Dr P J French (carlyle@celestial.com.au)
Fri, 30 Jul 1999 05:11:54 +1000
From: "Dr P J French" <carlyle@celestial.com.au> Subject: Re: IFETS-DISCUSS Digest - 28 Jul 1999 to 29 Jul 1999 Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 05:11:54 +1000
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Wendy Lowe <wlowe@tecsult.com> on the subject of
: Is teaching learnable only through experience?
Commented:
>
>
> I've been perusing the exchange about learning teaching (and vice versa).
As a former teacher
> and a training professional now, I know the difficulty of designing
learning for a classroom
> and trying to make it experiential, the constraints of training programmes
and the time factor
> for internships, etc....
> But teaching is something else: some part of this skill is learned through
experience, without
> doubt. Some part can be improved by methods courses and workshops (I had
one professor who
> used the same overheads for twenty years: he would rub out words on one
with his thumb and
> write in another one over the smear; I guess you could have called them
process actetates).
>
> But when I see children and adolescents work and play together I am
convinced that much of
> what makes a teacher, an explainer, a mentor, is somehow inborn.
> Muhammad Betz's latest posting makes a lot of sense to me in that respect.
I am just as
> convinced that it is possible to work at teaching skills, but some of us
find it natural and
> others will never.
>
> Wendy Lowe
I am finding this whole discussion very interesting.
I have come into teaching from a non teaching background of 15 years as a
senior finance and management executive in indusstry, and a CPA in Public
Practice for 17 years. During the latter period I did my typical service on
professional committees, and was co-opted for talks, explanations and
lectures. Every professional in one sense is in the business of the
dissemination of information. Some of us are good at it and some are just
simply lousy. I enjoyed it.
Whilst going through the inevitable divorce most practitioners seem to
encounter, I returned to University and did a Masters degree in my
professional area (Accountancy). I found this most enjoyable, quite easy,
and also discovered another dimension to my life. Consequently I became a
teacher in my vocational area, and embarked upon another area of learning
also - teacher training, Bachelor and Master of Education (the typical
Australian route).
I am thold that I am an effective communicator, and I do find far greater
work satisfaction out of this vocation that I ever did in the heights of
commerce. My teacher training helped shape and develop the penchant that I
naturally had. However, my further studies, which were all by coursework and
in the area of post secondary (compulsory) education, gave me a far greater
breadth and depth of understanding of both teaching and learning than I
deemed possible. In one sense there is no end to learning in this area.
What does concern me is that, although we may be 'natural' teachers, or we
may not be, there is no knowledge or skill that cannot be developed and
advanced. The question is whether we, as teachers or trainers, are content
to keep dishing up second best, regurgitating last
weeks/months/years/decades courses from dog eared and stained lesson plans,
or genuinly feel the need to develop our courses and ourselves as
professionals. There is a saying here in Australia that "...if you can't do
it, teach it..." - it may be common elsewhere also both as a saying and as a
practice.
Those of us who are working in the post compulsory education area in the
professional, vocational or workplace environments in Australia have come
accross people who may be good at their basic vocations but should not be
teaching/training without further education themselves. We have a minimalist
attitude here which is born out by an 8 unit Certificate IV (pre University
entry level) qualification that takes a maximum of 200 hours to complete.
This is deemed sufficient to enter the profession of teaching or training.
It emphasises competencies at a most basic applied level, and is clearly a
minimalist, non concept type course. What else can it be in 100 to 200
hours? These people have no concept of teaching or learning frameworks,
strategies or methodologies. They have no idea either of the psychology of
learners and learning, nor do many of them even see the need for this. Yet,
they are a growing band, with growing acceptance, and to a degree, at least
in the workplace area, are being held up as the standard to the degree that
the most highly trained teachers are required to undergo the 100/200 hour
course if they teach is these areas.
The ability to teach may be natural, but an appreciation of the necessity to
develop and keep skills and knowledge up to date, sets the true teacher and
trainer apart. True, some of us will never succeed no matter who teaches us,
and what they try to teach us. Some of us are born for it. But I do think,
and truly believe that we should not tolerate, in ourselves or others, a
minimalist attitude towards formal edcuation in such a chosen profession.
Dr Peter French
FTMA CMA MACE MAITD AAIBF MIIE
Professional Programs Manager
CARLYLE EDUCATION PTY LTD
ACCREDITED PROFESSIONAL & VOCATIONAL EDUCATION, TRAINING & ASSESSMENT
Registered Trainig Prganisation Australia No 6823.
carlyle@celestial.com.au
http://www.homestead.com/carlyleducation
Mobile 0413 126 728
---------------------------------------------------------
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 Fri 30 Jul 1999 - 07:38:01 MEST