The soft bigotry of low expectations

[42]

I mentioned that this teachers method wasn't the most effective, but it does illustrate how to teach without emphasizing facts. Oh, and a student could have passed the class without knowing any of the dates or other facts. They would probably pass with a C or D, but passing none-the-less.

Yes, asking students to "know the material" as a sign of ineffective teaching is not something I agree with as much.

I can see why they say it because to many teachers use that line as an excuse to not teach. It also discriminates against students in the class who have learning disabilities. However, it also removes some of the responsibility from the students. COurse with current educational policies, it's never the students fault.

My only solution would be to present different methods for learning the material without using up excessive amounts of class time so there is is still time to learn theory and application.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I mentioned that this teachers method wasn't the most effective, but it does illustrate how to teach without emphasizing facts. Oh, and a student could have passed the class without knowing any of the dates or other facts. They would probably pass with a C or D, but passing none-the-less.

Then it appears to be a teaching method we don't want to use, and it doesn't say anything about my argument that facts are needed. I didn't disagree that other teaching ideas existed, just that to have educated students at the end of the process, facts were an important part.

[House of Mustard]

I would just like to say that I'm very much enjoying this discussion.  It's been a long time since we had something interesting to talk about here.

[42]

don't see that teaching is only what happens in the classroom environment. Any interation between the students and the teacher, even vicariously, it teaching if the object is to make you more educated. Part of teaching is giving assignments that help the student learn as well. That teacher gave you that assignment as part of her teaching plan. I don't understand how that's not part of teaching? And if that means i'm "Ignorant and offensive" than enlighten me. Because I think you've made a HUGE jump in logic that no one here can be expected to follow if assigned tasks that are meant to achieve one of the purposes of the class are not part of teaching.

Giving a student an assignment, is refered to as allowing the student to engage in the process of self-teaching or discovery. Conteporary teaching conciders it crucial that students learn to teach themselves. Including an assignment as part of your lesson plan is indirect teaching. Direct teaching is where the teacher is physically interacting with the student via lecture, discussion, activity, etc... When you write a lesson plan it's very important that the teacher is aware of how much direct teaching and an indirect teaching is occurring. Anything you wish to emphasize should always occur during direct teaching time.

So there's some more teaching theory for you people to chew on.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

i'm sure this brands me as ignorant again, but isn't "indirect" just a modifier of "teaching" which is still the activity that's being done?

[GorgonlaVacaTremendo]

allowing the student to engage in the process of self-teaching or discovery

You don't "let" people teach themselves.  If they want to teach themselves then they are already doing it, and if they don't want to teach themselves you are making them teach themselves.  That just seemed like it should be pointed out.

Including an assignment as part of your lesson plan is indirect teaching. Direct teaching is where the teacher is physically interacting with the student via lecture, discussion, activity, etc...

You never SAID that assignments weren't DIRECT teaching, you said it wasn't teaching.  And since the educator is having the students do this learning, it is still teaching.  I have homework every night, and when I learn something I wouldn't have, it means that the class tought it to me.  Otherwise I would never have learned it.  So when I get homework for a class and learn something from it, I learned it because of the teacher who runs the class.  That means he IS teaching me, whether or not he is there to do it in person.

And assignments are often reinforcement, as well, they aren't always indirect teaching.

Anything you wish to emphasize should always occur during direct teaching time.

So the teacher you used as an example was apparently a HORRIBLE educator, seeing as they had 25-40% of the class based on the facts they had their students learn outside of the class.  I would concider that an emphasis, I don't know about you.

[42]

That teacher was a horrible teacher to many of the students in the class. Her teaching method wasn't very effective for percentage of the class, even for a college class which are usually more homogenious than public school classes. Course, for another portion of the class she was an excellent teacher.

When you have a class that focuses a lot on indirect teaching and then you have a student who fails your class or fails the standardize test that is suppose to measure what they learned in your class, there is a reaction. If the student, or more likely their parents, is upset and contests the grade or score, the response you are most likely to get as they bring you before the School board or before their lawyer IS "but you didn't teach me anything."

So indirect teaching via assignments and stuff, is teaching in one sense and not teaching in another sense. It's a complex thought where it's veracity is based on variables.

It kind of comes back to many of the main arguments on the is thread. If you want absolute truths in teaching you will be dissappointed in a how few there are. You just don't get to ignore the variables and there are a lot of variables.

[GorgonlaVacaTremendo]

Well, this was also an educator of the arts, which is one of the fields that interpretation can be stressed as much, if not more than, facts (although in NO field can interpretation be the only thing tought).  That is also important, because in the sciences you would never be able to get away with teaching interpretation like that.

Otherwise, yeah, I guess SOMETIMES indirect teaching could be concidered less of the educator teaching and more of the student learning (if that makes any sense), but your example wasn't one of them, I don't think.

[House of Mustard]

but you didn't teach me anything

Would you support that argument?

[42]

It would depend on the other variables. If it were an independent study class, I would completely blow off the student. However, in a class environment, the teacher better be able to support that he or she did a lot more than just hand out assignments and expect the students to learn facts, interpretation and other stuff on their own. There are very few school boards that would be supportive of a teacher that just teaches indirectly in a classroom environment.

So I guess, overall, I would be inclined to agree with the argument until proven otherwise.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I have to say it's the teachers poor teaching. Part of teaching is, at least DECIDING what to assign. In such a case, I think that poor decisions were made about what to teach, which means ineffective teaching is going on.