#This domain say that teacher must understand the intention of national policies and be able to contribute to the discussion of education. R

[joyceaila]

ICT COMPETENCY STANDARDS FOR PHILIPPINES PRE-SERVICE TEACHER EDUCATION

[joyce242]

ICT competency standards for Philippines pre-service teacher education

Rationalize the indicators

DOMAIN 1:

This domain say that teacher must understand the intention of national policies and be able to contribute to the discussion of education. Reform policies and participate in design implementation and division of programs intended to implement these policies.

DOMAIN 2:

Teacher must know about complex cognitive thoughts processes known as students learn and understand their difficulties encounter they may have the skills required to support these complex processers.

DOMAIN 3:

The role of teachers in this is the oversized modelling learning processes situation in which a student applied their cognitive skills and assist students in their coaching,

DOMAIN 4:

Teachers must be able to design ICT based on the knowledge communities and use ICT to support development of student creation skills and their continuous reflective learning

DOMAIN 5:

Teachers should be able to placed leadership role in training colleagues and implementing a vision of your school based on innovation continuous learning enriched by ICT

DOMAIN 6:

Teachers must have the ability and inclusion to experiment and continuously learn and use ICT to create professional knowledge communities

DOMAIN 7:

Teachers must have a positive attitude with the use of technology to students

Performance indicator: Most important for us to do

Domain 1: understanding ICT in education I think this is the most important domain because it gives us awareness of policies affecting ICT in education as a teacher it is important to know what are the positive and negative effects of technology to students.

Performance indicator: Least important for us to do

Domain 3: Pedagogy because not only technology can solve complex problems and support student’s collaborative activities.

[breathontheglass]

On Teaching: Understanding the Spiritual Place of English

What is the Place of English?

           English, as a curriculum subject, has proven itself to be the most mutable of them all. Scholars and researchers have long endeavoured to define the essence of what is taught in English: to sequester its core ethos and manifest a policy that can regulate its delivery. This has landed with its back against impossibility. The subject is abstract by definition; it relies on relativity to establish its discourse. As such, trying to quantify the unquantifiable - insofar as the National Curriculum is concerned - has resulted in the slow asphyxiation of a subject which is most fruitful when left to transpire organically. This is not to say that there should be no structure to the teaching of the subject– quite the opposite. What I am suggesting here is that English must be taught in a context that values it as a spiritual activity; it must be an extension of a channel of thought that takes its roots in a humanistic view of education. When we consider Socrates’ classic view of education as ‘the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel,’ we can begin to understand English as the subject which is most closely aligned with the original purpose of education – to inspire children to grow into their own source of light that will illuminate their future path. This pursuit is - at its core - a spiritual endeavour, and the place of English must be seen as such.

           Most trainees (which, it must be recognised, become teachers; trainees do not remain in some reactionary, limbo-like headspace for their entire careers, and it is not valuable to continually avow their experiences in this manner) regard The Bullock Report of 1975 as a viable starting point for the debate of the position of English, but the constellations of thought surrounding this were being brought into alignment decades before. The 1920s – often referred to as The Gilded Age of literature – strikes me, personally, as the golden age of thought and policy in terms of orientating the subject of English. The Newbolt Report of 1921 is the first piece of research that still exists in the collective memory of academics and teachers alike for birthing a strain of thought that worked to situate education and English in the context of an individual’s internal life. The report concentrated on the moralisation of pupils, claiming that education had become “too remote from life” (Newbolt, 1921, part 3). It says of English, “It is not the storing of compartments in the mind, but the development and training of faculties already existing. It proceeds, not by the presentation of lifeless facts, but by teaching the student to follow the different lines on which life may be explored and proficiency in living may be obtained. It is, in a word, guidance in the acquiring of experience” (Ibid, part 4). In this view, English is not the simple regurgitating of ‘popular’ opinion of ‘popular’ literature; it is not the calculated analysis of the linguistic frameworks that allow us to communicate with one another, and it is not the process of teaching content to assessment. It should be a heuristic process, awakening the child to the world inside them and working to position this inner space as entirely unique; it is causing the bird to realise that its ability to fly is innate, and does not need to be taught – only practised and explored.

