(Curzon L. B. 2000 p137)
My teaching environment changes from day to day, I can be teaching the full class of eight students in a classroom, set out in the time honoured fashion of row upon row of desks, and in the same day be teaching a small syndicate of two or three students in a more relaxed and informal situation in the hangar. Certain flexibility is needed in order to teach in this medium. Communication is a prerequisite for learning to take place, regardless of the ability of the teacher. They can be an excellent facilitator or instructor but if he or she fails to communicate in a way that the students understand, the lesson will fail. To add to that statement, the teacher must fulfil both sides of the communication equation, they must teach in an effective manner and also listen to feedback from the students. A constant and flexible communications loop has to be set up in the classroom in order for learning to be carried out. The teacher has to move fluidly between different parts of this model in order to reflect, adapt and maintain a consistent level of learning in his or her classroom.
Many blocks to good communication can be set in place both intentionally and unintentionally by the student and sometimes unintentionally by the teachers themselves. These blocks can inhibit, or in the worst cases prevent the easy flow of information between teacher and student. They can be as simple as bad teaching practices on the part of the teacher, such as talking to the chalkboard or mumbling at the students; bad lesson planning and inadequate viewing aids can also hinder learning. We also have the more complex problems such as learning difficulties for the student. Noise or other distractions within the classroom can also be a block to communication. All these problems can be identified and removed by the teacher only if they realise they are there, again this comes down to the experience and training of the individual.
Specific Communication Strategies used
My day to day teaching environment within the Air Force is by its very nature a quagmire of acronyms and jargon based words. The students have had some prior experience of this language in their full year of training before they arrive with me, but some still have problems. The model used by Reece and Walker (2001) p357 (reproduced at annex A to this assignment) shows the students decoding the taught lesson into their own meaning. A breakdown in communication can be brought about by the miss-hearing or miss-interpretation of an acronym. We tend to guard against this with rigorous questioning and answer sessions to make sure the students have assimilated the information in full in whichever code they wish. Again the experience of the teacher plays a part in the depth and type of questioning carried out at this stage.
Some students can take the information and decode it all successfully; others decode the bare essentials and need time to interpret the information slowly before full understanding takes place.
Socratic questioning is used in almost every learning encounter that I take part in. The web site; http//www.misio.com/personaltitbits.socratic-teaching.com states that;
A Socratic questioner should:
- keep the discussion focused
- keep the discussion intellectually responsible
- stimulate the discussion with probing questions
- periodically summarize what has and what has not been dealt with and/or resolved
- Draw as many students as possible into the discussion.
My teaching style is moulded by my personal experience in the military and the need to pass on some of these experiences to the students in order to make the transition from civilian to military culture a relatively easy one.
As already stated the environment in which I teach does not lend itself towards one single teaching theory, several theories may be used within one lesson alone. If other lessons are taken into consideration in my teaching environments, the flexible aspect of my teaching day comes into play.
The lesson plans I follow allow for a very small amount of instructor flexibility in teaching style and presentation. Socratic questioning techniques are used within the lesson to develop an argument or discussion and then open questions are used to check the understanding of the students. For a relative newcomer to the teaching profession this is to say the least a challenging situation that I still find overwhelming sometimes. The need to be two questions ahead and still give your full attention to the student asking the question is a definite skill that I need to aquire.
By far the most used theories in my teaching would be Constructivism. This is the theory that all humans have the ability to construct knowledge in their own minds through a process of problem solving and discovery. The epitome of this theory would be the Hangar phase of the students training. They have been shown the system working on the aircraft, I then put a known fault on the system and allow the students to find this by deliberate and logical interpretation of the test results. They adhere to set procedures throughout the phase and each fault is more complex than the one preceding it. The system knowledge and the complexity of the fault-finding procedures increase in small observable steps, culminating in the Final Exam and Safety Test (FEAST) at the end of the ten weeks training.
In the Air force teaching environment we tend to follow the Behaviourist line in education, this is of particular interest as it forms the diametrically opposite theorist viewpoint to Constructivism. We stimulate the student and record the response, eventually the response becomes almost automatic, following Pavlov’s principal experiment but without the shock therapy or the ringing of the bell. The military mindset is such that we must be trained to follow orders in the most extreme conditions, sometimes to the detriment of good sense. The ability to stop and ask why we are doing this is taken away from us early in the training regime. In saying that the British military system does not exist by using unthinking robots, we are very proud of the fact that we are the best in the world. The individual training we receive is a meld of two opposite theories allowing us to work in a military environment with all the rules and regulations this entails and, when the time comes, have the training and intelligence to make constructive decisions to alter the outcome of the situation we find ourselves in. This has elevated the British Military to its rightful place as the finest in the World.
