Clay Burell often has thoughtful (if a little ’stream of consciousness’ for me) things to say:

Whether tools are used in classrooms is pretty unimportant, compared to what type of learning is expected in the classroom. Most classroom learning doesn’t deserve the budget outlay for increased technology. Extra cash would be better spent on redefining what’s worthwhile for the young to learn. I’m a techie too, somewhat, but find educational philosophy far more vital than technology.

source

Coming back to the quality of teaching rather than the what of teaching.

I am reading Graham Nuthall’s book at the moment. It is fascinating and a great, simple but very informative read. I feel privileged to have had him as a lecturer in the late 80’s in my time at Canterbury Uni (along with Adrienne Alton-Lee, John Church, and other amazingly astute classroom-based researchers).
Graham makes the point that as we look at classrooms to see what things make a difference to childrens learning we need to understand what ACTUALLY happens in their heads (as opposed to what we assume happens) and what, if anything, teachers can do to make a difference. We need to look at the CHILDREN to define successful learning, not the teacher. Learning is NOT a direct outcome of teacher actions and behaviour, but an outcome of the things that happen in childrens heads as they integrate new stuff with old stuff and make sense of it all.
This book should be compulsory reading for all in education! It is Graemes summary of the key things he had learned in a career as an educational researcher with an international reputation. As he wrote the book he knew he was dieing of cancer and wanted to share his understandings. Indeed the last chapter is written by others as he died before being able to complete it.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>