           Dixon’s 1969 report, ‘Growth Through English,’ echoed the Newboltian sentiment of the place of English being in alignment with the fundamentally spiritual purpose of education. It also acknowledged that there can be various ‘models’ applied to teaching, which serve, in my mind, two purposes; first, to dissect the multitudinous nature of teaching in order to make it palatable for those whose spectrum of thought is narrower than the concept itself; and second, to excuse those subjects which have begun to ‘fill vessels’ rather than ‘kindle flames,’ so as to render them workable by way of compartmentalisation. Here, we witness the beginning of censorship in English. It is this very notion that has led to teachers of English carrying the largest workloads, and it is this vein of applied stigmatism that creates an ‘us’ and ‘them’ dynamic across contemporary institutions. This was expanded upon, then, by the aforementioned Bullock Report. 1988 saw the publication of the Kingman’s ‘Knowledge About Language.’ This marked a landmark moment in the history of English as a curriculum subject; his suggested progressive subversion of the ‘old’ ways of thinking about and teaching English led to censorship by way of government intervention. Here, the government effectively claimed ownership over English. Further regulatory measures ensued – The Cox Report of 1989, closely followed by The National Curriculum of 1990, placed English in an Orwellian place of censorship and instruction. The power ascribed to the teachers of the ‘80s was gone; the profession had been watermarked by the uniform brush of the law.

           We, as teachers of English, need to reclaim ownership of the subject which has always spoken to us on that unquantifiable, primitive level. The place of English should be within the unique space that exists between the academic and the spiritual - evolutionary and sentient, transitory in perception, but perpetuated through honour. At its core, English is – I believe - the most noble of curriculum subjects. It ventures, unashamedly, into the ambitious territory of the expansion of human experience. It dares to progress the internal story of its pupils through the study of the consciousness of others. It is the education of the spirit.

English as a Spiritual Practice

           Spirituality is a majestic and ineffable term that evades permanent definition only because of its unrivalled subjectivity. However, a definition can be approached through an acknowledgement of the factors which contribute to its process. Groen, Caholic, and Graham (Groen, Caholic, and Graham, 2012) assert that, “Spirituality includes one’s search for meaning and life purpose, connection with self, others, the universe, and a higher power that is self-defined” (ibid, p.2). In the context of this essay, it is necessary to reinforce the idea that spirituality remains entirely separated from faith. Eagleton (Eagleton, 1983) articulates how the failure of religion in Victorian Britain meant that English was able to impeach this “pacifying” space and “save our souls” (ibid, p. 20). Neither I nor Eagleton are concerned not with a religious spirituality, but with the intrinsic human spirituality that Tisdell (Tisdell, 2007) describes as simply, “one of the ways people construct knowledge and meaning. It works in consort with the affective, the rational or cognitive, and the unconscious and symbolic domains” (ibid, p.20). In this view, spirituality refers to the semiotics of the subconscious mind. In my view, it is also about transcending the self in order to exist within a constant state of mindfulness of universal context, and to understand the interconnectedness of all things. To develop spiritually is to find that metacognition and existential reflexiveness come naturally. It is the place of English to aid in the development of this process.

           According to Love and Talbot (Love and Talbot, 1999), “spiritual development involves an internal process of seeking personal authenticity, genuineness, and wholeness as an aspect of identity development. It is the process of continually transcending one’s current locus of centricity” (ibid, p.365). Ultimately, spiritual development - within the context of the English classroom - is about attempting to bring the lifeworld of the learner into harmony with the internality of an abstract or literary ‘other.’ This epoch exists both in and outside of human knowing; we can access our feeling of an affinity with a higher purpose without intention, but to harness this pursuit in an actionable and pedagogical way is the role of English.

           The Newbolt Report describes English as the “record and rekindling of spiritual experiences,” explaining that it “does not come to all by nature, but is a fine art, and must be taught as a fine art” (Newbolt, part 14). In this view of English as an art, the writer and teacher are placed as artists. I believe it is the job of the artist to try to perpetuate those thoughts and feelings which he/she feels will most contribute to a better world; art is evidenced creationism for the betterment of the collective human spirit. Indeed, those colleagues I have surveyed within my SE school demonstrate a frustrated liberality in attempting to express their view of the place of English, echoing the sentiment of the artist being asked to quantify the purpose of their work. This is demonstrative of the way in which the abstract qualities of English have been stigmatised. On the topic of English, The National Curriculum itself states that, “through reading in particular, pupils have a chance to develop culturally, emotionally, intellectually, socially and spiritually” (NC, 1990). The decision for spirituality to be the note that this list ends on resonates powerfully with me. When ‘spirit’ can be used synonymously with ‘soul,’ it becomes clear that through all their stifling and bastardising policy, the Conservatives know that English lessons must be respected for the work that they do for the navigation of the soul.

