In a message dated 6/7/2002 10:51:57 AM Central Daylight Time,
geoff.hayward@educational-studies.oxford.ac.uk writes:
> I always get worried by categorical statements about what is and what is not
> to count as 'good teaching'. I am sure that good teaching can be
> improvisational but I am also sure that good teaching can be highly
> scripted, can be delivered to large groups of individuals as well as in
> small groups, may involve students improvising (but not necessarily always)
> and always depends upon what is being taught, to who and for what purpose.
>
Geoffrey;
Because I find his thoughts helpful in understanding all of human development
I would like to reiterate that when Valsiner discusses the measurement of
human development he separates behavior that is goal orientated from that
which occurs in a framework of spontanaity. I am assuming that all teachers
have a goal in mind when presenting information or mediating a new skill.
Getting students to both understand the preset goal and then crafting a
lesson [the improvisational aspect of teaching] that allows students to both
achieve the preconceived goal as well as recreate the goal during a later
date is the 'art' of teaching. Emergence can occur when there is not a
preset goal but the measuring of this is much trickier of a proposition. I
have attempted to engage Jay in a discussion regarding whether he is
interested in emergence in general or specifically more goal-orietated
emergence but alas, he chooses to ignore my questions.
Have I helped or caused more confusion?
eric
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 01 2002 - 01:00:07 PDT