Theories on the Authority of Teacher and Text - Essay Example

339684 - Assess T. Kuhn:"…science students accept theories on the authority of teacher and text, not because of evidence. What alternatives have they or what competence?” This paper seeks to assess statement of Thomas Kuhn:"... science students accept theories on the authority of teacher and text, not because of evidence. What alternatives have they, or what competence?" This paper disagree with the meaning of the statement of Kuhn and maintains that that the teacher controls teaching strategies and he drives student to look for evidence thus, he could do it to the extent of the capacities of the students. The teacher could also keep the alternative open and could just allow student to validate knowledge inside by outside the classroom in a number of ways. The science students accepting the authority of teacher and text, not because of evidence may connote different meanings. It may mean too much reliance on the teacher and indolence on the part of the student to find the evidence outside or it may mean a high sense of respect by the students to the teacher because if they will not believe their teacher first, whom are they going to believe? The statement of the teacher is an evidence it self. The teacher for practical purposes must be considered an authority on the subject. If students will just accept theories on the authority of teacher and text, not because of evidence, it could mean that they are not making further research. The student’s mind must be a questioning mind, there must be searching attitude on the part of the student. Refusal to look for further evidence may also mean complete trust on the teacher and on the text. The problems would come if there are errors in the text and the teacher happens to confirm the same. Hence text books should be accurate and reliable. What will happen if the text book is not free of error? It will preserve ignorance among students like what happened in the case of Harvard university graduate where they were asked simple questions and but it was found to be erroneous. (Garrett, 2006) The topic of this paper states that the student relies on teachers and text and not though evidence implies lack of effort on the part of the student to study. This may appear to be validated by the finding the following authors. Wade and Moje (2001) explained why content text are not used by students saying, “Many studies have found that students engage in little content area reading of any kind, either in class or as homework (e.g., Alvermann & Moore, 1991; Armbruster et al., 1991; DiGisi & Willett, 1995; Goodlad, 1984). Students may not be reading because they find classroom texts to be inconsiderate, difficult to comprehend, or not engaging. Another reason that students do not read is that teachers often do not assign textbook or primary source material, except occasionally in advanced courses, in a way that suggests to students that such reading is important to their learning. The reasons for this are varied. Some teachers are concerned that students will not or cannot read assigned pages for reasons similar to those voiced by the students -- the texts are too difficult, poorly written, or uninteresting.” Based on the above findings, the refusal to read or study the text book is far worse than the topic statement which seems to require that the students need to have other evidence other than the teacher’s statement and the text to be considered. There is therefore partly an implied lack of effort on the part of students and partly the teacher’s decision to allow such situation. But the passage above is clear with the reason that for some students it is difficult to comprehend, or not engaging. Should we blame the student here or the teacher or the author? The fact that the teacher is boring or cannot explain the lesson should not be the fault of the student; it must be of the teacher because the latter could always find another interesting text book or make it interesting. Still another reason as cited above why students do not read is that teachers often do not assign textbook or primary source material, except occasionally in advanced courses, in a way that suggests to students that such reading is important to their learning. The evidence is very clear, that the teacher withholds his or her power. If the teacher will do that, who will ever find out unless we bring back the question to the teacher, why is he or she doing that? Further, the reasoning that some teachers are concerned that students will not or cannot read assigned pages for reasons similar to those voiced by the students -- the texts are too difficult, poorly written, or uninteresting is simply finding some excuse for a lame duck teacher. If the teacher does not believe the student, perhaps he or she lacks the courage to discover deeper knowledge or the teacher is not dedicated to the practice of his or her profession. If the teachers are doing the job for money alone not for the love of knowledge, then we have no reason to tackle the topic statement any further. Hence, if reading text book is not exercised by student, would we expect them to exert more effort to find outside evidence? One reason is attributed to students, where they found to have difficulty in comprehending while on the other hand, it is also on the teacher. Arguing on basis of the article by Wade and Moje (2001), the student should not only be faulted, if the teacher refused to give the text books as primary source materials. What then do we get here by this kind of observation? Each could be faulted. Since the teacher is the one responsible for the design of his class, he must find a way to motivate his students. Moreover, the fact that the students understood what they learn, it should not be a big issue whey they are not looking for outside evidence for the moment if there will be subsequent ways of validating the same. But between the teacher and the student, the teacher has more responsibilities. Wade and Moje (2001) continued their discussion saying, “This problem is aggravated when students lack the necessary skills and background knowledge to make sense of the print. Other teachers question the value for learning of reading about a topic, especially in content areas such as science, and advocate experience-based learning activities instead (Yore, 1991). Finally, because many secondary teachers view their role as teaching content (rather than literacy), they rely heavily on oral texts -- whole-class lecture, explanation, demonstration, and recitation -- considering these the most efficient way to deliver course content and to monitor learning (O’Brien, Stewart, & Moje, 1995).” (seems the reference is not APA format, can you fix it?) Based on the above it would mean that student may lack the skill to make sense of the print. The fact also some teachers question the value of learning of reading about a topic such in science and advocate experience based learning activities instead would mean that the teacher knows best. This means that the teacher knows best how to control the performance of the class and that the teachers’ statement inside the classroom would