Pedagogy of the Second-Guessed

           Too much government interference has willed a separation of the academic mind from the ubiquitous spirit. The objectification of the teacher within bourgeois educational structures seems to denigrate notions of wholeness and uphold this idea: one that promotes and supports compartmentalisation (hooks, 1994, p.5). Gove’s proposed new GCSE syllabus for English literature, with its emphasis on Britannica and marginalisation of the literature of other cultures (particularly, by omission, North America), demonstrates the further devaluing of empirical learning. It works, instead, to reinforce a nationalist ideology that will serve only to racialise the British education, and therefore disenfranchise the British schoolchild. This political approach is disturbingly far from the original purpose of education, and implicates Gove as a delusional philistine.

           The moralisation and eventual spiritual development of the schoolchild has been abandoned in favour of what Paulo Freire, in his revolutionary text Pedagogy of the Oppressed, labelled ‘banking education.’ He takes issue with those teachers who speak of reality as if it were motionless, static, compartmentalised, and predictable (Freire, 2000, p.71). According to Freire, this turns students into “containers” that need to be “filled,” and education thus becomes an act of “depositing” (ibid, p.72). The problem here - if not glaringly obvious - is that this model does nothing to engage the child on a spiritual level. The content of any given English lesson is ultimately forgettable; spiritual development through the analysis of the content is indelible. As such, Freire proposes an approach to education which he calls ‘critical pedagogy.’ This has been defined by Shor (Shor, 1992) as, "Habits of thought, reading, writing, and speaking which go beneath surface meaning, first impressions, dominant myths, official pronouncements, traditional clichés, received wisdom, and mere opinions, to understand the deep meaning, root causes, social context, ideology, and personal consequences" (ibid, p.129). For me, there can be no other approach. Any other way of viewing, delivering, and perpetuating education - and by extension, English - will codify education as a tool of oppression.

           I find my sentiments echoed in the words of feminist writer bell hooks (sic), who speaks of feeling a “deep inner anguish” (hooks, p.6) during her younger student years due to a deeply rooted dissatisfaction with her education. I, like hooks, was a bright child with an instinctual distrust of the ‘system.’ I had a natural gift for self-expression which was not guided by the curriculum. In fact, I remember feeling an inexplicable suspicion towards curriculum texts - I found this form of cultural dictation uncomfortable, and it led to a loathing of Shakespeare’s works and the space they occupied as a beacon for all that was British and curriculum and oppressive. However, my advanced command of the English language never wavered, so I remained a ‘worthy’ pupil in the eyes of those teachers who were clearly engaged with the ‘banking education’ model, despite my selective disagreeability. But my disdain for Shakespeare has stayed with me to this day. When this disdain was being instilled, I was dismissed by some teachers who thought that my feelings were born out of some kind of misdirected anarchy; this was not the case, and it wounded and confused me to be treated in such a way. It seemed as though I was being punished for thinking differently to my peers, when independent thought was supposed to be one of the cornerstones of English lessons. This felt like a flagrant contradiction. As a result, many teachers lost my respect. This process is still happening in classrooms today.

           hooks articulates the trouble I had with the majority of my teachers, explaining, “It was difficult to maintain fidelity to the idea of the intellectual as someone who sought to be whole – well-grounded in a context where there was little emphasis on spiritual well-being, on care of the soul” (ibid, p.6). Teachers of English are not adequate if they are not willing to engage with the spiritual side of their craft. Teaching strictly to assessment is the way to lose the brightest minds in the classroom. We cannot mobilise children by suppressing their organic tendencies. We should congratulate those students who question dogma; we should reward those who refuse to accept the status quo. For it is these students who have already accepted the paradigms presented to them, processed them, and reinterpreted them in a thoughtful and quietly revolutionary way. We must look at our collective history and remember that the hero and the rogue are so often found within the same individual.

