the blog of dan pontefract | Is The Root of All Evil the B.Ed Program?
227
single,single-post,postid-227,single-format-standard,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-5.0,vc_responsive

Is The Root of All Evil the B.Ed Program?

It could be argued that however it’s referred to, wherever it’s offered, teacher preparation programs (sometimes referred to as ITE – Initial Teacher Education) are the cause of a continued reliance on the all-instructor-led model and less on a formal, informal, social mix of pedagogy or andragogy.

These programs are otherwise known as the gateway to the Bachelor of Education (B.Ed) degree; the entitlement to professionally teach, at least in the K-12 arena.

My hypothesis is centered on a single argument:

  • Where I reside (in Canada) provincial governments dictate ‘what’ is taught at K-12 levels; universities stipulate and dictate methodologies on ‘how’ to teach.

That’s it? Well, there’s more.

I graduated from a B.Ed program 15 years ago, and back then, educational technology or technology in education itself was thought of as something separate from the teaching methodology landscape. It wasn’t immersive because it didn’t have to be; computers, education media, and that of the same ilk were treated as subjects or at best, adjunct pieces to the teaching kit.

Like the teachers who graduated for decades before us, we were armed with a ‘sage on the stage’ mentality. Teach your individual subject, don’t deviate from the norm, don’t utilize technology as an enabler, don’t cross-pollinate subjects, follow the provincially assigned curriculum and certainly ensure you cram as much content as possible into your individual lessons over the course of the year/term. (and, if there is one, teach to the provincial exam)

Fifteen years later, there has been some improvement, but I don’t think it has changed in a way that benefits society.

I recently took a look at the programs, curriculum and overall structure of three B.Ed programs in Canada at University of Toronto, University of British Columbia and McGill University, located in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal respectively.

Each continues to offer teaching methodology courses for the aspiring new teacher, (as they should) however, none actually take the opportunity to introduce new bedrock to the teaching process, which should include the basic fact that we need to move the teaching model to a ‘guide on the side’ structure.

The K-12 classroom needs to become a thing of the past. We need a new model that catches up to the societal changes of an interconnected planet; a cross-functional, flat, wisdom of crowd type of configuration that revolves around a formal, informal and social learning theory. (taking into consideration diversity, special needs, and other pertinent requirements of course)

If we can reshape the B.Ed programs, it only takes a matter of time until the new graduates are in the classrooms engaging with not only their students, but students from other classes, grades, schools, cities, countries, etc. They could reform the way ‘teaching’ is supposed to happen. I would rename it ‘reaching’, as in reaching out and reaching to new worlds of thinking, and thus teaching.

And if this happens in the K-12 arena, expectations will become the same for the university setting and (egads) the corporate setting. Is it a stretch in thinking? Perhaps, however, one can cleverly make a connection between the antiquated model of K-12, to what happens in the universities of today (ie. individualistic rock-star professors teaching their theories in a ‘sage on the stage’ model) to the corporate setting where corporate citizens think an all-ILT model is normal, so why on earth change it now? (heck, we’re not paying for it – the corporation is, so we might as well find an overly expensive corporate training vendor to deliver what I need in a classroom, because that’s how it’s done in every other education setting)

 In a report (Characterizing Initial Teacher Education in Canada: Themes and Issues) prepared for the International Alliance of Leading Education Institutes,Mira Gambhir et al made three key observations related to the aforementioned:

  • An ongoing challenge for ITE (Initial Teacher Education) programs is finding ways to build in opportunities for professional inquiry and collaboration in teacher candidates’ everyday experiences that inform personal practice and program improvement. 
  • Most importantly, ways of understanding the core purposes and practices (e.g., transmission, instrumentalist and transformative) of ITE programs need to be critically understood as do ways of adapting to emergent needs, of both the individual and the communities served, from the local to the global. 
  • Discussion persists about what ought to be considered core program subject matter (e.g. use of communications technology, inclusive curriculum, special education), ways of improving connections between theory and practice, and the appropriate duration of ITE programs.

New teachers, therefore, need the formal, informal, social learning mix to not only learn from one another (and get better at their profession), they need to apply their trade in a way that fits the world that has been reshaped over the past several years.

It benefits our kids, and … eventually, it benefits the universities and corporate settings.

This is why I believe the root of all evil is the B.Ed Program.

PS. See Dr. Alec Couros’ post entitled “Visualizing Open/Networked Teaching: Revisited“. We need this type of thinking to actually happen at all B.Ed programs.

3Comments

  • Jon Husband / 2 December 2009 11:40

    Whatever you do, do NOT go and look at the curricula used for teaching HR, whether in Org Behaviour classes in the B. Comm. or MBA streams, or in the courses offered by professional associations. The B. Ed curricula are no doubt similar, and probably not unrelated 😉

  • Robert Bacal / 8 March 2010 5:39

    Good lookin site here. One of my areas of study was teacher education, and I’ve taught in several faculties of education in a previous life. I’d have to disagree with some of your statements, and suggest that you may be over-simplifying things in a few others. I’ll do one or two bits here.

    First, the world seems to have changed to people such as yourself heavily involved with social media and learning, but your opinion about the role of sm is not shared by a majority of people, despite HUGE active PR from your sector (which is fine, if often misleading). The potential of e-learning, etc is not even near demonstrated or even close to proven.

    Second it’s pretty clear what your opinions about schooling are, and that’s ok. I don’t share them, perhaps because I’ve been lucky enough to have had the chance to learn about why and how the educational system evolved, and worked in it, beside it and outside it.

    You aren’t the first to hold opinions about the antiquated system and how it damages kids, and in fact the story is so old it’s at least 50 years old. Sorry to tell you but social “stuff” is not going to have the impact you think on learning and education. Not even a scratch, and I offer that up looking at the history of education, and wistfully wishing there were better alternatives that fit.

    Now if you want to learn why school systems are the way they are, study the history, with particular focus on teacher education. The root isn’t the B.Ed program per se, but the fact that the best and brightest have little interest in teaching children (why, you could ask). And about a billion other reasons.

    Education system reflects the REAL values of the society that grows the system. THAT may be the scariest part for America, and other western countries.

  • Robert Bacal / 8 March 2010 5:40

    Quick comment to Jon’s comment on HR. At first I was shaking my head at your suggestion that HR curricula and Teacher Ed. related, BUT then…Perhaps they both reflect societal values, so they have commonalities.

Want to leave a comment? I'd love to hear from you. Cheers, dp.