Which of the following do you consider to be the most bogus reason for failing to teach prospective teachers how to employ teaching procedures that have been documented to be effective?
- Professors want future teachers to find their own teaching styles.
- Professors don't want to stifle future teachers' creativity.
- Professors say that using research-based practice is only one small part of what future teachers need to know.
- Professors believe that there is not one best way to teach.
July 29, 2008
Bogus Bowl V
Go take Teach Effectively's latest Bogus Bowl poll.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Two not-so-bogus reasons:
Professors are mired in the muck of their own inertia - unwilling to change their practices to keep up with current knowledge.
The politics of change are as contentious in the halls of academia as they are in the corridors or the K-12 system.
While they are charged with the task of teaching teachers to teach, no-one has ever taught the profs how to profess.
The BBV choices are assuming that professors are part of some conspiracy. There's no conspiracy, it's just that a lot of people aren't good at their job - even professors. Most people don't really research new ideas or try to constantly improve.
The old boys club isn't about making plans to implement devious plots or to keep the status quo at all costs...it's just sitting and smoking cigars and not doing anything.
This all assumes the professors teaching the classes have control over the content of a teaching program.
Who approves changes to teacher qualifications?
The answers will be revealing.
For example, how much say do the teacher unions have?
"Professors believe that there is not one best way to teach"
What are the other examples of the "one right way" you feel entitled to impose on us?
How do you respond to the one right way to worship? What is the one right way to define life? What is your one right way to read of Bill of Rights? What do you want to do to nonteachers who don't believe in your one right way?
You used to remind me of cock-sure eugenists and Social Darwinists before WWI pulled the rug out from underneath scientists who had a religious faith in the power of their theories. Now you seem closer to medieval dogmatists.
Maybe you're right. Maybe the FDA should have no problem accepting non-research based alternative medicine, such as homeopathy and crystal therapy, along with traditional research based medicine. We shouldn't be so dogmatic and biased against non-Western ways of thinking.
ari-free
Maybe you're right. Maybe the FDA should have no problem accepting non-research based alternative medicine, such as homeopathy and crystal therapy, along with traditional research based medicine. We shouldn't be so dogmatic and biased against non-Western ways of thinking.
Never fear, the Leftists among us are boldly leading us in that direction. Here's my take on one incident "A Jaunt into the Post-Modern "Scientific" Literature."
To whet your appetite and to get you to click the link, let me give you a little smidgen to savor:
Rather than risk being alienated from their colleagues, many scientists find themselves interpellated by hegemonic discourses and come to disregard all others. Unfortunately, privileging a single discourse (evidence-based medicine (EBM)) situated within a single scientific paradigm (postpositivism) confines the researcher to a yoke of exactly reproducing the established order. To a large degree, the dominant discourse represents the ladder of success in academic and research milieus where it establishes itself as a weapon used against those who praise the freedom of scientific inquiry and the free debate of ideas. . . .
Here's the education angle - if this type of twisted thinking has infected medical literature, just imagine how divorced from reality the Education professoriate has become.
Post a Comment