When reading these posts I have been thinking about the "change" aspect
of Carol's question. What exactly changes and how do we know when
change (learning/development?) has occurred? (and by the way if anyone
can give me the answer to that one I think I could finish my
dissertation a whole lot faster!!!! ) This is simply based on my own
experience teaching and working with teachers for many years. so I'm
shooting from the hip here:
To me it seems that if teachers are reflecting on their teaching
practice one would hope that they are exploring whether new ideas,
methods, or whatever fits into their current understanding of their
teaching practice (i.e. how they go about the daily activity of
teaching). I am thinking mainly of what Engestrom (based on Davydov's
and Ilyenkov's rising to the concrete) talks about as the means for
expansive learning. If I understand it correctly, a teacher would need
to (be willing to) face a double bind situation in which their current
practice (or some aspect of it) would be called into question based on
new ideas/activities/examples. If the teacher was given the
opportunity, supported in this activity, and chose to 'reflect' on these
new ideas in a way that they somehow changed their teaching practice
then maybe we could say some change has occurred. Although I suppose if
they reflected on this and consciously did NOT choose to change their
practice (e.g. because they did not think that Lozanov's methods worked)
then still some change has occurred although it would be in their
understanding of teaching (and this would be harder to discern I suppose
although they one would expect that they could 'talk' about their
practice). What kind of change are we looking for here?
But my example works best with teachers who have had experience in the
activity of teaching.. what happens with pre-service teachers who have
little to no experience?
Bon appetite
jim
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 09 2004 - 11:42:23 PST