Reading through this chapter, I noticed I share some of the same ideologies as Brookfield. He spent the first 10 years of his career trying to keep the classroom as student-centered as possible. He adopted a "fly on the wall" approach, where he was viewed as an equal and allowed students to lead the class. In theory, this is a nice idea but reading this through, it just doesn't seem like it would be effective.
He goes on to discuss the need for transparency. Mutual respect between teacher and student. The teacher wants a responsive class interested in learning and participating and the students want decent grades. It seems like a fair swap to me. I've always been an advocate for transparency in the classroom and giving students as much time as possible to fix behaviours or grades before "it's too late". We, as educators see the big picture more clearly than students and sometimes it's necessary to remind them that everything they choose to do now, will have an effect on the final outcome. Whether that be attendance issues or not submitting assignments on time.
I feel it's necessary that teachers show responsiveness to their students and get that feedback consistently. More importantly, if students aren't understanding something - what happens then? If the entire class fails a test, in most cases, that's actually on you. You held the power to receive feedback and didn't ask for any or perhaps you did and chose not to make any changes. Students want to see that what they have to say matters and openly making changes to the way you do things showcases and amplifies that.
Brookfield also mentions how it is human nature to stay where we are most comfortable. Students choosing what topics to learn and focus on is flawed based on this principle. That outside perspective of a teacher is so important because we are there to push them to get a little uncomfortable or make them think. Sometimes this is when the best learning happens.
ความคิดเห็น