Teaching to Change: Grad Dip to Date

I have made a lot of posts, written many words, thought many thoughts, and had many discussions in the name of ‘learning to teach’ – so what have I really learned from the Grad Dip? This, Wally Watchers, is my attempt to examine just that…here goes!

I have learned about learning as much as I have learned about teaching. There are different ways to teach, just as there are different ways to learn, and it can sometimes be difficult to relate to someone else’s method of doing so. The logical, analytical, mathematical learners can find it difficult to make sense of the musical, emotional, interpersonal learners’ viewpoint, just as the imaginative, artistic, holistic individuals cannot quite understand the organised, planned, administrative way of doing things; and yet these individuals coexist, interact, cooperate and combine to form the overall, dynamic, variable spectrum of learners that we encounter in schools, and in the world at large. These traits do not have to be contradictory, and can in fact enrich the learning experience of every other in the class. Do you remember why playing with other children at pre-school resulted in arguments about whose turn it was, or whose toy it was? The ability to share is learned, developing concurrently with one’s ability to empathise. Starting with a necessarily ego-centric view of the world, we as individuals must undergo interpersonal interactions to receive the required experiences from which empathy is born. When one is able to empathise, one is able to fathom and rationalise the existence of points of view other than our own, learning to accept that ours is certainly not the only, and not necessarily the ‘correct’, opinion. In the same way that empathy leads us to understand people and benefits our interactivity propensity, so too experiencing other forms of learning extends us as individuals. Until one is exposed to other methods of approaching, grappling with and undertaking learning, it is difficult for one to truly acknowledge its benefit. The diverse and individual nature of learning allows the teacher to draw upon each students’ strengths and challenge their weaknesses – through allowing for variation in the nature of the tasks set and encouraging interaction between students. Humans evolved to learn from their peers and fellow community members, and this is no less true today than it was thousands of years ago.
This leads to the point of dynamism in the classroom, on behalf of the teacher and the learning environment thereby engendered. It is generally true that students spend their time at home engaged in multitudinous activities simultaneously – something along the lines of skyping, texting, messaging and commenting whilst watching a YouTube video on someone’s website and reading that Wikipedia page for homework. This is not born of their “short attention span” or “lack of commitment and focus”: this is the only life they have known. Technological integration into daily activities has grown up as they have, and thus they genuinely know of no other way of living. Whether or not this is viewed as a positive or negative reality, the fact is that it is reality, and teachers must accept this as fact and capitalise on its implications. The way in which education is delivered has, in many cases, not caught up to the reality of society, which is detrimental to the teachers and the learners involved. So at home you do seven “technological things” at once, but are bored by reading a textbook and answering questions – I wonder why? The way in which knowledge is delivered in a classroom is also lagging behind this external paradigm shift, as knowledge is now viewed and utilised as a constructable ‘thing’, whereas historically it was a rigid commodity that could be accessed and understood but not altered…oh, how times have changed! The learners in the classroom are now part of this knowledge, and it is patronising to treat them in any other manner. So you are studying the formation of helium from the fusion reactions happening in the Sun and Jimmy is disinterested in this topic, despite his general enthusiasm for planetary science? Before you labelled him as a “bad” student, did you stop to consider whether perhaps Jimmy had written a Wikipedia article about that very phenomenon? Or took astronomical photos documenting something similar? Was it considered that perhaps he is somewhat of an expert in the field? Teachers need to be able to say “I don’t know” with confidence and conviction – and to realise that sometimes even they can learn from their students. Why can a student not lead a class? Why can their knowledge not be tapped into and shared? Why does their input need to be avoided? The constructable nature of knowledge and its almost universal access means that students can be genuinely confused by being placed into an unfamiliar and archaic scenario of teacher-instructor, student-listener, instead of teacher-student-contributor, and thus classroom dynamics can be thrown out of kilter. Following on from this idea, it seems illogical to keep knowledge under lock and key, out of reach of students, when it is not “time” to learn it. Following a Unit Outline literally to the letter creates an air of exclusivity about knowledge and about education, which is surely the very opposite of our inclusive goals? Why not write the learning outcomes on the white board at the start of a lesson and discuss them with the students who are to learn them? Why not play on a student/s’ interest in a particular topic – no matter the pre-determined “scheduling” of knowledge conveyance – and sieze a tangential learning/discussion opportunity? Why not give students access to all of the course material for a class, prior to its introduction in lessons? Why are these questions addressed with mentalities based on historical schedules and time-frames? Can one truly claim to “control the flow of knowledge” – or, perhaps more importantly, why should they try to? Accepting the constructable and accessible nature of knowledge in the modern world renders the attempts to exclude students from it as counter-intuitive and potentially destructive to the classroom environment – and truthfully, in my mind, wholly illogical!
However, this fabric of learning and knowledge should not overshadow the more basic requirements of students and teachers. The basic “needs” of students must be met before any tangible learning can begin. A student’s need for food and sleep will certainly be observed to go wanting at some stage, and if they remain unsatiated no learning can be hoped to be achieved. A possibly overlooked and yet terribly important role of teachers is that of welfare-provider; the student as a person must be considered, recognised and understood before the student as a learner can be engaged. Knowing one’s students underpins so much of any method of education, and is frequently described as one key to effective teaching. But if it is to be considered in realistic terms, you as teacher would not approve of your students simply viewing you as “maths teacher 3”, instead of “Mr Johnson who likes fishing, wears bow-ties and has three daughters”, and thus it is fully reasonable for them expect to be shown the same level of respect and recognition as individuals.
On the tangential cusp of recognition lies another pertinent and rather difficult issue: equity in schooling. Discrimination based on ethnicity, gender, lifestyle, socieconomic status (SES), locality, access to resources etc. can have a profound effect on a student’s schooling and education. There is quite a clear relationship between low SES and low educative ‘success’, which is evidently fundamentally unjust and inequitable. This has implications for the way in which the curriculum is interpreted and delivered, as it represents a National framework, designed to be delivered across the board, despite its audience being comprised of unique individuals. We are taught to target and adapt our practice and pedagogy to suit the needs of our students, as specificity in education yields personal and individual successes. And yet, the clay of the curriculum that we are manipulating is distributed in a “one-size-fits-all” mould – it is evident that a cookie-cutter education is not an effective one. This aspect of education, the so-called “thisness”, leads us to view it in this light – and also highlights the failure of Government to recognise the variable requirements for funding. But funding is not the only issue at hand: the appropriateness of curriculum content impacts significantly on student engagement with it. This is another situation in which the individuality of one’s students must be taken into consideration, and another chance for even the teacher to learn from their class. Perhaps the topic at hand directly impacted upon one student’s personal history? Perhaps one student hails from one of the societies to be studied? Perhaps the student’s upbringing has ingrained in them an aversion to a topic? Perhaps the student has a general interest in a topic that has resulted in an almost expert level of knowledge? All of these factors must be dually noted and factored into lesson preparation – as “most behaviour is in the teaching”. As was highlighted by a wonderfully insightful teacher, to label students as disobedient or disruptive puts the onus on the student, and the responsibility moved away from the teacher. Disengaged students, however, have reached said state due to the teaching not meeting their needs and thereby failing to engage them, and thus the responsibility lies with the teacher’s ability to re-engage them.

