Ania Lian (ania@lingua.arts.uq.edu.au)
Sat, 26 Jun 1999 15:02:36 +1000 (EST)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 15:02:36 +1000 (EST) From: Ania Lian <ania@lingua.arts.uq.edu.au> Subject: Re: Teaching, the Schools, and Personal Development
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://grouper.ieee.org/ltsc/ifets/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, 25 Jun 1999, Muhammad Betz wrote:
> In his book, Developing a Quality Curriculum (published by the Association
> for Supervision and Curriculum Development, USA), Professor A.A. Glatthorn,
> advocates that teachers focus on a MASTERY CURRICULUM. About this he says,
> "The mastery curriculum meets two criteria: it has high importance for all
> students and high structure in the teaching/learning process (p.26)." This
> mastery curriculum then is that mandatory, core curriculum that teachers
> must teach for all students. The teaching of this type of curriculum does
> not really address the issue of students' "personal" development, but
> instead instructs students in the essential knowledge and skills required to
> succeed in the practical, mundane aspects of life.
In the world filled with insecurity, it is always so reassuring when we
find among us those who just can tell the difference between education for
personal development and that about the essential knowledge required to
succeed. I think that we should look more closely at this professor's work
in times when there are so many underpaid, unemployed and educated PhD
with the skills for which the need does not seem to be imperative. A
recipe of what it takes to succeed seems like an urgent idea.
> This approach does not
> view teaching as a "subversive activity," as Ania alluded to earlier in this
> discussion. Teaching, in this mode is a business-like activity with a more
> or less personable side. Often, the mastery curriculum is addressed using
> direct instruction and requiring true work from students.
In the education model described as above, I wonder, how the notion of
question is formulated. But, the model also reminded me of a very
interesting remark by Lyotard which I include below:
"Didactics is what ensures that this reproduction [of the equals] takes
place. It is different from the dialectical game of research. Briefly, its
first presupposition is that the addressee, the student, does not know
what the sender knows: obviously, that is why he has something to learn.
Its second presupposition is that the student can learn what the sender
knows and become an expert whose competence is equal to that of his
master. This double requirement supposes a third: that there are
statements for which the exchange of arguments and the production of proof
constituting the pragmatics of research are considered to have been
sufficient, and which can therefore be transmitted through teaching as
they stand, in the guise of indisputable truths. In other words, you
teach what you know: such is the expert." (Lyotard, 1992: 24-5)
> My point? While education can be called a "people business," it is still a
> business. We teachers have a job to do related to helping the greatest
> number of students possible to obtain the knowledge and skills that the
> business of life requires. We also have an obligation and I might say a
> higher calling to assist our students in becoming more autonomous, fulfilled
> human beings.
education is business: a risky job. And I would certainly second the
notion of it being related to helping the greatest number of students.
best wishes,
Ania Lian
---------------------------------------------------------
Forum website: http://ifets.gmd.de/
Forum's contact person: kinshuk@ieee.org
Info on Join/Leave List: http://ifets.gmd.de/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat 26 Jun 1999 - 07:04:44 MEST