Part of the problem of "best practices" not being implemented as Mike and
others have indicated is that many teachers in our schools are not equipped
to implement these practices. Many of them do not have the schemata or
repertoire of skills and understanding necessary. Sadly, once recruited
and in the "profession," they are left to their own devices, unless taken
under the wing of a seasoned professional or continue their own formal
education while teaching. The underlying problem boils down to the
difference between "novices" and "experts."
As we know, the difference between "experts" and "novices" is not just the
amount of knowledge they possess but more importantly the way that
knowledge and information is organized and processed. Most teachers are
hard pressed to "unpack" the superordinate knowledge structures understood
by master teachers, or truly ascertain what Lyotard (1984) calls
metanarratives, those underlying foundational stories or beliefs. They are
missing these underlying structures and subtexts. It is here that the
thought processes and activities of the consummate teacher and the
uninitiated "novice" diverge. The seasoned teacher uses decontextualized
reasoning, where the "novice" uses more contextualized thought processes.
This variance is an important distinction we need to remember.
Because these "novices" lack the superordinate knowledge structures
seasoned teaching professionals use when teaching and thinking about
teaching, the novices use the only tools available to them: the
manufactured lesson plans and published teaching guides--drill & kill etc.
etc. etc.
However, as the more dedicated teachers progress from the
function-relational, thematic thinking (contextualized representation)
toward the more categorical, taxonomic thinking of the master teacher
(decontextualized rationality), they tend to use more proscriptive rather
than prescriptive approaches. They also begin to capitalize on the talents
and abilities of each student as they begin to personalize the instruction,
tailor it to meet the needs of each student in the class. Prior to this
time, class management is the over-riding concern.
Another part of the problem as many have alluded to is that there probably
is not a "best practice" applicable to all students for all times. There
are practices, which are "best" for an individual and sometimes a small
group of learners at a particular time and place, but none that are best
for all. However, there are underlying principles and paradigms that once
discovered or uncovered, change the way teachers view teaching and actually
teach.
For instance, realizing the spiraling nature of development, where
development repeats the stages already passed, but repeats them in a
different way, and knowing that these new cognitive and affective systems
transform the meanings of the lower ones, changes the way one teaches
forever. Also as indicated in other postings, ZPD.
Needless to say, research helps us practitioners add to our repertoire of
techniques & understandings and helps us discard methodologies that have
been shown to be counterproductive (e.g., teaching only convergent and
literal thinking skills); so we don't teach as we were taught but teach so
that the learner can learn. But as someone noted, we don't need to diagnose
until the patient dies. Somewhere action is needed. We need to begin
implementing the findings. And more importantly, teaching the novitiate.