Teaching should not be a vigilante endeavour, teaching should be a well-planned, considered, informed activity, in which passion, vigour, identity and empathy are employed. Teaching is not an “easy” route to extra holidays and short working hours – it is not “a job just for Christmas”, it is a commitment that extends far, far behind the scenes and beyond the realm of the classroom. A teacher gives a part of themselves to their job, and that takes its toll – teaching is not easy as it involves personal investment, and therefore personal pain. Dealing with people inevitably means clashes of personalities, disagreements, hopelessness, anger, frustration, purposelessness, disillusionment and exasperation will inevitably occur; but equally a teacher will experience joy, revelation, power, purpose, satisfaction and pride. The good must be taken with the bad, and always an open mind must be maintained. But who wouldn’t want the chance to fundamentally impact upon the next generation of our world? Who wouldn’t want the chance to assist in the personal growth and development of our youngest citizens? Who wouldn’t want the chance to take part in shaping our nation? Who wouldn’t want the chance to help every student to realise their potential?

Ghandi’s immortalised words, “You must be the change that you wish to see in the world” have led me to teacher education – and I have not yet once thought better of that decision. In the words of one of my lecturers, “learning needs to be active, reflective and collaborative, and teaching needs to be challenging, scaffolded and connected” – and in my mind that essentially sums up my Graduate Diploma in Education in Secondary Teaching to date.

Now it is onto the next frontier: the classroom!

– For Science (and Teaching)!