TABLE 4.13 STUDENT-CENTRED THINKING

COMMENT CONSTRUCT CONCEPT THEME

Clint, NZ: I see it as the core of a proper education because through the structure of the Community of Inquiry it builds learners, values and thinkers. Philosophy for Children core of a proper education Building learners, values and thinkers Student- centred thinking Clint, NZ: This [Philosophy for Children] is my

specialist area.

Students thinking for themselves

Encourage- ment Dennis, Eng: Guided reading [introducing

thinking skills] as early as possible after the introductory overview of the topic.

Guided reading Introductory

thinking skills Magda UK: Development of skills requires a

good self critic. Skill development Self-critic

Michael (Maths): Most problems in Maths and Science require thinking skills. The framework involves distilling the key information that is given. Selecting the appropriate tool to solve, then I obtain feedback.

Distilling the key information in maths and science Problem solving framework _Student- centred thinking Michael (Maths): Bloom’s Taxonomy is quite

effective because it enables the teacher to vary the depth to which thinking skills are used.

Vary depth of thinking skills Use Blooms Taxonomy [of Cognitive skills] Experts’ voices

There were no hesitations, confusions, concerns or silences within the comments given by experts in their completion of the Questionnaire. Rather, they commented with accuracy on pedagogical matters. They were not prey to indecision and provided valuable clarity to each section of the Questionnaire in their answers.

My researcher’s voice

In this sub-section I reflect on one point of hesitation and six individual points of confusion encountered in the responses.

Hesitation

The hesitation arose when teachers were asked if they would actually teach the concepts of virtues, of values, and of forms of ethical thinking. There was some evidence to suggest that teachers may be aware of this as a contentious issue, preferring to abide by the official policy of a previous generation regarding the desirability of a values-neutral classroom (in Australia). One of

the respondents, Giovanni, an Australian teacher of English and Social Studies, highlights a particular teaching approach:

Ethics seems to mean Virtues and Values. I DONT believe we should teach any particular ritual to be ethical e.g.: going to church is good OR dying for your country is admirable [emphasis in original].

It has now been established that in many schools under the benign influence of a teacher in the classroom, students explore many virtues and values when studying narrative, but where unfocussed pedagogy can leave some unfair situations unaddressed. Life Skills work, which comes into play often in Administration time, is the likely useful time for this, especially in secondary school. It is the responsibility of the classroom or homeroom teacher. Life Skills topics can be experienced as full of unaddressed or under- addressed values that form part overt and covert agenda of the particular class, teacher or school.

Confusions

The first confusion showed in the responses of several respondents who admitted that to them, virtues and values were versions of the same thing. Consequently, it made an appreciable difference to the texture of some of the answers given. Teacher-participant Pietr defined the two concepts as follows:

Virtues are characteristics that a person outwardly shows as a result of their inner personality. Values are beliefs/abilities that a person uses/has in their interaction with others.

A second confusion rested on the teachers’ familiarity with and commitment to the ‘free and secular’ educational policy of their respective countries (but especially in Australia); the striving for a values-neutral classroom that had been their priority. Apparently, values creep in by stealth or by accident, and the presence of covert agenda may not really be

classroom and a possibility of unaddressed and mistaken concepts of tolerance, justice and respect. Where they tried to do so, there was noticeable confusion as to how this might be done. It also emerged that in a school such as the one from which more than half the respondents taught, values could be taught in Religion classes, or some values perhaps could be discussed briefly in Life Skills classes, accompanying Drug Education and Sex Education. Teacher Jane delineated her boundary lines clearly:

I don’t use the term virtue. I think it is a crucial part of teaching that manifests in our expectations of ourselves and of our students. In Life Skills, these characteristics are explored more actively and at times in English. In managing a homeroom, these are encouraged/ modelled/praised/acknowledged all the time. … I consider virtues to be favourable, desirable qualities that show care and respect for self and others. Virtues education is encouraging students to develop skills/ qualities that allow them to practise such things in their interactions with others.

