When thinking about this question, I thought back to some talks that I had listened to in class, and I realised, the main thing that I would change, is the actual motivations behind this whole module: the science of education. I think that a major flaw in our education system is the lack of use of the abundance of scientific knowledge that we have about learning.
A major part of this, I feel, is how we teach our teachers. Teaching is seen as an ‘art’ and that some people are ‘natural born teachers’, however would it be that with the correct methods, with scientific evidence, anyone can be a successful teacher?
Snider recognised this as one of her six ‘myths and misconceptions’ in her book (2006). By assuming that good teachers are born and not made, we are ignoring teaching potentially effective teaching methods and judging our teachers based on personal attributes. With this being said, Snider does acknowledge that personal attributes do contribute to being a good teacher, but are not the sole factor.
The science behind these methods is in abundance, with evidence on more aspects of education than I have words to mention them here, for example, direct instruction, motivation, memory techniques, metacognition and self-regulatory learning, to name but a few. In theory, I believe that we could train teachers to be highly effective, with a combination of all the knowledge that we have, but we don’t seem to be using it.
Other than how teachers teach, I think that the methods of assessment that we use in education today do not seem to be informed by science, and this is not benefitting students by not getting the best out of them. Again, there are far too many options than the word limit will allow, including formative assessment, the testing effect and peer assessment, to name a few.
With all of this information available to us, there is no excuse for not using it. So in summary, if I could change one thing about our education system, it would be to use the abundance of tools and information available to us to allow teachers to get the best out of their students and to reach their potential, by using methods and tools that have been shown to be a success.
Science of Learning 
I agree with your points, I especially agree that teachers need to become more effective. I think that one of the major flaws in the education system that we have at the moment is that we have a lot of old-fashioned, dictating teachers who chose to teach because they didn’t know what else to do, you know the saying, those who cant, teach. With this in mind, teaching isn’t as prestigious as it should be.
Malikow (2006) agree with Snider to some extent that exceptional teachers are born (gifted), as they possess the required personality characteristics, however, this alone isn’t enough to constitute a good teacher. They also need to be trained, to develop their characteristics through experience and enhance them by giving specific information.
With this information though, I think that the way we train our teachers needs to be addressed. Currently anyone can apply and be accepted for a PGCE, which bombards people with information and assesses them through observation. In comparison, in Finland its compulsory for teachers to have a Masters degree in Education, and only 10% of the 5000 applicants are accepted. They accept the most gifted, skilled and able people, who actually show a desire to teach, rather than do it because they don’t know what else to do. Their quality of teaching over in Finland has been shown to be much higher, and instead of being taught to dictate through a PGCE, they study the techniques that enhance student learning, and practice alternative pedagogy approaches in their classrooms.
Click to access Malikow,%20Max%20Are%20Teachers%20Born%20or%20Made-The%20Necessity%20of%20Teacher%20Training%20Programs.pdf
http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/05/14/200978/teacher-quality-in-finland/?mobile=nc
I agree that some people have personality traits that are more agreeable to teaching, such as approachability and good communication. and I partly think that the way in which someone can naturally convey information is a major part, and something I’m not sure can be taught. However, I think too much emphasis is placed upon this in our current teaching methods.
With regards to how our PGCE system is set out, I understand that there is a lot of information thrown at students, but I think this is necessary, and there is a good balance between theory and practical which is essential. I don’t think that teachers should have to have a Master’s degree, as they do in Finland, unless of course they are looking to teach at degree level or above.
In terms of passion desire to teach, I agree that these are essential and we have too much “cant do, teach” in this country, particularly in Primary Education, however I’m not sure of the statistic in this country, but PGCEs are actually quite difficult courses to get on, and plenty of people get rejected each year. The current system aims to choose the most skilled and desired people, but maybe the people going in for teaching are simply not as skilled and able as those in Finland? I’m not sure, that’s just an idea. However I agree that we don’t get people with the desire to teach, as much as we try, so maybe that’s where the flaw in our system lies?
