An interesting question in itself. I wonder, hearing Julie Fisher talk about interactions in the classroom, whether we have really moved on, in ITE, from talking about “effective questioning” to a module that genuinely is interested in what children have to tell us. That killer phrase from one practitioner in the REPEY report “I need to tell you…” seems to me at the heart of this: the teacher confusing her/his clear professional duty to educate with a desire to control that process to such an extent that no real learning is allowed (or, if we’re honest, even looked for ) that isn’t in the teacher’s grasp. I’ve asked before “Is there a clear link between Sustained Shared Thinking and effective pedagogy?” and I wonder how this might continue to play out as we expect more and higher quality interactions from our newest professionals. God forbid that we should teach Sustained Shared Thinking as a technique when what is (might be) needed is time for teachers to listen and to follow up interests…
And then there’s this: the fiery Michael Rosen suggesting on his blog the kind of things the teaching profession should be saying out loud: “Children are full of feelings and thoughts,” “We ask children to think about difficult ideas…to think beyond themselves…” “We want children to ask questions…” Reading intelligently isn’t taught just by decoding, and thinking deeply is only partly encouraged by debate (Rosen has ideas about this, too); the critical thinking we ask for in trainee teachers comes from the genuine interest of others in your ideas, and starts from teachers and other adults with young children having a real delight in their thoughts.
nicktomjoe 