I think it is sort of strange for me to start my professional portfolio journey with a blog post... Even before I fill in the sections regarding my Teaching Philosophy or Ethos, but I feel like I need to jot these thoughts down as soon as I can before they flit out of my mind.
Just yesterday, we were having a Language Studies lecture about how multi-modal ways of teaching can be used to enhance student experience while at the same time having the ability to teach examination skills. It seems like a wonderful idea, to be able to merge interesting and relational material that students can find engaging like films, music, pictures, etc. into a curriculum that, at the moment, is still very examination focussed.
But the cynicism in the lecture room was palpable. And not without good reason too. We're all by-and-large products of this language education system that we are trying to change. This very same language studies system is one that has seen a stark decrease in students taking literature at the Higher Secondary and Junior College levels in the past two decades. It's clear there is a dissonance between "functional English" and "aesthetic English" - if the implementation of English Language and English Literature as two different subjects did not already signalled that.
But whether the system has truly failed is something that probably warrants more looking into. After all, it is true that many countries all over the world have been looking to us on how to develop systems to teach English at a functional level in order to improve literacy levels. The massive growth in literacy in Singapore cannot be understated - especially considering we are only just approaching our 50th year of independence.
What really struck me about this scenario was actually the cynicism. Let me explain for a little. When the lecturer mentioned these multi-modal methods of teaching English, he was confronted with many questions about the practicality of such ideals - whether it will hold up in the school, department, or classroom. Many of the cynical had prior experience with attempting such types of multi-modal teaching and have found it difficult to implement due to resistance from staff, school, sometimes even parents (who may prefer their kids be taught exam skills so that they can do well in the national examinations).
They aren't wrong to consider these things. I have personally seen the resistance any change in syllabus or teaching method can illicit. Sometimes this resistance is well-founded: we do not want to rush into new ways of teaching without clearly understanding what it is we are trying to teach. At the same time, teaching has never been a hard science so the question here is how much do we test a theory, teaching method, or style before we can "decide" that it is something that is worth working on at a departmental, school, cluster, or even national level? No one can truly decide.
But it is dangerous to fall into what I call the Double-Edged School Experience trap. Quite admirably, we have all been encouraged on multiple occasions to take up contract teaching, relief teaching, intern teaching, or attachment teaching at different points of our Teaching Award, Scholarship, or even Pre-NIE lives. But what we must always remember is that any of these types of teaching is a temporary position - and that naturally has impact on what we see, and what our colleagues may see in us. I say this because I do not know anyone currently in my course who has done at least 2 years of uninterrupted teaching at one school. And even if there is one, there is still the very temporary label of "contract teaching".
I know it may sound like I am grasping at straws or semantics here, and I am in no way implying that Beginning Teachers or Pre-NIE Teachers are not qualified. But we must always remember that our term at these schools are more observer than perpetrator. As such, it is natural for any kind of inventive teaching methods we suggest to face even more resistance than it normally would. Firstly, it is clearly obvious that we, as temporary staff, will leave the department in time to come and would not be around to adapt with the consequences (whether good, bad, or neutral) of these proposed changes. Secondly, because of this, we are also not present at the school long enough to take in the school culture, nor to see the long-term effects of any changes we implement. What I am trying to drive at is that, I believe, we must not fall in to the trap of generalising our specific temporal experience of teaching into anything more than what it is. I believe temporary teaching stints are wonderful learning opportunities and, if anything, I hope I will always remember that the key takeaway regarding change I gain from these stints would be that:
1) Change is important, but it is also important to know that change takes time, and to see the results of these changes can sometimes take even longer.
2) There will be times when our resolve to create new ways of teaching will be tested. We must not allow ourselves to give up before even trying.
0 comments:
Post a Comment