Over the years, I have been writing about misconceptions regarding the schooling process. The purpose of these posts is to explain why I disagree with various comments that I have heard people make about schooling. These are meant as personal thoughts rather than conclusive proof, and I will admit that I'm not always the best at explaining my thoughts. Regardless, I have decided that I should be willing to share these posts when I encounter someone online who makes an argument that I have already discussed.
I have seen it several times. A school changes the textbooks that they are using. Then, they feel obligated to explain changing the system for teaching a course.
In some ways, this makes sense. There are reasons for changing books, and a lot of it has to do with differences in approaches. On the other hand, is changing books sufficient to claim a change in systems?
Teachers are not trained extensively for each book they will ever use. Although they are likely provided with explanations as to how a book could be utilized, it would be completely impractical for teachers to base their teaching styles off of each and every book that they use. Part of this is because the bulk of their training occurs before these books are even written. Another problem is that it would be too resource-intensive to create full courses and have teachers commit to full courses for every book that they will end up using.
Books are only part of the equation. To define a system solely by the book in use is incredibly shallow. More than likely, the source of this dialog is to create the illusion of innovation. Teaching is clearly one of this world's least progressive professions. By exaggerating the impact of a simple change of textbooks, they might be able to convince some people that they are not strictly maintaining the same approach that they always have.
No comments:
Post a Comment