Comments on: Wither Pre-Service? http://www.eduwonk.com/2008/10/wither-pre-service.html Education News, Analysis, and Commentary Sat, 20 Mar 2010 02:54:28 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2 hourly 1 By: jillian07 http://www.eduwonk.com/2008/10/wither-pre-service.html/comment-page-1#comment-20413 jillian07 Mon, 03 Nov 2008 20:51:43 +0000 http://www.eduwonk.com/?p=3648#comment-20413 Your use of the word sequencing intrigues me. After I completed my student teaching practicum, I longed for another semester-long methods course. Before the practicum, I didn't know enough about teaching to know what I didn't know. It always felt, to me, like everything was out of sequence, but then it was too late and I was off to the job market. I've been trying to learn how to teach ever since. Your use of the word sequencing intrigues me. After I completed my student teaching practicum, I longed for another semester-long methods course. Before the practicum, I didn’t know enough about teaching to know what I didn’t know. It always felt, to me, like everything was out of sequence, but then it was too late and I was off to the job market.

I’ve been trying to learn how to teach ever since.

]]> By: john thompson http://www.eduwonk.com/2008/10/wither-pre-service.html/comment-page-1#comment-19493 john thompson Thu, 30 Oct 2008 19:46:30 +0000 http://www.eduwonk.com/?p=3648#comment-19493 Just some speculation here, without being able to vouch authoritatively on the quality of there research, here are two findings that impress me. Firstly, high verbal dexterity are a predictor of teacher success. Secondly, regardless of the quality of training there will be a washout rate. So, we need to efficiently remove ineffective teachers at a pretty early data. But I'm curious about the term teacher "training" as opposed to teacher education. It implies something that misrepresents teaching as it actually is. Teaching requires "broken-field running." You've got to improvise constantly. Secondly, teaching (like education) is much more of an emotional process than an intellectual one. Young teachers need to be educated/taught how to listen to the kids. Then they need to learn how to read body language. On the other hand, they need to be trained to avoid mistakes. As with education policy, its much easier to avoid unforced errors than to clean up afterwards, and in schools it is actual kids who are hurt by mistakes. On the other hand, we all make so many mistakes every day that its more important to learn from your mistakes and not blame yourself. For all of those reasons, I'm partial to programs for recruiting older career changers with more life experience. On the other hand, no profesion needs new blood more than education. By definition, our job is the new blood. So, and I could be wrong, I suspect that people are frustrated with teacher education because they over-estimate the state of proven, researched knowledge. We are still a lot closer to the times of Plato than a time when research will give answers. Teaching is still fundamentally a people-process. Teaching still is fundamentally a political process. Teaching is still about balancing trade-offs. Teaching still is about intuition and timing. So, we shouldn't expect to have much - or any - more wisdom than previous generations. If there are two things an induction program should definitely teach, I'd say they are: 1. Care enough to say "No." (with experience, you won't have to worry so much about setting boundaries, but in the first years this is the key.) 2. Listen to the students and they will teach you how to teach them. and 3. Get plenty of sleep. Be easy on yourself and roll with the punches. Just some speculation here, without being able to vouch authoritatively on the quality of there research, here are two findings that impress me. Firstly, high verbal dexterity are a predictor of teacher success. Secondly, regardless of the quality of training there will be a washout rate. So, we need to efficiently remove ineffective teachers at a pretty early data.

But I’m curious about the term teacher “training” as opposed to teacher education. It implies something that misrepresents teaching as it actually is. Teaching requires “broken-field running.” You’ve got to improvise constantly.

Secondly, teaching (like education) is much more of an emotional process than an intellectual one. Young teachers need to be educated/taught how to listen to the kids. Then they need to learn how to read body language. On the other hand, they need to be trained to avoid mistakes. As with education policy, its much easier to avoid unforced errors than to clean up afterwards, and in schools it is actual kids who are hurt by mistakes. On the other hand, we all make so many mistakes every day that its more important to learn from your mistakes and not blame yourself.

For all of those reasons, I’m partial to programs for recruiting older career changers with more life experience. On the other hand, no profesion needs new blood more than education. By definition, our job is the new blood.

So, and I could be wrong, I suspect that people are frustrated with teacher education because they over-estimate the state of proven, researched knowledge. We are still a lot closer to the times of Plato than a time when research will give answers. Teaching is still fundamentally a people-process. Teaching still is fundamentally a political process. Teaching is still about balancing trade-offs. Teaching still is about intuition and timing. So, we shouldn’t expect to have much – or any – more wisdom than previous generations.

If there are two things an induction program should definitely teach, I’d say they are:

1. Care enough to say “No.” (with experience, you won’t have to worry so much about setting boundaries, but in the first years this is the key.)
2. Listen to the students and they will teach you how to teach them.

and 3. Get plenty of sleep. Be easy on yourself and roll with the punches.

]]>