Читать книгу Simply good teaching - Hans Berner - Страница 4

A SHORT PREFACE TO “SIMPLY GOOD TEACHING” by Andreas and Tuyet Helmke

“What is a practitioner? It is a person who is fully functional but does not know why. What is a theorist? It is a person who knows how things work, although they are not functional at all” (Wahl, 2013). However, the vision of a good teacher – and successful teacher education – is a successful linking of scientifically-based, connectable and applicable knowledge and good practice. To that end, good teaching materials can play a decisive role; they can ease and facilitate the acquisition of competences or they can also render it more difficult. In our opinion, the present book, first of all, belongs to the former category. It is “simply good”. But in what way?

When reverting to the opening quotation, taken from Wahl’s book “Lernumgebungen erfolgreich gestalten” (Shaping learning environments successfully), the book characteristic subtitle, “From inert knowledge to competent action”, says it all. What can be done to avoid the possibility that a book about teaching is not just consumed in a passive-receptive manner, resulting in the creation of “inert knowledge” that is not usable and practicable? In adapting the well-known bible quotation in reverse order, “For they know not what they do” (Luke 23, 34), the situation could be described as “For they do not know what they think they know”: There is no access to knowledge, because it was acquired in a way that blocks its practical application. The three authors demonstrate in this book how to proceed didactically to avoid inert knowledge as far as possible through the inclusion of numerous intensive tasks designed for criteria-guided self-reflection and observation, coupled with requests for exchanging information. The chapters about the scenarios and methods of teaching are structured identically and retain the following permanent structure: (1) a brief introduction to the topic, (2) detailed work assignments with the objective of making a connection to one’s own prior knowledge and experiences (“These are your tasks”); (3) mediation of basic concepts and results of empirical research (“You must know this”); (4) suggestions for practical implementation (“How to apply this”); and (5) detailed and diverse exercises and examples for practicing and deeper understanding.

We deem the linking of subject matter with manifold variations of cognitive activation particularly functional in order to avoid the disastrous “inert knowledge”. It is therefore practically impossible to just “read through” this book without engaging one’s reflection and playful imagination. There are numerous publications about the topic of “Good teaching”, “The quality of instruction”, etc. – from classical textbooks to guidebooks and recipe collections, to descriptions of individual procedures and styles. The extensive reflection component and practical orientation of this book represents, in our view, a unique characteristic. The authors thus created a quasi unique genre; a combination of textbook, workbook and practice book.

It is a good idea to begin the book with a chapter about cross-curricular principles and quality characteristics of teaching, which is oriented to the current state of research, such as the study by Hattie, among others. Then follow the chapters with the “real beef”, i.e. different didactic concepts and scenarios, as well as the indispensable tools. We intended the preceding chapter about interdisciplinary subject and methodological quality characteristics as a message: None of the subsequently described approaches and teaching procedures are good and learning-effective per se. Any one of these methods can be implemented brilliantly or in a dilettante like manner, inspired or fanciless, learning-conducive or detrimental to learning. As expressed by Hattie with this in mind: “It is less the methods per se, but the principles of effective teaching and learning.” (Hattie, 2014). However, to infer from this that methods do not matter would be a grave misunderstanding. The mastery – solid knowledge and practical mastery – of a reasonable number of teaching and learning methods is an integral part of teaching professionalism – and with it a necessary but not sufficient (!) precondition for learning effectiveness. In light of the existing great variety of learning requirements within school classes, the concept of fairness alone demands offering different teaching and learning scenarios. Thus, it has been known for a long time from research about interdependencies of student characteristics and teaching methods (“Aptitude-Treatment Interaction”, ATI), that top-performing, language competent and self-assured students benefit more from open forms of instruction where the teachers recede more into the background, whereas students at risk from the opposite side of the spectrum may be overwhelmed by a great deal of freedom for self-regulation. These students require clear, teacher-directed structures (“scaffolding”), intensive small-step guidance, and task-related feedback, as well as many opportunities for practicing and learning reinforcement.