suffice to the satisfaction of the students. Further proof of the reality that present science students relying on the teacher is confirmed by Wade and Moje (2001) when they found, “Consistent with teachers’ views of reading and content learning, secondary school students place greater value on their teachers’ oral and written texts (such as lectures, study guides, outlines, and conceptual maps) and on the texts they generate themselves in class (such as lecture notes) than they do on official course textbooks. For example, in math classrooms, students tend to view their textbooks as a source of homework problems rather than a resource for new learning, which is explained and guided by the teacher (Stodolsky, 1988).” The attitude of the students should be blamed more from the teacher, who does not know to motivate, and who does not know how to use his power. The teacher can use his creativity to correct the notion that textbook is a source of homework problem, by making homework problem as a way of compelling student to go into research that can be validated discussed inside the classroom. The same authors further found that in other content areas, students often use the textbook only to skim for answers to end-of-the-chapter questions or to search for definitions of vocabulary words and that when students realize they can rely exclusively on oral texts and their written notes or worksheets to learn the content, they see little need to read assigned textbook pages (Hinchman & Zalewski, 1996, online PDF document; Moje, 1996). Moreover, same authors believed that for students who are not motivated would just consider text as in addition, or even peripheral, to what teachers lecture inside the classrooms (Wade and Moje, 2001) (Paraphrasing made). The same authors finding that students often use the textbook only to skim for answers to end-of-the-chapter questions or to search for definitions of vocabulary words, may also mean that at the back of the students’ mind, there are other sources of knowledge from which to back the knowledge in the text books. It is a fact that we are in the information age where the state of knowledge could change within a minutes or hours because of the ease of finding many sources particularly with the advances in technology. Failure to read the textbook may not be too fatal if the students could use equally other good sources. The teachers of today may have been trained under another generation where textbook must be treated with almost reading every page of it but if the student could substantially find other sources, the teacher should have an open mind to discuss as we the other sources of knowledge. This latter argument is based on the premise that knowledge of a subject matter in science is generic, hence using a single textbook alone may actually mean lack of depth. To conclude, it is observed that students’ behaviour may have two meaning. The first is believing the teacher for the meantime with the text at the first hand and the other is indolence of the student but this paper maintained and has proven the first with the argument that the teacher should be in control. It means that there is complete trust and the teacher is an authority since thing that he or she said in the classroom is evidence itself unless the teacher is a lame duck one. Kuhn is therefore proceeding from the wrong premise when he makes the statement implying that the students are not looking for outside evidence, since the mind has so many ways of getting convinced with the truth of any assertion. With a designed curriculum or particularly inside the classroom, the teacher has the control and he could be creative for the solution in so many ways of looking at the problem. He could give assignment if he wants to or he could assign research papers for the student to observe and phenomena and make conclusion as to the recommendation. Research papers are good ways of confirming or validating things learned inside the classroom, as many good teachers will agree, since students are made to investigate and are forced to investigate a phenomenon or prove a theory. Students are challenged by their own experiences to learn things outside the classroom if only the teacher raises his standard. Between the teacher the student, it is more logical to blame the teacher. Blaming the student would be putting the cart before the horse. The student may be part of the process but much of the driving comes from the teacher. Again, it is the teacher who has control of what standard he wants to happen. The student will just follow. b.) The reason for the conclusion is as follows: The teacher is the king inside the classroom. In him rest the power of letting pass or failing the student hence the student would have to adjust if he needs to pass. c.) One possible objection of to my conclusion is that that student may just be incapable to secure the evidence required to validate learning and the teacher cannot do anything about it. d.) Reply to that possible objection (that possible objection) My reply to that possible objection is that the teacher is absolutely in control of the situation. He could use his ultimate power to fail the student who cannot comply with his requirement by letting the students to know the consequence for failing. Said students will never graduate and that would be a fearful thing to happen. Bibliography: Alvermann, D.E., & Moore, D.W. (1991). Secondary school reading. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Volume II (pp. 951-983). White Plains, NY: Longman. Armbruster, B.B., Anderson, T.H., Armstrong, J.O., Wise, M.A., Janisch, C., & Meyer, L.A. (1991). Reading and questioning in content area lessons. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23, 35-60. DiGisi, L.L., & Willett, J.B. (1995). What high school biology teachers say about? their textbook use: A descriptive study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 123-142. Garrett, Kristi (2006) Bad Science, Are science skills being displaced by a focus on reading and math? {www document} URL, http://www.csba.org/csmag/Spring05/csMagStoryTemplate.cfm?id=65 Goodlad, J.I. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hinchman, K.A., & Zalewski, P. (1996). Reading for success in a tenth-grade global- studies class: A qualitative study. Journal of Literacy Research, 28, 91-106. Available (PDF document): nrc.oakland.edu/jlr/archive/v28/article_28_1_6.pdf O’Brien, D.G., Stewart, R.A., & Moje, E.B. (1995). Why content literacy is difficult to infuse into the secondary curriculum: Strategies, goals, and classroom realities. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 442-463. Stodolsky, S.S. (1988). The subject matters: Classroom activity in math and social studies. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Wade, S. and Moje, E. (2001) ,The Role of Text in Classroom Learning: Beginning an Online Dialogue, {www document} URL http://www.readingonline.org/articles/handbook/wade/index.html, Accessed October 14,2006 Yore, L.D. (1991). Secondary science teachers’ attitudes toward and beliefs about science reading and science textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 55-72. Read More