Teaching as a Research-based Profession?

In a speech in 1996 by Hargreaves, he claimed (more or less) that for whatever reason teachers were a passive, unambitious group, and made a comparison between teaching and medical professionals, in particular doctors. He stated that doctors are constantly informed about developments in medicine, aware of recent research findings, and intrigued by possible future directions. He contrasted this with teaching, which he said is 'not a research-based profession'. Does he have a point, and of so, does it matter?

There were many fierce opponents to Hargreaves' claim that teaching would be 'more effective and more satisfying' if it looked more to research in its field. Many claimed that it was ridiculous to compare being a doctor to being a teacher. And there were many other credible reasons why what is right for a medical doctor is not necessarily right for a teacher. However, let's indulge the idea for a while.

It is difficult to talk about teaching as if it were one single job. It varies so widely from country to country, institution to institution, and so does methodology. I think we can state, though, that more or less the way we teach is dictated by the institution we work for or by our initial teacher training. It is top-down, decided by others, and we are asked to carry out what our employers are paying us to do. Often these people are experienced and educated enough to make that decision. The problem, if you like, is that we don't then think for ourselves about other ways to teach and once we are trained and paid, we give up actively developing.

Do you know many teachers who read journals and academic literature about educational research? Do you know any teachers who independently decide to carry out research? I don't. But why not? Are teachers not interested in what we can do better? Are teachers not an inquisitive bunch? Are they happy with the status quo? I imagine in some cases yes, but more often not.

I am not calling for a call to arms against those who decide on the teaching method but I would like to see more teachers reading about and exchanging ideas about teaching methods. How can we do this? At the moment there seems to be a mix of what we are told to do and what we've picked up along the way that works for us. Should this not be a bit more rigorous? Could we not also start discussions and carry out research? Do we not owe it to ourselves and our students to continually improve?


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Future of English Language Teaching and Learning?

Image
We are now used to a web experience in which we can integrate images, user-generated and personalised content, as well as the freedom to browse and search for precisely what we want. It is easy to see that this pattern of activity has not yet become part of our approach to language learning, especially if we think about the traditional school setting. Although many schools  are  now moving towards incorporating contemporary learning styles into their architecture, it is often not so evident in the syllabus which can remain prescriptive.  There is a challenge to create an environment in which learners can determine what, how, and when they learn.  From our involvement with the world-wide web we have developed critical thinking skills and we are now more used to the ideas of lifelong and independent learning. The near future should allow learners to create their own learning paths, as well as interacting easily across existing boundaries of space and time. Learning will theref
Read more

'Language ability cannot be taught; it can only be learned'

Image
There are lots of blog posts, academic articles, and ongoing heated discussions in the actual and virtual ELT staff rooms all over the world about whether we should teach grammar at all. Those who argue for the teaching of grammar say that we need to know the rules of a language to be able to use it properly. They say grammar gives us the skeleton from which to hang the flesh.  Those against it argue that English in particular is not a grammar-based language and in fact, all a language-learner needs is access to level-appropriate, authentic 'input' and a thirst for learning. Having listened to both sides of this argument, and having applied both of them to my own teaching, I can make a couple of tentative observations: 1. Sometimes students want grammar like children want candy. But just because they want it, should we give it to them? Well, if the child is paying your wages, then yes, maybe you should. But is it good for them? It is not a meal in itself but will do no
Read more

The Death of An English

Image
This week the president of the European Commission,  Jean-Claude Juncker, declared that  “Slowly but surely English is losing importance in Europe”. Despite Brexit, the statistics tell us that more and more people in Europe and worldwide are studying English. Regardless of your standpoint on the UK's exit from the European Union, Brexit is not going to affect the trajectory of English-language learning.  In a couple of years people who travel to and from the UK and Europe, or do any sort of business between the two may or may not be speaking in English to each other. Regardless of this English will still be the dominant worldwide language because it is the language of business, science, all aviation and the de facto language of the Internet, which I hear is getting quite popular nowadays.  This is not, however, a defense of English as a lingua franca. But it does remind me that English does not belong to the people of English-speaking countries but to anyone who uses it.
Read more