We’ve had some very interesting theories expounded on the benefits/place of one over the other in our discussions of T v B and my conclusion is that, at the level I teach at (L2-4), they are both an essential part of the teaching methods I have to use in order that the student(s) will gain the necessary knowledge to pass the paper(s).
For me teaching has to be a fluid process of engaging learners with content in which ever way best suits their needs in order that, at the end of the course, the student has gained the required knowledge to pass and perhaps a desire to take the subject(s) further.
Facilitation relies on the belief that the students will have a pool of knowledge from which the facilitator can draw out the requirements for learning at a particular time, or point the student in the direction they need to go to sources from where they can increase their knowledge base. Relying on called-in or referred ‘experts’ to fill in the gaps.
This may be fine with experienced learners but falls far short of what’s required for the inexperienced student – particularly those who are new to computers and the Internet. If I used similar strategies to some that have been put forward in the emails that have been circulating on this subject I would very soon find myself with an empty class! At the levels I teach the students require direction, structure, an easily accessible ‘expert’ they can come to for clarification/information and who keeps tabs on their learning, good resources made readily available, and to feel that they are being ‘taught’. Classroom discussions in particular soon degenerate into idle chat if they are not lead or if the ‘expert’ takes a back seat and refrains from taking part.
At higher levels of learning facilitation can play a much bigger part than teaching because of the knowledge base that has been put in place by lower level teachers, but not at the levels I teach.
With a subject-neutral facilitator as the sole ‘teacher’, who would create or mark assessments, develop course material, or know when a student was correct in what they were stating? The idea of using such people to teach at the lower levels lacks credibility and practicality in the real world, but I think there is a place for them in higher learning.
4 comments:
Hi Gary, just a quick note as I'm on the road. I don't recall anyone proposing a facilitator be the sole agent in learning. Perhaps I missed it - perhaps you could reference your posts with hyperlinks? I do recall an opposite proposal - that the teacher not be the sole agent for people's learning.
On the point about the proposal being appropriate or not for higher or secondary - I wonder if the term "teacher's assistant" would help you to see its applicability in secondary and even primary. Thinking now of the humble teaching assistant, and upskilling them in terms of community learning facilitation, I wonder what role they could play in the schools.. family liaison? Police liaison, counselor not one per school or per year group, but one per 15 students..) Does this help conceptualise the proposal in your setting? In many ways it already exists - so is displacing the teacher as central appropriate in this setting?
Hi Leigh, nothing in the item above mentions that a facilitator should be the sole agent in learning, or that anyone had proposed that.
If I use hyperlinks in the article to other writings then the item will, in part, cease to be my analysis and would become a group one, which is not the intent behind writing it.
A teacher's assistant is just that, an assistant. What you have written in previous articles doesn't imply that the facilitator would work as an assistant, they imply that the facilitator would be in place of the teacher/lecturer and that experts would be called in to cover areas that the facilitator has no knowledge in. That scenario would be unworkable at the level I teach at.
There are already skilled people in schools in the roles you mention a facilitator could take on. The reasoning behind replacing them with a facilitator escapes me.
Hi Gary,
I've just had 10 posts show up in my newsreader (I think) for the first time, so sorry I haven't commented before now.
I guess you know from the email discussion that I completely agree with you when you say that teaching has to include both "teaching" and "facilitation" whenever each of these is appropriate.
However you also say "Facilitation relies on the belief that the students will have a pool of knowledge from which the facilitator can draw out the requirements for learning at a particular time...." - It seems to me that a facilitator could also focus on helping students to become expert (self-directed) learners and then facilitate discussion around their learning so that everyone could learn from each other.
Found this post while looking up "facilitation" on the net. Trying to get a job teaching for U. of Phoenix. They tell me they prefer facilitation to teaching. I've been successfully teaching at the college level for 20 years, lecturing and answering questions as students ask them. Reading about "Facilitation" on the net, I feel like I'm trying to join a cult. The cult has it's own definitions to go with it's own world view, and I've got to fit in with it to get this job. What I've read so far about Facilitation reminds me of my experiences in grad school, where a small group of us would sit around a table and read our reports to the class. The teacher would then ask questions, directing the groups learning. But the class they want me to teach isn't a grad level class. Upper level undergrad. Any advise on how I might successfully make this transition to Facilitation?
Post a Comment