Grant & Zeichner's article, though written in the 1980s in America, is still applicable in Vancouver in 2020. Many of the questions being asked such as what knowledge should be taught to children and to what extent should a teacher control a student's learning and behaviour are still relevant to consider as a teacher candidate in this day and age. One of the ideas that stood out to me was how the way a teacher teaches in their classroom could reach out and affect a student's approach to life - specifically, the idea that teaching a student to conform instead of teaching a student to think critically could have a bigger impact on the student's approach to life in general. Of course, a number of external factors also play a role in what approach a person takes in life. However, by defining conforming as the opposite of critical thinking, I believe this article has clarified my need to actively strive to have my students ask questions instead of accepting everything I say as fact for fear that they will continue this habit in the real world.
There wasn't a lot in this article that struck me as dated or irrelevant but I did notice a few times that questions posed were either loaded or provided a simplistic version of the opposing viewpoint. For example, when discussing the consequences of our beliefs, one of the questions posed was, "... which of your current beliefs are the result of outside forces over which you have no control, and which beliefs are merely rationalizations masking an unwillingness to risk the difficulties and/or the possible displeasure of others that would result from their implementation?"(p.111). This struck me because I interpreted this as implying teachers who are more routine as opposed to reflective are doing so to avoid consequences or are lying to themselves. I believe this is a overly simplistic view and that some teachers who have developed a structure and choose to teach this way are doing so because they believe it's what's best for the students, possibly because that was the way they were taught. I don't agree with remaining rigid when it comes to my teaching method and I definitely would like to strive to become a reflective teacher. However, I also believe there is a danger in misrepresenting the opposing side and that arrogance isn't going to help change the view of those who believe in their rigid method.
Some useful reminders and pieces of advice in Grant & Zeichner's article include having a clear idea of what our priorities as individual teacher candidates are, focusing on information within the program that is applicable to those priorities, and to actively participate in our practicum by asking questions. I think all of these points are connected because having a clear idea of what is important to us will help us ask the right questions and avoid becoming overwhelmed with the abundance of information we will be exposed to throughout the program. Another interesting point they made was to consider that there are always alternatives to whatever we are being told. The idea that we should be aware that there are things being omitted, although obvious, is a good reminder that we have that choice to explore alternative routes should we disagree with a certain methodology we are being taught, or if we encounter trouble when we enter the workforce.
Great writing, Karishma! I really appreciate your resistance to false binaries like 'reflective vs. routine'. You make an excellent point about the uses of routines that are meaningful to people! I like your emphasis on student critical thinking modelled by teachers, rather than promoting mindless conformity.
ReplyDelete