Web site logical path: [www.psy.gla.ac.uk] [~steve] [talks] [this page]
Slides:
Against the utility of the research literature for HE teachers:
Middle ground: the inertia against progress.
In favour: there are some (a few) big educational effects in the
literature.
By way of a finale:
Web site logical path:
[www.psy.gla.ac.uk]
[~steve]
[talks]
[this page]
Handout:
Related material:
Abstract
Should we just do what strikes us as good teaching without listening to anyone
else, or should we read the literature and expect to find knowledge that
will improve our teaching? There are some apparently strong arguments on both
sides of this question.
The individual teacher's quality is the biggest single factor in learners'
outcomes in schools and presumably in HE, but that quality is not predicted by
any other factor we know of; in particular it is unrelated to training.
Teacher quality therefore seems to be an implicit skill, that is not
transferable. Leaving teachers to do as they think best would seem rational.
There seem to be strong forces against both making any progress in educational
practice, and the spread of good practice if it occurs. This too seems to
tell against hoping for benefit from any top down push of educational
techniques. (Or is this just rationalising a bad status quo?)
Refusing to look at them must be irrational. A tour of some highlights is
presented, organised by a notion of distinguishing teacher contributions under
three distinct, independent functions: delivery, designing the learning
activities, and the selection and structuring of content.
Some comments will be offered on the reasons for, and effects
of, Teachers' profound egocentrism (in Piaget's sense); an analysis of
complaints about spoon-feeding; and the growing pressure in the literature to
abandon traditional lecturing as a useful activity.
Some
notes on related stuff are also available.
[Top of this page]