In high school and many other education facilities teachers are the source of knowledge. Well at least the source of knowledge you need to pass the exams! Therefore, teachers do need to be effective at teaching. Otherwise students are going to fail the exams and not progress with their personal learning.
Wong (2004) discovered that a sustained program which involves teachers observing other teachers, discussing teaching styles and being part of a network of teachers keeps a teacher a great teacher. He commented that this development program allows the teachers to “grow together” and this improves the teachers strategies for teaching. Teaching quality is the one of the best factors of predicting student success.
So maybe these “developmental programs” which involve a network of teachers are the way forward. Teachers could have their own blogs. They could blog to each other of new strategies they have found that work, or of any problems they have which can be solved by other teachers. This blogging idea has worked for us so why not teachers!
This seems like a good idea! It ties in with my point about peer assessment and self-regulated learning.
Topping (1998) found that peer assessment has a positive effect on academic achievement and attitudes, so in theory this could work with teachers.
Another thing that I think this idea of developmental networks would help with is creativity. Creativity is something that I believe to be essential in teaching, so thinking of different and novel ways to convey information so that everybody understands. This network could possibly be used as a foundation for creativity and allow teachers to bounce ideas off each other, something similar to electronic brainstorming that I talked about in a blog a few weeks ago.
Hi there!
I found your blog very interesting this week. In particular, I think you make a good point regarding metacognition/self-regulation and how these principles should be applied to ‘teaching’ and not just ‘learning’.
Ramsden and Martin (1996) argued that academics should be “empowered to take responsibility for the quality of their own teaching” – I see this as autonomous teaching. Surely, in order to create autonomous learners, teachers need to possess the same qualities? – They should WANT to teach – developing a capacity to handle change, negotiate, and make strategic use of their skills (Breen & Mann, 1997).
Kember (2000) wrote that in order for this to happen, teachers need to become ‘reflective practitioners’ – developing skills to observe, monitor, evaluate and research their own teaching.
‘Self-regulated teachers’ complement the creation of self-regulated learners: hence scientific methods should certainly be implemented in order to create an ‘elite’ teaching body.
Chinazo Echezona-Johnson stated in an article that: “Teaching is an art. Some people are born teachers while others acquire the skill.” (http://www.helium.com/items/630648-why-do-teachers-want-to-teach)
Im not too sure if I agree with this statement, although it covers both bases or being a natural teacher, and others learning to teach.
Although Sniders (2006) work cannot be ignored, I wonder if there actually is some truth on natural teachers. There are many forums/articles discussing this but one caught my eye (http://www.chrisbrogan.com/a-natural-teacher/). Chris Brogan spoke,not of a classroom setting, but on taking advice on building a bonfire. He said that taking advice and instruction from many people grates and the learner may become defensive and shut off. There are just some people in this world, with the knack to teach and give advice, we just have to listen to, purely because of the manner in which they give it.
So my theory is this: Yes we need teachers to learn the correct methods of teaching that are most beneficial, but to be a GREAT teacher, you do need a certain natural ability!
I have a number of interesting points to make but alas that infernal word limit!!!!
I think everyone can teach but there are certainly people who due to multiple personality factors are better suited to be the ideal teacher though I feel the ideal teacher can vary by geographical location, culture and subject among others (word limit restrictions!!!)
Naturally there are methods which can be taught to teachers to help them give their students every possible advantage both in and outside of school some of which take years to discover alone but once realised should be passed on.
As for changeing the way we test ability, exams are still a good way to get a grasp of understanding and ranking in terms of ability within a group, you don’t see less able students in higher ability classes so exams are working as intended from that point of view.
With regards to alternatives for students who don’t excel at exams I think this is ceratinly an avenue to explore but unless that becomes the standard they may be viewed as unfair and equally may have able students falling below their potential due to the nature of the assessment not fitting their strongsuit such as good memory that would have seen them excel in exams.
It is difficult to test intelligence and contrast it with others too judge where you are at but I still think it is safe to say that if you do well in the current system you probably are more likely to be an academicly strong individual regardless of testing method anyway.
We can’t expect to have a model that means everyone is at the top but that should always be the goal and its what each child deserves from their teachers and school.