So what have I learnt from doing this MOOC: the dominant discourses in teaching and teacher education, had the greatest impact on my thinking. While I had thought about the charismatic teachers and have seen teachers who work like this I have favoured the competent practitioner as a model for discussing and supporting teachers to improve their practice. Using the ATSIL framework in Australia has provided a way to discuss what competent teachers look like. The reflective practitioner who reflects on their practice was not one that I had given much thought. The discussions highlighted for me how the last two interrelate and especially when I reflect on how I view good teaching from a leadership perspective. I believe that both the competent and reflective framework are important when discussing teacher quality. Teachers who are not reflective of their practice are not likely to improve. We need to be able to critically reflective of what we are doing, the competent teacher materials can support this process. While reviewing this work I think that the teacher standards that we are using in Australia make it possible to combine both processes and ways of viewing teacher competence. The self review process and the app to collate evidence of how teachers have achieved the standards support the reflection process. They also give us a common language to discuss teacher quality.
I enjoyed the work on the expert learner and challenging the myth of ability. After hearing the lectures I have discussed these with both teaching staff and also students, especially those who feel that they are not good learners. Often these students don’t see themselves as learners, yet when it comes to sport they undertake the training and practice required to develop their skills, yet they have not transferred these skills to learning. The lecture by Gordon Stobart highlighted the need to discuss this with students so that they develop another view of themselves as learners.
The week 4 lectures on schools making a difference highlighted the need to look at what schools are doing for those students who are not successful. We know that there are some students for whom the industrialised model of schooling is not successful. Yet in the elementary years we have not been successful in creating learning spaces that will meet the educational needs of these students. In part this is constrained by curriculum demands of governments, which for me have become more restricted over my 35 years of teaching. Having moved from the Freedom and Authority Memorandum of the 1970’s in South Australia, a one page document that outline the freedom and authority teachers had to design the curriculum to a national curriculum that is prescriptive with time allocations and achievement standards, has restricted the ways schools can at times cater for different ways of learning.
So what does this mean for the future of education. Today access to information is greater. In schools we need to harness the ability for students to access learning in places and times that best suit them. Yet the questions we need to ask is will a reliance on technology be restrictive for disadvantaged students whose only ability to access the technology is through the school. How do we also ensure that all students have the literacy skills to access technology to receive the best education they can. We know that students from disadvantaged backgrounds have a restricted register when they come to school and the development of school talk is an important role undertaken in early years teaching, which also developed students literacy skills. Are these possible without face to face teaching.
Without internet access and access to hardware students are not able to use devices such as Padlet or Google Hangout to access and participate fully in the learning. Both of these tools helped the learners on this course to feel connected and to share their thinking while being in a myriad of different places around the world. Enabling us to learn about other education systems and to also see that often the issues that we face are not so different. Is this a reflection of globalisation or a reflection of the right wing governments who see education as a market rather than as a way to enrich and develop students. Ultimately, I think the future of education requires of blend of both the industrialised model as well as opportunities for students to develop their own learning based on areas of interest that is not always restricted by a common timetable or what is available in their location.