solving shown to them by more mature thinkers (be they other students or teachers) who are sensitive to their zone of proximal development becomes apparent through the observation of group work (Sigelman et al, 1995). Although the benefits of this type of interaction are notable and not to be underestimated, in a real classroom situation the time restraints may mean that more direct methods of teaching are sometimes more constructive.

References

Riddle, E. M. (1999). Lev Vygotsky’s Social Development Theory. Retrieved in March 28, 2007, from
http://tonymcarthur.edublogs.org/files/2007/03/vygotsky1.htm

Sigelman, C. K. & Shaffer, D. R (1995). Life Span Human Development. 2nd Ed. Brooks Cole Publishing. Pacific Grove, California.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1933/play.htm

http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/words/index.htm

http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev_Vygpotsky

ED 4236 Personal Reflection

I come from a psychology background and have always had an interest in the way people function. I am fascinated by the diversity of individual differences in learning styles; although I find the prospect of having to cater for this in the classroom a little daunting.

After spending 2006 working at a co educational boarding school in Lancashire in the UK – sort of a post grad gap experience – I have begun to appreciate the concept of the digital native (we looked at this with Kathryn) and the fact that kids today operate by way of multi tasking. A classic example of this was witnessing a boy playing a tennis match and talking on his mobile phone at the same time! The point being that from my perspective you EITHER play tennis OR you talk on the phone. It is thought that kids today learn in more of a spider web pattern than a linear pattern. This concept immediately lends itself to more creative methods of teaching.

Last year, I found working with the curriculum support kids the most rewarding part of my job because when they ‘got it’ they really ‘got it’! Their enthusiasm to apply the new found knowledge was contagious! However, it was not only the end result that satisfied me but the process we worked through to help the student find a method of learning / understanding that worked for them.

This process - of guiding the student to the next level so they are able to take the next step themselves - seems obvious when working on a one to one basis. But what about being in a classroom situation? When you have 30 odd students and don’t have the time to focus on each individual? How do you make the lesson as constructive as possible for ALL your students?

Until now I have never consciously considered the role of a teacher as being a facilitator of learning. I understand the value of helping students build up a repertoire of learning skills that they can call upon to choose the most effective problem solving method (for use both academically and throughout their lives). This discussion has helped to shift my focus from a one on one perspective to that of a group situation (although I’m still unsure how to best activate the building of learning skills for each individual in a classroom situation).

Until recently I have never been ‘taught how to teach’. Therefore, up until this point all my school experience has been based on instinct. But reflecting on my experience last year I have begun to recognize the significance of the saying that 'as teachers we wear many different hats'.

Last year I was teaching EAL classes, being a teacher’s aide in curriculum support and coaching both girls and boys sporting teams. I have begun to recognize that how I relate to kids (and how they relate to me), depends upon the circumstances and the defined role we find ourselves in. I have begun to think about why it is that I respond in a particular way and whether that response is appropriate. This is an important point because the kids see me as being in charge so, to a large extent, it is up to me to define the boundaries.

This year I have started working in boarding at an all boy’s boarding school. I mainly deal with year nine students but also older years as well. Although I have only been involved in this job for about three months I have begun to see another side to the teaching profession - that is being outside the classroom.

As boarding staff my role is primarily a pastoral care one. However, I sometimes find it difficult to get a balance between that and being the disciplinarian – especially on a rainy day when the boys haven’t been able to play sport. Rainy days = trouble in Year 9!

Boarding has opened up a whole new can of worms for me!

The boarding house is a fascinating environment. One of the most interesting phenomena’s has been the pack mentality of the boys, for example if one kid is a bit hyper chances are the rest of them are feeling the same way. Consequently, sometimes the year nine boarders are a fantastic group (individually they are great boys) but at other times they can be a bunch of rat bags! I am beginning to discover that dealing with year nine boarders is about getting the balance right. Sometimes I find myself taking the “do as you’re told” approach and at other times taking more of a back seat, relaxing a bit and really trying to hear what is important in their lives.

