Submitted by J.M. Jaco (not verified) on March 4, 2007 - 02:40.
There is no one way to approach information, as scripting would imply. Scripting appeals to psychometricians who can study a canned approach and determine a measurable gain. On the other hand, I believe scripting is abhorrent to all but the most unprepared teacher.
If the argument for scripting is to help students who are stuck in a class with an unprepared teacher, it seems that this "remedy" is being applied for all the wrong reasons. How will scripted lessons help a neophyte or unprepared teacher develop into a better teacher?
Scripts are no better than training wheels and don't promote the need to learn one's subject content well, and to master pedagogic techniques. Through experiencing real classroom interactions with students, a good teacher develops an antenna that determines moment to moment how well his or her students are engaged in a lesson. How can a script help an unprepared teacher develop this awareness? And what does an unprepared teacher do if even the script doesn't help a child learn the material?
Furthermore, what is the personal message to such an unprepared teacher who needs only to follow a script to be called a "teacher"? Is it any wonder that many teachers who are placed in the position of merely having to read a script decide soon after that their importance in the system is low and that "mobility" is the better alternative for their own self worth?
The factory model for 20th-century schools has brought us to the place we are today. It has failed to measure up to 21st-century needs. Scripting is yet another manifestation of this anachronistic model and must go the way of "electronic page turning" programs and other mechanical approaches to learning. People who read Edutopia know the value of bringing back the Art of teaching, and understand the continual process of planting seeds and nurturing them into the fullest Bloom (pun intended).
There is no one way to
Submitted by J.M. Jaco (not verified) on March 4, 2007 - 02:40.
There is no one way to approach information, as scripting would imply. Scripting appeals to psychometricians who can study a canned approach and determine a measurable gain. On the other hand, I believe scripting is abhorrent to all but the most unprepared teacher.
If the argument for scripting is to help students who are stuck in a class with an unprepared teacher, it seems that this "remedy" is being applied for all the wrong reasons. How will scripted lessons help a neophyte or unprepared teacher develop into a better teacher?
Scripts are no better than training wheels and don't promote the need to learn one's subject content well, and to master pedagogic techniques. Through experiencing real classroom interactions with students, a good teacher develops an antenna that determines moment to moment how well his or her students are engaged in a lesson. How can a script help an unprepared teacher develop this awareness? And what does an unprepared teacher do if even the script doesn't help a child learn the material?
Furthermore, what is the personal message to such an unprepared teacher who needs only to follow a script to be called a "teacher"? Is it any wonder that many teachers who are placed in the position of merely having to read a script decide soon after that their importance in the system is low and that "mobility" is the better alternative for their own self worth?
The factory model for 20th-century schools has brought us to the place we are today. It has failed to measure up to 21st-century needs. Scripting is yet another manifestation of this anachronistic model and must go the way of "electronic page turning" programs and other mechanical approaches to learning. People who read Edutopia know the value of bringing back the Art of teaching, and understand the continual process of planting seeds and nurturing them into the fullest Bloom (pun intended).