– a Singaporean teacher's storeroom 🖖
today is the first day of the Knowledge Building Summer Institute (KBSI 2016). had the chance to have some conversation with the KB community as we presented our paper “Teachers’ understanding of knowledge creation: A phenomenography of Singapore Chinese Language teachers“. the paper can be found in the local mirror:
won’t be able to make it for tmr as i’ll be facilitating the 2nd f2f session of Clinic 12470. day 3 morning, should be joining the folks at a school visit to teck whye sec.
the answer to the above can be glimpsed from the recent speech by our minister at the teachers’ conference event. below is para. 15 i copy-n-pasted:
“15. Beyond these very important shifts in what we teach and how we teach, our students will also pick up important cues from their school environment regarding what is really valued and important. For our students to value their holistic development, they must perceive that their schools strike a good balance in the educational experiences designed for them. Schools ought to prioritise character development and the development of attributes that will put the students in good stead for the future. An over obsession with grades and over obsession with the outcomes, rather than the process of school programmes, will run counter to the intent of what we seek to achieve. In other words, we must find the balance between what can be measured (grades) and what can only be observed (values and character). As Einstein once said, ‘[n]ot everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.’ ”
(:
chanced upon this 2005 document titled: About Learning prepared by the UK Learning Working Group (with Hargreaves as a chair/member). the document was released under creativecommons, so free access no copyrights issue **thumbs up**
the following excerpt found on pg. 7:
so what would the Family of Learning Practices be like in language learning, or SLA to be more specific? #Food4Thought
语言是人的思维的外现、载体。语言反映了一个人的理解与思考。这里的语言专指遣词用字。这几年，可能是读书的后遗症，我对于个人的遣词用字，尤其是在其他华文老师面前，更是非常谨慎。不仅如此，只要有机会，我也会尝试唤起其他华文老师对他们个人的遣词用字的意识。
过去三天一共开了四门课（三门玩转科技、一门Clinic）。昨天的Clinic来了四位有缘人（少了一位临时被校方指派带学生出国）。课上当然少不了上述的动作。从几位新朋友的反馈中，看得出他们对于科技在华文教学中的定位开始有了新的思考，即由ICT是辅助教学，过渡到ICT是促成教学的那么一个定位。
“辅助”在我们一般非学术性的理解，即可有可无（cf. 辅助读本、读物、刊物）。
“促成”即若不存在了，则无戏可唱也。当然，ICT的定位若是促成教学，则必得从ICT的affordance出发作思考。
今天打开早报网，就看到了《为激发学生对华文兴趣费尽心思 ，十一教师获颁全国模范华文教师奖》。非常恭喜这11位教师，以及许多没有获奖的教师朋友们辛苦了。
当然，熟悉我的朋友都知道我看了这一组标题会有什么”反应”。
这一组标题中有一个令我非常反应大的词，即“兴趣”。而且还出现了7次。“反应”之大大至我的论文研究所做就是拜其所赐（下载后看一看第5页的中文摘要）。
一个人学习的原因种种，“兴趣”只是百般原因之一。一个人之所以学（或不学），应该归咎于“动机 motivation”。学生学任何学科学得如何，是动机所致。简单地把学习和“兴趣”挂钩，第一、我会反问“没有兴趣就不能学了吗？”；第二、这或许无意识地泄漏了个人认知的有限。语言反映思维，如果认知中有上述的理解，为什么舍“动机”而用“兴趣”呢？第三、这反映了华文老师的不够专业。“兴趣”一词，大多数非教育工作者都说得出。“动机motivation”却是一个相对专业的名词。要提升华文老师的专业身份，反映我们对于教学的认识与思考，我们得在用语上求专业化。
语言反映思维，思维则影响教学设计。从专业的思考出发，一套引起“兴趣”的教学设计 vs. 一套引起“学习动机”的教学设计，你认为会有不同吗？为什么？ (:
再说回上面ICT的话题，一个ICT作辅助的教学设计 vs. 一个ICT促成学习的教学设计，你认为会有不同吗？为什么？ (: