Three downsides of the idea of the guide on the side
Terry Freedman, Educational ICT ConsultantSo much is written these days about the role of the teacher being to “facilitate”, to be the “guide on the side”. This is justified on many grounds, not least that of the children knowing more than their teachers about educational technology. They are, after all, “digital natives”, or so we are told.
It seems to me that we have thrown the baby out with the bath water. The days when it was acceptable for a teacher to stand at the front of the class and bore the kids into submission are long gone. (I’m not saying that the practice itself is long gone – unfortunately, that is not the case – just that it is no longer an acceptable practice.) However, by stating that the only role for the teacher, or at least her most important role, is to act as the guide on the side, we are in danger of the following:
- We ignore the fact that not all youngsters are digital natives in the sense of almost instinctively knowing how to use technology. There are far too many people citing as evidence the fact that their 6 month old son is using an ipod – self-taught. Twenty years ago my nephew was using the video recorder (we know that, because when it stopped working his parents took it to a repair shop, where they discovered a cheese roll inside it). That didn’t make him a video recording engineer. Not all youngsters know everything about technology, and what they do know is, from what I have seen, understood on a pretty superficial level. But most children are naturally curious, and will discover how to do things, one way or another, and not necessarily the most efficient way.
- Even if the myth of the digital native turns out not to be a myth, the main role of a teacher is, surely, to teach. Anyone can stand in front of a group of people and talk, even if they have to take medication in order to steel their nerves. Anybody can act as the guide on the side as long as they have a reasonable amount of common-sense and have taken the trouble to find out what the activity and its purpose are. But teaching is a lot more than both of these extremes. It involves understanding what has not been said, asking probing questions, acting as a conductor of the orchestra that is the classroom and its inhabitants, ensuring that not only that everyone is making progress, but that each person is making the best progress they can. That takes teacher expertise, regardless of how good their technical expertise might be.
- Perhaps even more insidiously, does not the relegation of the role of the teacher to guide on the side effectively turn them into deliverers of content rather than creators of learning experiences? Once you really believe that the role of the teacher is to be nothing more than a facilitator, you are not many steps away from fully scripted lessons. Even less than 100% scripted lessons are, one might argue, unacceptable. Take the old and now much-disparaged QCA Sample ICT Units. The idea of these was to enable non-ICT experts to deliver competent ICT lessons. As such, they were well-intentioned and, as a short-term measure, probably a good idea. The trouble is, though, once you have something like that in place it tends to take on a life of its own. My own experience of the Key Stage 3 Units of Work is that if you deviated from the prescribed lesson plan and methodology you had to be prepared to justify yourself. In fairness, I have been informed that this wasn’t uniformly the case everywhere in the country, but in a sense that isn’t even the point: once you have units of work, lesson plans and resources handed to you on a plate, you really don’t need to be an expert. In fact, you don’t even need to be a teacher. The resources are created by people who have never and may never set foot in your classroom; all you are required to do is deliver the “package”. I’m not saying the resources were not good – they were. I’m not saying they were not well-intentioned – they were. I’m not even saying they were not useful – they were, and still are. What I am saying is that we need to be careful and wary of any process which turns experts into mere mediators.
When it comes to promulgating the benefits of the “guide on the side” approach, people need to be careful: they may get what they wish for.
Reader Comments (4)
Of course, not every teacher was trained in the same ways and approaches; some will have been trained in the older 'sage on the stage' approach. Even those teachers who had been exposed to the new fangled approach in the 70s and later, would likely have gone into schools where the old approaches still prevailed. Indeed, maybe for some subjects or some classes, standing in front of them sat in rows, may have seemed an easier option.
Teaching is an art, a craft and a profession that has, to my mind, been much maligned for decades. A good teacher is a treasure that can deeply influence our lives. I do not accept your claim that the teacher who acts as a Guide on the Side has been relegated in some way, quite the contrary, I believe that such a teacher demonstrates more pedagogic skill and knowledge than a teacher who stands at the front merely spouting forth.
I agree with all your points about teaching, which is exactly what I was getting at when I said:
"But teaching is a lot more than both of these extremes. It involves understanding what has not been said, asking probing questions, acting as a conductor of the orchestra that is the classroom and its inhabitants, ensuring that not only that everyone is making progress, but that each person is making the best progress they can. That takes teacher expertise, regardless of how good their technical expertise might be."
I didn't actually claim that "the teacher who acts as a Guide on the Side has been relegated in some way". I was merely questioning whether that is what happens, especvially if you take the guide on the side approach to the point where the teacher is managing the class in accordance with someone else's lesson plans and teaching materials.
I think your comment that "I believe that such a teacher demonstrates more pedagogic skill and knowledge than a teacher who stands at the front merely spouting forth." is just as bad as an assertion as that of teaching from the front is much better than any other method. Surely the issue is that if we value the teacher as a teaching expert we can trust him/her to decide whether, in a particular situation, it would be more appropriate to be a sage or a guide? And to switch roles pretty quickly if s/he realises that they made a mistake? In my opinion, pedagogic skill manifests itself in an ability and willingness to make such choices, not blindly adhering to a particular pedagogic philosophy.