With respect... well written as always but confusing on two fronts:
1. a theory of human flourishing is outlined and apparently endorsed, then the rest of the article takes one element of it and heavily criticises and limits its use. Its redefinition appears to be done in service of fitting it inside CLT ideology
2. the same element, autonomy, is something I believe the author has rejected in other writing when it comes to teachers themselves? (teachers should not have autonomy, they should practice in a way that complies with current research trend "X")
Both of these things are obviously legitimate discussion points, it is just confusing that an apparent condoning of SDT is made, yet the discussion and ideological standpoint are at odds with that support.
Hi Ben, yes that’s right re criticising autonomy on its own.
I believe that autonomy is fairly meaningless in the absence of structure. Same applies to teacher autonomy: not free rein but within a range of constrained options supported by evidence.
Right but one of the 3 main things in SDT is autonomy, but you say teachers shouldn't have that much autonomy. I just couldn't see why this is about SDT, when SDT doesn't align with your view about autonomy? I am sure I am missing something :)
Hi Rebecca, loved the article. In particular, I really appreciate the balance between provide that structured scaffolding vs autonomy in learning.
An image that comes to mind for me is like a join the dots puzzle, in which there is essentially a 'correct' answer. If the dots are too far apart, it becomes difficult for the students to make the connection, and we fall into that unbounded trap. If the dots are too close, then it's too easy, and there's no challenge.
The aim however, is not for students to complete the picture (though we can assess them by their ability to), but in letting students learn how to connect the dots for themselves, which is a tricky balance.
Interesting that the sequencing you posit of structure preceding autonomy (rather than the two occuring in tandem) is not supported by the literature. I have the same hunch as you. It is heartening to see a recent shift towards finding catalysts for motivation in elements of structured teaching, as appealing to autonomy (and student interest) was, as you say, leaving competence out to dry.
Yes, I think it’s because we are responding to so many things. It’s often not neat and we also respond to individual students differently, providing more structure for some than others for example. That’s why I use my beliefs to plan, to keep my lessons organised and clear, because I know I can provide autonomy in my programming down the track. But it seems in the moment, it’s a different story.
With respect... well written as always but confusing on two fronts:
1. a theory of human flourishing is outlined and apparently endorsed, then the rest of the article takes one element of it and heavily criticises and limits its use. Its redefinition appears to be done in service of fitting it inside CLT ideology
2. the same element, autonomy, is something I believe the author has rejected in other writing when it comes to teachers themselves? (teachers should not have autonomy, they should practice in a way that complies with current research trend "X")
Both of these things are obviously legitimate discussion points, it is just confusing that an apparent condoning of SDT is made, yet the discussion and ideological standpoint are at odds with that support.
Hi Ben, yes that’s right re criticising autonomy on its own.
I believe that autonomy is fairly meaningless in the absence of structure. Same applies to teacher autonomy: not free rein but within a range of constrained options supported by evidence.
Right but one of the 3 main things in SDT is autonomy, but you say teachers shouldn't have that much autonomy. I just couldn't see why this is about SDT, when SDT doesn't align with your view about autonomy? I am sure I am missing something :)
Hi Rebecca, loved the article. In particular, I really appreciate the balance between provide that structured scaffolding vs autonomy in learning.
An image that comes to mind for me is like a join the dots puzzle, in which there is essentially a 'correct' answer. If the dots are too far apart, it becomes difficult for the students to make the connection, and we fall into that unbounded trap. If the dots are too close, then it's too easy, and there's no challenge.
The aim however, is not for students to complete the picture (though we can assess them by their ability to), but in letting students learn how to connect the dots for themselves, which is a tricky balance.
Agree. It’s so hard to know when to take the training wheels off, especially with mixed ability classes.
Interesting that the sequencing you posit of structure preceding autonomy (rather than the two occuring in tandem) is not supported by the literature. I have the same hunch as you. It is heartening to see a recent shift towards finding catalysts for motivation in elements of structured teaching, as appealing to autonomy (and student interest) was, as you say, leaving competence out to dry.
Yes, I think it’s because we are responding to so many things. It’s often not neat and we also respond to individual students differently, providing more structure for some than others for example. That’s why I use my beliefs to plan, to keep my lessons organised and clear, because I know I can provide autonomy in my programming down the track. But it seems in the moment, it’s a different story.