Higher Order Thinking

           In its most recent Ofsted report, my SE school was noted as one of the most improved in its county. I believe this is due to their relentless emphasis on ‘HOT’ - Higher Order Thinking. Pupils are pushed to continually challenge and advance their own thoughts, with the crux of every effective lesson being the ability of the students to engage each other. For example, the year 9 group that I shared with a peer, (covering Willy Russel’s Blood Brothers), were asked the question, “What would you do if somebody really close to you betrayed you?” One pupil put his hand up and simply said, “Give them another chance.” This response endeared and engaged the whole class - a level of engagement that they had not yet reached. Another pupil then contributed in saying, “No, I think you should get revenge slowly.” A debate ensued about the different approaches to dealing with betrayal, and pupils were required to think about themselves and their own temperament in order to contribute. Corrigan (Corrigan, 2005) explains that, “We begin to integrate our spirituality into our teaching, reading, and writing when we allow our past experiences to inform our reading and allow our reading to inform our past experiences. We go even further when we bring our selves to the texts for new experiences” (ibid, p.3). In applying themselves to the text, pupils were able to advance with the plot on a deeper level of empathic and genuine understanding. This constituted a moment of authentic spiritual development, and the tempo of their lessons shifted from then on.

           The school is decorated with HOT-orientated propaganda, with posters stating “I don’t understand YET,” and “How HOT is your thinking?” When I asked colleagues from different departments, “What is the place of English?”, the default response was simply that it is the most cross-curricular of all the subjects; it is essential to success. Upon surveying colleagues from within the English faculty, the majority responded that it should be placed at the centre of all other subjects. When we combine these two viewpoints, English occupies the space both at the centre of the curriculum and out into all of its branches; it is omnipresent. When I surveyed ten pupils from across all years of KS3 and KS4 for their input, their responses were encouragingly thoughtful. Their general sentiment reiterated the importance of the self within English, stating notions such as, “The place of English is in the mind of the pupil.” They also referenced some of their favourite lessons as those which made the most ready use of embodied learning. The majority vote for the ‘favourite English teacher’ was the member of the faculty who had put the most thought into the decoration of their classroom. Pupils expressed a frustration with the typical English classroom working as a tiny, insular world where the facts are more important than the atmosphere. Lawrence and Dirx (Lawrence and Dirx, 2010) label this epoch ‘transformative learning,’ explaining that, “A spiritually-grounded transformative education reflects a holistic, integral perspective to learning. It seeks authentic interaction and presence, promotes an active, imaginative engagement of the self with the “other,” and embraces both the messy, concrete and immediate nature of everyday life, as well as spirited experiences of the transcendent” (ibid, pp.3-4). The students felt that they accomplished their best learning when the teacher humanised themselves by projecting their inner world onto their classroom, for the gaze of the learner must find something which its spirit can connect with if it is to remain focused.

In Conclusion: A Philosophy of De-Stigmatisation

           I believe that it is every citizen’s duty to decode their innermost tendencies in order to consider how they can best contribute to a more harmonious and efficient global community. Because of the spiritual nature of English, it is the role of the English teacher to be a luminous example of this. hooks tells us that teachers who embrace the process of self-actualisation whole-heartedly will be more capable of creating pedagogical practices that engage the whole student, providing them with ways of knowing and learning that can enhance their capacity to learn and live fully and deeply (hooks, p.22). The obstacles to our collective spiritual development lie in the fact that any activity which involves the witness, transformation, or revelation of the spirit will always require a level of vulnerability. Perhaps, in this new and hardened world where accountability is sacrificed for pseudo-professionalism, the true place of English is being overlooked because to be vulnerable is to suffer.

           We could begin to de-stigmatise the spirituality of English by encouraging the introduction of personality testing within schools. Models like the Myers-Briggs type indicator - which separates people into one of sixteen personality archetypes - are an invaluable way of beginning to think about the self. Self-aware children are thoughtful children, and thoughtful children maintain harmony. Categorising children in new and spiritual ways will alter the level on which they accept learning. Lessons on people as explicit ‘texts’ could bring about an eventual marriage of English and ‘PSHE’ lessons, changing the conversation entirely. At a secondary level, no other subject can teach you to think critically about the subtleties of perception, of non-verbal communication, of self-awareness. How do we cope with the passage of time? Is belief in something always mutually exclusive with disbelief in something else? How do we quantify our journey? How can we acknowledge and understand the journey of others? Is it more valuable to evaluate an idea, or to accept it? Knowledge, significance, insignificance, mindfulness, harmony, intuition, love, death, legacy, personal philosophy, decisions, faith, equilibrium, experience; these are the true lessons taught in English.