Reflection 1: Bridging the Gap between Theory and Practice in Education
How does one learn how to teach? What is that quintessential knowledge that good teachers have? Who is the expert—the classroom teacher or the university researcher? All of these questions kept reverberating in my head as I read the selections for today. Intuitively, I feel like I’ve known the answers to these questions all along. It feels obvious…I mean, you learn how to teach through practice. The quintessential knowledge is knowing that you will never know everything…that you will constantly be learning. And there is no such thing as an expert because reality keeps evolving and changing and classroom dynamics depend on a specific group of kids at a specific moment in time.
What I have slowly come to realize, through both my teaching experiences and university studies, is that I, ultimately, am completely responsible for my teaching pedagogy. This may sound too obvious. I almost want to say “duh” to myself when re-reading this passage, but, honestly, it has not always been so obvious to me. I have been searching for the metaphorical “magic pill” that will show me the one right way and teach me how to be the best teacher possible.
Needless to say, I have searched in vain because the answers have always been right in front of my face. I have gained the most knowledge about teaching through the physical act of teaching. Education theory has helped me to formulate rationales for why I do what I do. But, more importantly, concrete examples of what has worked (and what has not) have shaped my current philosophy and subsequent pedagogies. Quoting Freire, Cochran-Smith and Lytle write “that educators and their students are ‘knowing subjects,’ constantly learning from the process of teaching” (1993, p. 52). This gives me confidence that what I am doing is valid and authentic.
In education, information gained from personal experience is just as important as that gained through university sponsored research. One does not discredit the other. Indeed, I agree with Cochran-Smith and Lytle that teacher research needs to find a more equitable position in scholarship about and for education. As teachers in the field, we are the true experts and should use our expertise to help shape research, curriculum, and policy. It is not only our right but our responsibility.
January 31st, 2008 at 9:17 pm
You bring up some good questions and ideas, some of which are the same I had while reading this text. But after reading your prompt, I am now taking my question a step farther. Why wouldn’t the teacher in the classroom be the best researcher? Yes, it would be hard to observe and obtain data from multiple classrooms, but,also, I think it is hard to obtain accurate data if the researcher is not immersed in the classroom culture and environment. It is just like the quote in the post says, “educators and their students are ‘knowing subjects,’ constantly learning from the process of teaching” (1993, p.52)
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:43 am
I have had the same questions in my head—I can see the value in being a pedagogical researcher and being well-versed in critical theory. However, I have learned so much more from being in the classroom. It is difficult to square the two positions. I wish that there were an easy way to bridge the gap between theory and practice. I think it is more difficult to study teaching before having been in the classroom—I think about the pedagogy class that we took last summer, and I feel that I would have both contributed more to and gotten more out of that class after my first year of teaching. I guess I will just have to dig out all of my old materials after I graduate and continue trying to apply what we’ve learned in the classroom.
Perhaps publishing and presenting our own observation and research is the way to bridge practice and pedagogy…
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Hi, there,
I couldn’t agree more with Teacher Talk. We are our own best researchers. We know the classrooms, and we know (I hope) what works with specific students. One proviso, though: Individual classes can have their own peculiarities, their own personalities. I’m thinking now of the difference between our first-period LA class (half asleep) and our seventh-period class (loud and rowdy). The classes seem to be more alert the further into the day we get, and they have to be taught accordingly.
gbpackers (Jim)