Justification and Evaluation of Learning Theories Used
The justification for the learning theories used in my teaching is a simple statement; it works! All joking aside the theories I use do work but there is always room for improvement. One of the main things I have learned on this course is the need for reflective practice in the teaching day. Everything we do must be assessed by ourselves and if it can be improved upon, whether by action or slight changes in delivery then this must be carried out. Then reflected upon and a constant rotation throughout the cycle, always striving for the best lesson given by the teacher and received (and understood) by the student.
The theories I have mentioned in this essay all play a major part in the military instructional role, also in my own personal style of teaching within that role. Within this framework no single teaching style or method will suffice. The diversity in character, attitude and indeed aptitude of the students does not allow for the niceties of single track teaching. Flexibility is the key to getting the point across to the students.
I have already mentioned the necessity of reflection and constant adaptation in my approach, allowing me to follow the needs of the individual student and to promote inclusivity within the classroom.
Another instructor and I from RAF Cosford have become ambassadors of the ‘new’ teaching strategies at our place of work. The simple phrase ‘We’ve just covered that in the Cert Ed and It’s really effective if..’ has become a standard in our office. Feared by the instructors more set in their ways but nonetheless effective.
Conclusion
I started teaching only five months before I started the Cert Ed course and because of my job my communications skills were necessarily very good. When I started the course I realised that although my skills were good I wasn’t using the complete model. I was communicating up to a point and then shutting out the student and thus failing to complete both sides of the model. Since realising this mistake my overall performance as a teacher and facilitator in my working environment has improved immensely.
I have become more confident in front of the students, not only because my knowledge of the core subject material has grown, but because I am aware of so much more to do with the students. Initially I was relying on my experiences as a student on the same course eighteen years ago to inform me where the danger areas were. I was in effect putting my own personal spin on the problems I thought would be evident in the course. Examining the course and seeing problems that I would face if I were on the course at the moment. I was pre-judging the course and the students; something the Cert Ed has shown me is not a good idea. I am now more aware of the student’s needs and requirements, whereas last year I would have, quite blindly, accepted the student in front of me, this year I want to check his or her prior knowledge, find their starting aptitude and tailor the pitch of my lesson accordingly. I also carry out my own assessment of the students, by means of a small questionnaire, to determine his or her motivational needs or any special requirements that I should know about in order to put the student in their ‘comfort zone’ prior to moving towards ‘Maslows Hierarchy of Needs’. Basically if he or she is not happy they are not going to want to learn. Added to this is the correct ‘setting of the scene’, getting the student to realise the need for the training and therefore increasing the motivation level within that student.
At the end of this year I will sit down and reflect on the teaching strategies and theories that I have used. I can only hope that have ‘communicated’ successfully with at least some, if not all of my students during this teaching year. One quote that I found on the web is very pertinent to this essay and to the military teaching environment, http//www.instructordiploma.com.core102b.quotes.htm states that;
“The one real goal of education is to leave a person asking questions.” Hopefully intelligent well structured questions that show the student has correctly assimilated the lesson you have given and not the one I’m sure I will hear sometime in the future ...”What did you mean by that?”
Annex A
Excerpt from Reece And Walker (2001 p357)
Annex B
Reference list
Any references used within this component are from the volumes listed below:
-
CURZON, L.B. (1997) Teaching in further education. 5th Edition, Great Britain: Redwood Books. 0 8264 5329 5
-
REECE, I. (2000) Teaching training and learning. 4th Edition, Great Britain: Business Education Publishing. 1 901 1888 17 7
-
PETTY, G. (1998) Teaching Today A Practical Guide. 2nd Edition, Great Britain: Stanley Thornes Publishing. 0 7487 3507 0
Additional reading for background information from the following sources:
- http//www.instructordiploma.com.core102b.quotes.htm
(page accessed 14/3/02).
- http//www.misio.com/personaltitbits.socratic-teaching.com
(page accessed 14/3/02)