What I have noticed is that it doesn’t take much to show a kid that you’re ‘on their side’ so to speak. A few weeks ago a boy came back to the boarding house after school with an ice pack on his hand. In response to me asking him what happened he replied that he had punched a wall because he’d had a bad day. Later that afternoon I overheard the boy on the phone to his dad. He was quite upset. After he had hung up I asked the boy if there was anything he wanted to talk about because he seemed to be quite upset about something. Again he avoided me by saying that it was nothing and that he’d just had a bad day. That evening when his friends were playing sport he came and sat near me. I asked him how his hand was feeling and he blurted out that he was upset because his parents had forgotten his birthday. For me this highlighted the fact that the boarding house is the boy’s home away from home. It is important for me to consider how I am perceived as well as how I want to be perceived by the boys. It is sometimes difficult to be seen as approachable without the boys thinking you’re a push over and visa - versa. I have also become aware that on occasion a boy acts out because of other problems and rather than taking disciplinary action a pastoral care approach is more appropriate.

I chose to pursue a career in teaching because I see it as a positive career choice. Being able to give something back to the community is important to me. From a more personal point of view I think of teaching as a very human thing to do – learning to relate to different people. I find teaching is a positive career choice especially because it involves working with young people. It is about experimenting with new ideas and examining the results. I chose secondary teaching because I hope to extend myself, as well as future students, intellectually.

JS 423 e-journal Part 1

Liberation Theology essentially asks “What does the Gospel look like from the perspective of the poor?” Broadly speaking I suppose this theology is encouraging people to view a situation from the ground up. Liberation Theology is asking; what is the everyday reality of this situation? What I have come to realize so far in this course is that the answer to this question highlights an important distinction between everyday realities and theoretical and political realities.

How we read and respond to the ‘signs of the time’ will have lasting consequences. We often hear about large organisations or political dealings concerned with the welfare of the poor from other nations. I’d like to make a clear point here that ‘the poor’ is used more often in relation to people in Africa, India or the Middle East than in relation to the minority of poor in our own backyard, but I’ll come back to this point later. Discussions take place about the effects of disease, famine, war, living standards, life expectancy, etc. and although the intentions of these groups are, one would like to believe, for the most part honorable they continually try the blanket approach. More often than not, formulating and implementing a one off ‘total solution’ is ineffective because of government corruption, lack of cultural understanding and overall neglect in acknowledging equality and peoples basic right to quality of life. To act within the boundaries of political and economical structures is not good enough.

By encouraging people to view things from the ground up, Liberation Theology is attempting to work its way to the core of human nature. In a sense, it requires that we ask ourselves; what if that was me? Would I expect another person’s charity to get me out of dire straights? Or would I look at what they have and ask why I can’t have the same? Many emerging nations, such as China, sense that they are entitled to the same use of resources and the same standard and style of living that wealthy nations have. Why should they think otherwise? If the poor have a claim on our justice not our charity we need to seriously consider the consequences of our actions or, as is predominately the case, our non-actions towards them as well as the excesses of our daily existence.

The effects of over consumption are impacting on the environment. It is up to every individual to start considering themselves within the context of the rest of the world. By modifying individual actions we can impart a positive change on the ecological state of the world. We would also be lowering the ecological bench mark so highly desired by emerging countries. We spoke about the 80:20 divide; how 80% of the world’s resources are consumed by 20% of the population. At first glance this seems like a good deal for the wealthy 20% however, as we are beginning to see, the over consumption of resources is not a good deal for anyone because of the ecological debt being created for future generations all over the world. This brings me to yet another point highlighted by Liberation Theology; the concept of solidarity, not just in relation to global issues but in response to issues of equality. This course has begun to change my perspective on a lot of things.

Liberation Theology discusses acting within context. I use to think the most constructive way of helping the poor was by focusing on fixing the problems in our own country first, however the concept of solidarity highlighted for me again the basis of Liberation Theology. In every person there exists an innate and humane response to the suffering of another. Regardless of what a person believes or doesn’t believe, there is an understanding of the values present in justice and equality.

I am beginning to understand Liberation Theology as promoting awareness and compassion in others in an attempt to incite all people to act constructively for the benefit of all people in the world community. Liberation Theology is not advocating a one stop solution - although at times we might argue that this is possible. Live 8 proved it is economically possible to end third world debt, however it remains to be seen whether this will ever be realised; given the conflicting politics of the various nations involved. As is so often the case, economical and political infrastructures barricade possible solutions to the overwhelming lack of justice and equality in the world. But these infrastructures work based on a top down principle. Liberation Theology seeks to overcome this by appealing to the basic human preface of acknowledgement and acceptance of our fellow human.