Saturday 18 February 2012

Reading and Writing - Cornerstones of education


How and when did you learn to read and write? What do you think is the best way to teach reading and writing? Should we focus mainly on skills, or on meanings in context, or is there another method?

Learning to read and write was a momentous moment of my life… I think. I don’t actually remember it, it was so long ago and so far away. From what I remember of learning to write, it was repetition, repetition, repetition… The teacher would write the letter, you’d write the letter and on and on it went. Eventually you’d get there and then you’d learn to cursive and before you knew it you were all grown up with your pen licence and white out!

Reading on the other hand was different, whilst repetition was part of it, it was practice, practice, practice that the schools really pushed. I hated reading and because I hated it, I just couldn’t do it. After talking to my fellow classmates I discovered that reading, unlike writing and spelling, doesn’t come from just having to do it. We’d all found that unless we wanted to read the book, magazine or comic, it just wasn’t going to happen. But as soon as we found something we were interested in, it was as if someone had opened a skylight in our brains and suddenly we would do anything in our power to read.

I know there are many ways to teach reading and writing but I think finding your own creative way that works with the students that you are teaching at that time in the best you can do. Students need to know what it is they’re reading, so you can’t leave it un-contextualised, but you must focus on the word and the meaning together, just like the word and the meaning go together.

Reflecting, Questioning and Analysing (Week 1)

Can you describe a teacher (or teaching figure) who has influenced you either positively or negatively, and some of his/her qualities or characteristics?
If there was one, describe an event or moment of encounter that has since stuck in your mind. Can you explain what specifically was about the interaction that changed your thinking or understanding? Putting this memory or impression in words may help illuminate an essential and fundamental quality of teachers that is especially meaningful to you.

I went to the same school for years 7, 8 and 10 but changed states in year 9. Unfortunately because the change was to a different state the levels and grading systems were different, so when I moved back to Canberra I was placed in the lowest level of each major class so I wouldn’t be ‘above my skill level’. My English teacher who had taught me before the move saw me on one of my first days back and remembered my name, my abilities in her subject and was really welcoming and helpful to me. She got me moved into an English class that suited my ability and made continuous effort to make sure that I was kept up to date with the work I may have missed.
She showed me that there is a lot more to teaching than just teaching. She helped me feel less nervous, knew my needs and helped me get to where I needed to be. Instead of treating me like a number, I was treated like an individual. She made me feel unique.


In describing what teachers do, people have compared them to parents, mentors, coaches, artists, performers, analysts, etc (see Churchill, et al., p.15 for other metaphors). Who do you associate an ideal teacher with? Can you elaborate a bit on that?

Teachers should be the light that guides students towards their life goals, the teacher should give answers, take sides or tell their students what is right or wrong, but should teach their students how to answer these questions themselves. So when faced with them later on in life they can stand on their own feet. They can be like a parent, mentor, coach, artist or a performer but that (in my opinion) is not what makes them the kind of teacher they are.
An ideal teacher should be a helping hand and mentor, but not a crutch to their students. Many people say the ideal teacher is like a parent, but a parent is much more present and has a much stronger relationship with the student. A parent takes sides and can punish with out consequence, can have arguments and long discussions with their child. Teachers are bound by rules and by society, they have a job to do and whilst parents do teach their children the ways of the world they do not teach them to stand on their own.

As much as an independent endeavour, teaching is also an embedded profession. Teachers' work is contextualised in a complex social network and is consequently a response to requirements and expectations of national and local governments, school authorities, parents, and students. Teachers' clienteles, their students, are equally social beings from varied societal backgrounds. Based on your reading of Connell (2009) can you talk about the implications that social contextualisation has for what a good teacher is?

The education system in Australia and all around the world is based on the wants of society; the government, the parents and maybe, the children (if they get around to that). Education is a product of the times and as times change and society changes we see the education changing as well. Notice above that I say wants and not needs. The needs of the society, the government and the children are not really taken into account, but the perceived needs most certainly are. The governments perceived view of the work force aims for a working society, the parent’s perceived view of their children’s future wants and needs are embedded into the child and to the teachers, and the student’s wishes are considered last and their needs rarely asked.
Being a good teacher means taking everyone’s needs and wants into account and putting them in order of importance. Teaching is always going to be affected by society but it is the teacher who affects how it plays out in the classroom. A good teacher is no longer defined as ‘an obedient servant of the authorities.[1]’ They are considered an integral part of society.




[1]Raewyn, C. (2009) Good teachers on dangerous ground: towards a new view of teacher quality and professionalism (pp. 3) Retrieved on the 19th of February, 2012, from http://www.scielo.br/pdf/ep/v36nspe/en_v36nspea13.pdf

Thursday 16 February 2012

Do what I say and not what I do...

