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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Excellent post. I like your rationale for questioning the neutrality stance and for adopting a committed impartiality stance.
ReplyDelete