The Teacher-Practitioner
This is an interesting point, brought up by a colleague.
How much of a practitioner should a teacher be in order to be considered professional?
Would you trust, for example, a driving instructor who didn't drive? A chemistry teacher who couldn't titrate? A literature teacher who couldn't write poetry (or drama, or prose)? An art teacher who had no art? A music teacher who had no music? An history teacher who could not construct an historical account or a geography teacher who had never 'done' geographical field studies?
I don't think you would trust such a person as much as you would trust a teacher with practical ability. The reason is simple. Teaching by the apprenticeship model (demonstration + mentorship) is the one ability which does the most to obviate the appearance of any possible barrier associated with language or encoding.
By that same argument, you shouldn't have a diploma or degree supervisor who hasn't done sufficient research to get their own diploma or degree. And by having access to their research or other signs of their ability, you have an additional input to consider seriously when choosing or accepting a supervisor. You might be able to see their limitations or strengths, their inherent advantages and flaws.
Which brings us to the next question, to be answered in some further, later post. Who should be held to account when teachers without these abilities are deployed? You can have a look at some readings which might help. See below.
=====
Readings:
How much of a practitioner should a teacher be in order to be considered professional?
Would you trust, for example, a driving instructor who didn't drive? A chemistry teacher who couldn't titrate? A literature teacher who couldn't write poetry (or drama, or prose)? An art teacher who had no art? A music teacher who had no music? An history teacher who could not construct an historical account or a geography teacher who had never 'done' geographical field studies?
I don't think you would trust such a person as much as you would trust a teacher with practical ability. The reason is simple. Teaching by the apprenticeship model (demonstration + mentorship) is the one ability which does the most to obviate the appearance of any possible barrier associated with language or encoding.
By that same argument, you shouldn't have a diploma or degree supervisor who hasn't done sufficient research to get their own diploma or degree. And by having access to their research or other signs of their ability, you have an additional input to consider seriously when choosing or accepting a supervisor. You might be able to see their limitations or strengths, their inherent advantages and flaws.
Which brings us to the next question, to be answered in some further, later post. Who should be held to account when teachers without these abilities are deployed? You can have a look at some readings which might help. See below.
=====
Readings:
- From 'Group Action', a post on accountability
- One of the best lists to read from
- From 'How to Change the World', a post on how to be a hero
Labels: Accountability, Education, Professionalism, Teaching
etched with acid at 6:10:00 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home