If I cross my arms and tell you good work. I might not be being sarcastic, but my body is.

Sending mixed signals is something that happens often in education and after watching 'The Responsive Brain', I feel like talking about it.

Whilst our words say a lot it is our actions that speak louder and in the classroom students may be hearing what your saying but understanding something completely different. This can relate to hidden curriculum[1] and affect what they're learning, or it could just affect the social interactions with in the classroom.

If a teacher is always at the front of the room dictating but is teaching of democracy, what does this teach the students? Will students learn how democracy works or will it all be in theory? Are students learning just from this experience? I believe so. Without any content these students are still learning the place of authority, their place in society and how to obey rules and regulations. This type of hidden curriculum is dangerous in it often undermines what the students are supposed to be learning about. In this case, a fair and voted on system of power.

I am also not just talking about body language and tone of voice. It is not okay for a teacher to be hypocritical. A teacher may not say that spelling is the most important thing to learn in life but consistently spell things incorrectly on the board. It is also not advised for a teacher to get her/his information from Wikipedia whilst at the same time telling students that it is not allowed for a reference. These things, whether small or large, undermine the teacher’s credibility and students will begin to distrust, and even to dislike their teacher.

I believe that it is easy to forget that is not only what we say but also what we do that effects how students learn and what they learn in the classroom.



[1] Robyn Ewing (2010) Curriculum and Assessment (pp. 41). Hong Kong: Sheck Wah Tong Printing Press Ltd

Saturday 11 February 2012

Assumptions in Education


Most people perceive education as the teaching of subjects that will prepare students for life after school and will set them up for their place in society. Whilst it is true that education is a foundation to a successful integration into society it is not only the subjects that are taught in the classroom that make education a great foundation. It is the atmosphere and social interaction that students gain from a school environment that makes schooling so important in today’s society. The hidden curriculum of the educational institutions is just as important as the national curriculum that teachers are asked to teach. That is why today I’m thinking about some of the assumptions that teachers bring to the classroom.

The assumption that getting a good education will get you a good job:

In today’s day and age where graduates are predicted to enter jobs that require a strong technical background and an ability to work in groups IT classes are on the rise as well as the integration of technology into all other classes in schools. This assumption that school is just a means to an end, in this case, the means to get a job, is why many students are dropping out of school earlier and earlier. Sir Ken Robinson (2010)[1] called it a ‘production line mentality’; preparing students to enter the work force from a young age. Unfortunately studies no longer show us that getting good grades guarantee a good job and competition for jobs are no longer based solely on your educational background. The assumption that teaching students basic literature will result in a higher paid job with better benefits and opportunities is no longer an assumption that should be a foundation in a teacher’s pedagogy. Until recently however this would have affected the way I taught in the classroom and may still be affecting the way many teachers across the country teach today.

The assumption that all students have the right to learn:

It wasn’t until recently that equality was really established in schools. Terms such as ‘gifted’ and ‘disabled’ are still used in our classrooms regularly to describe students of differing abilities and it wasn’t until 1972 that the NSW Department of Education revoked principal’s rights to refuse aboriginal children enrolling in public schools[2]. That’s only 40 years ago that schools had to begin teaching indigenous Australians and students with disabilities until recently were segregated into schools with specialised facilities and teachers.  This is not to say these students weren’t learning, Indigenous Australians were taught by segregated schools and by families and it wasn’t unusual for children with a disability to be taught at home by parents or relatives. So is it that all students have a right to a public education that we’re really talking about?

The assumption that students should be taught with others of their age:

Schools now have students of every level and from many cultures all being taught in groups. Whilst it has been discussed that teaching all students together teaches them to be fair and non discriminatory, it seems unorthodox that students of such diverse backgrounds and abilities should be grouped together based on age. Does it really make sense that all children should start school at age 5 and finish at age 17-18 regardless of ability? It is now so traditional for all students to be taught with other students in their age range and also to graduate with those same students, that it no longer matters that the gap between the student with the highest and the student with the lowest grades in a graduation can be enormous. This assumption affects the whole of education and may possibly be the hardest to change.


[1] Sir Ken Robinson (2010) Changing Education Paradigms. Retrieved on the 12th of February 2012, from http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_changing_education_paradigms.html
[2] Dr Allison Cadzow (n.d) A NSW Aboriginal Education Timeline 1788–2007 pg. 27. Retrieved on the 12th of February 2012, from http://ab-ed.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/files/timeline1788-2007.pdf