What should be done about it? This is a difficult area to address. It takes time to develop and personalise your pedagogical toolkit and practice. I'm expecting to grow and change as experience and collaboration, observation and pd develop my practice. But as a beginning teacher it's hard to sort out and juggle contradictory
I think that when you say you're "expecting to grow and change", that this might sum up the kind of disposition that we might be needing to foster in Australian teachers, in direct challenge to the discourses surrounding being "job-ready" and having "best-practice".
There is so much confusion for ITE students these days. From Primary education students knowing best practice around reading and phonics to classroom pedgagogies of 'What works' versus Biesta's "Why what works won't work' to fans of Hattie and non fans of Hattie.
Yes I agree, and that is why I would argue for the importance of ITE students exploring the various (ideological) perspectives that guide educational policy, discourse and practice to help them to make informed judgments about how they might enact their practice. I don't necessarily see plurality as an issue, but more something one needs to come to terms within the complexity of what it means to teach. What do you think should be done about it?
I wonder if you could elaborate on 'the importance of ITE students exploring the various (ideological) perspectives that guide educational policy and practice'? Can you break this down? Give some examples?
When stated that plurality is not an issue is that saying cherry-picking from different models can still be effective teaching? The current Australian Secondary Curriculum seems to preference different models for different subjects, Inquiry for subject History for example.
Sorry for my incredibly delayed response here Jennifer!
If I was to break it down briefly, in my Master of Education I was exposed to a number of ideological perspectives that are involved in the development of curriculum. It was a unit on Curriculum Theory, which had Curriculum Theory: Conflicting Visions and Enduring Concerns by Michael Schiro as the core text (I have since used Understanding Curriculum: The Australian context by Scott Webster and Ann Ryan to get a broader perspective). This unit was transformative for my practice in many ways, giving me some language to understand the tensions involved in teaching and education. Really, I feel as though this kind of knowledge (though not total or complete) can provide language to help teachers understand their work and what is expected of them.
In relation to plurality, I'm coming around to the perspective that if education is ultimately something that involves risk (a Biesta term there!), there will never be a once-and-for-all theory for "what works" in education. So yes, I see cherry picking as necessary as teaching requires judgment. To make an informed judgment, it is important to consider different (and sometimes dissenting) perspectives to discern what "should be done".
Hope this helps to give some clarification of where I am coming from, hope you're having a restful break!
What should be done about it? This is a difficult area to address. It takes time to develop and personalise your pedagogical toolkit and practice. I'm expecting to grow and change as experience and collaboration, observation and pd develop my practice. But as a beginning teacher it's hard to sort out and juggle contradictory
ideas without a thinking framework.
I think that when you say you're "expecting to grow and change", that this might sum up the kind of disposition that we might be needing to foster in Australian teachers, in direct challenge to the discourses surrounding being "job-ready" and having "best-practice".
There is so much confusion for ITE students these days. From Primary education students knowing best practice around reading and phonics to classroom pedgagogies of 'What works' versus Biesta's "Why what works won't work' to fans of Hattie and non fans of Hattie.
Yes I agree, and that is why I would argue for the importance of ITE students exploring the various (ideological) perspectives that guide educational policy, discourse and practice to help them to make informed judgments about how they might enact their practice. I don't necessarily see plurality as an issue, but more something one needs to come to terms within the complexity of what it means to teach. What do you think should be done about it?
I wonder if you could elaborate on 'the importance of ITE students exploring the various (ideological) perspectives that guide educational policy and practice'? Can you break this down? Give some examples?
When stated that plurality is not an issue is that saying cherry-picking from different models can still be effective teaching? The current Australian Secondary Curriculum seems to preference different models for different subjects, Inquiry for subject History for example.
'
Sorry for my incredibly delayed response here Jennifer!
If I was to break it down briefly, in my Master of Education I was exposed to a number of ideological perspectives that are involved in the development of curriculum. It was a unit on Curriculum Theory, which had Curriculum Theory: Conflicting Visions and Enduring Concerns by Michael Schiro as the core text (I have since used Understanding Curriculum: The Australian context by Scott Webster and Ann Ryan to get a broader perspective). This unit was transformative for my practice in many ways, giving me some language to understand the tensions involved in teaching and education. Really, I feel as though this kind of knowledge (though not total or complete) can provide language to help teachers understand their work and what is expected of them.
In relation to plurality, I'm coming around to the perspective that if education is ultimately something that involves risk (a Biesta term there!), there will never be a once-and-for-all theory for "what works" in education. So yes, I see cherry picking as necessary as teaching requires judgment. To make an informed judgment, it is important to consider different (and sometimes dissenting) perspectives to discern what "should be done".
Hope this helps to give some clarification of where I am coming from, hope you're having a restful break!