We share the opinion of those who deem it appropriate that three authors do not assess the methods presented by them in terms of quality or learning effectiveness, but rather consider them in terms of an appropriate balance of class situation and subject-didactic context, an acceptable dosage and appropriate “orchestration”, which Hilbert Meyer vividly describes as “mixed forest”. But caution: the characteristic “variety of methods” is often misunderstood in the sense of “the greater the variety, the better” (to which we do not subscribe), as it assumes an implicit linear relation between the number of methods used and learning effectiveness. However, research shows that it is not a matter of maximum but rather an optimum; the relationship between method variety and learning success is not linear, but conversely U-shaped, as borne out by our state-wide total survey called MARKUS in Rhineland-Palatinate. Too many, not thoroughly rehearsed and truly mastered teaching and learning scenarios rather cause confusion and are as detrimental to learning as a monoculture of teacher-centered frontal instruction.

The actual heart of the book is comprised of chapters 2 to 7 and includes both “classics” like the project method, as well as concepts, such as “learning through dialogs”, which are perhaps less well known in German-speaking classroom research. Unjustly, for sure, as this approach has its venerable roots in philosophy (Socrates) and is prominently present as well in Anglo-American educational research, e.g., in form of a chapter on “Theory and Research on Teaching as Dialogue” in the renowned Handbook of Research on Teaching (2001).

The book concludes with three chapters on lesson planning, learning-conducive assessment, and reflection about teaching. The demand for fair and learning-conducive performance assessment is timeless, however; it is favored and given a decidedly stronger prominence in today’s competence-oriented instruction which is practiced everywhere (not just in Switzerland’s Curriculum 21). This is particularly true for the careful observation of learning behavior and the furthering of one’s ability for realistic self-assessment. The latter is a fundamental requirement for successful student-directed individualization, where students must select assignments with appropriate difficulty levels.

It is a strategically good decision to study the topic “reflection” in the concluding chapter which, together with chapter 1 (Fundamental principles of instructional quality), constitutes the two supporting pillars. Firstly, collegial feedback (e.g. by way of classroom visits or video-based) about one’s own teaching, the comparison of divergent perspectives of the same subject matter, and the cooperative reflection based on it are an ideal opportunity to become aware of one’s own blind spots, to open rigid, subjective theories, to explain implicit theories, and to recognize subconscious automatisms as well as quirks. This self-awareness is an indispensable prerequisite for the further development of one’s own teaching, which does not just scratch the surface. Secondly, the collegial exchanges about teaching have a salubrious effect as well, as shown by research about teacher cooperation and teachers’ health. The common reflection on shared difficulties, the experience that other professionals are only human after all, can prevent exhaustion and burnout. As referenced by one of the key statements of the Potsdam teacher study: “The most important disburdening condition is experiencing social support by colleagues and through the school administration” (Schaarschmidt 2013).

Moreover, of equal importance is student feedback, because: “It does not matter so much whether teachers are excellent or rated as excellent by their peers; what matters is whether they are deemed excellent by their students. It is the learners who sit in their classes and recognize if their teachers view learning through their eyes and whether it promotes the quality of their relationship. Learning must be viewed by the teacher from the perspective of the learners, so that they better understand what learning looks like from the point of view of the learners and how they experience it” (Hattie, 2013).

In our view, it would be ideal if the practical application of what is described in the book would follow the principle of an evidence-based lesson development. This would involve four steps: (1) Initial assessment (e.g. collegial feedback, student surveys), (2) evidence-based reflection, (3) specific measures for lesson development and professionalization, e.g. lesson study, microteaching or other means of professionalization such as repeated readings of selected book chapters based on new experiences, and (4) an evaluation on the basis of a repeated survey: Have the lessons indeed changed? Who has benefitted from it? Was there a healthy relationship between expended efforts and results?

With this in mind, we wish the readers of this book an enlightening reading experience as well as a high level of effectiveness with the practical implementation in the classroom.