The third confusion appeared to rest in the teachers’ education (once again, especially in Australia), which in the main would have taken place in that same values-neutral classroom which had operated for years and which was consequently the pedagogical paradigm most advocated by these teachers. I have found that, though the word is rarely used in contemporary academic conversations, there was an apparent confusion in the responses as to what does and does not constitute indoctrination. Having assumed it to be chiefly the preserve of Religion classrooms (and it cannot be denied that indoctrination did take place in many confessional schools as a direct and defiant response by enthusiastic staff to the imposition of a values-neutral education upon their faith-based pedagogy), today’s teachers may not have opportunities to fully investigate the extent to which indoctrination may be present today. The confusion further is exacerbated by the unexamined belief that indoctrination is only found in religious spheres. It would seem that today’s teachers do not impinge on matters where there is an expectation of

choice in the lives of today’s students – whether it is career-oriented, or under the auspices of philosophical frameworks or religious belief systems.

Teacher Paul answered the Questionnaire (item 44) regarding a definition of Virtues Education thus: ‘I take it to mean character education and I believe this has no place in the curriculum as a subject in its own right’.

Bernard saw Virtues Education as ‘values, standards a belief in one’s self and purposes’. Giovanni said:

Virtues are possibly the Big Picture Headings e.g., Virtues is underlined with constructs, ethics, morals, values surrounding it. Ethics seems to mean virtues and values.

Henry asked: ‘What sort of virtues?’ when asked about the thinking curriculum he used in his classroom, yet his responses to other questions showed clearly the value he assigned to respect, harmony and critical thinking in relation to his Art and Design curricula.

The fourth confusion concerned the documentation detailing the specific technical (techné) strategies used in classrooms. Some participants relied clearly, and only, on those governmental documents which give content guidance and outlines. No other process of information was given as to how this content was translated into step-by-step strategies to allow students space to achieve understanding, and for the formation of relevant questions so that actual learning takes place. It was not possible to extract more about what the teachers’ strategies used.

Other participants were clear in their recognition of how they designed their step-by-step strategies so that students’ questions were clarified and rich learning took place. These respondents used a variety of work processes devised under Lipman’s Community of Inquiry and Fogarty's Brain- Compatible Classrooms and others.

The fifth confusion emerged when participants answered questions about the difference between teaching the student, each student, and teaching just

rather only in the context of the themes/characters in situ during a specific topic; however, teacher-participant Lavenda related the organisation of her curriculum topics with teaching strategies in detail:

When planning a unit, I anticipate what I think the students will already know – prior learning; what the students will be able to work out; what they will need to be taught. Then I elicit their prior learning/knowledge, affirming or correcting that, and extend it with the presentation of new information, in a variety of ways. To process new information, students may work individually, in pairs or selected small groups.

Here she is detailing those strategies and the different techniques employed to ensure that rich learning takes place in a variety of settings. This is something that is not accounted for by the implementation of tests. It was not possible to conclude from the responses whether the design of assignments was seen as sufficient for rich learning to take place. Getting through the curriculum according to the requirement of their internal documentation was seen by some respondents as the only aim of delivery of curricular content.

A sixth confusion emerged for participants who found it difficult to answer some of the specific questions because of the precise attention they paid to the requirements of their respective National Curricula. Ben, who baldly stated that the only curriculum framework he used was the National Curriculum replied, in relation to the question (item 11) relating to how he organised curriculum topics and teaching strategies, only that: ‘It is a key part of Geography and Citizenship therefore it is introduced from the beginning. Many lessons start with Q & A’.

This same disinterested approach was particularly noticeable in participants from New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Little evidence of a negotiated curriculum was shown in most of the participants’ responses, although several teachers related how they helped students to compose questions relevant to the strategies used in Lipman’s Community of Inquiry.

It was not possible to discern just how constricted or otherwise, teachers seemed to view the delivery of a National Curriculum.