Friday, May 18, 2012

Week1 Reading Response

This week's readings discussed the various positions a teacher can take when presenting his or her viewpoints to a classroom regarding controversial issues. I found Kelly’s argument to be very thought provoking. For the longest time I thought that teachers were supposed to be neutral in every sense when discussing anything political or religious ect. Not necessarily because I believed this idea, but because that is the perspective I came to learn through my educational career. I had teachers in high school and college who were not neutral at all, but more exclusively partial as Kelly would title it. They felt their opinions were correct and that they should become our opinions as well. I did not agree with them on many issues and in turn, I tuned them out. This played a role as to why I always thought neutrality was best. I never considered Kelly’s idea of complete impartiality. This means to state your opinions while presenting and encouraging students to examine the opposite and form their own opinions. It allows the teacher to take a side while encouraging the students to form their own opinions and conduct research to support whichever side they choose. I had never considered this before, but I support it fully. I am going to shape my classroom discussion around this model. I really think it will help build a relationship with the students and foster the higher-level thinking that I will expect from them.

1 comment:

  1. Excellent post. I like your rationale for questioning the neutrality stance and for adopting a committed impartiality stance.