- Related consultation
Anonymous Submission 004
Related consultation – Teacher Education Expert Panel Consultation
Submitter information
Name Anonymous
Reform area 1: Strengthening initial teacher education programs to deliver confident, effective, classroom ready graduates.
Q: To what extent would the proposed opportunities strengthen ITE to deliver confident, effective, classroom ready graduates?
Somewhat
Reform area 2: Strengthening the link between performance and funding of initial teacher education.
Q: To what extent would the proposed opportunities provide a strengthened focus on improving the performance of ITE programs?
Little
Reform area 3: Improving the quality of practical experience in teaching.
Q: To what extent would the proposed opportunities improve the quality of practical experience?
Somewhat
Reform area 4: Improving postgraduate initial teacher education for mid-career entrants.
Q: To what extent would the proposed opportunities improve postgraduate programs to attract mid-career entrants?
Little
Feedback
While the emphasis on foundational research in the discussion paper is laudable and sorely needed, it is at the wrong level of analysis. Cognitive neuroscience and the biological aspects of the brain are so far removed from the classroom that emphasising these in ITE is a complete waste of time. Nobody cares if students are using 10% of their brain or not, this information doesn't help anyone to design effective, evidence-informed learning experiences for students.
The research that does have enormous potential for impact in the classroom is from psychological science and educational psychology. In other words, the emphasis is on the mind, not the brain. The foundational research relevant to education focuses on memory, attention, emotion, executive function and metacognition, not on the biological substrates or correlates. Pre-service teachers need to know that brain training is nonsense but that's about as far as any coverage of the brain is of any use.
I therefore strongly recommend removing unhelpful notions of 'the brain and learning' and of neuromyths and replacing them, more accurately, with concepts from psychological science and educational psychology. Focussing on the biological level perpetuates a reductionist notion of learning that is useless in real classrooms and isn't a good use of time in ITE programs. Please emphasise psychological science and educational psychology in ITE programs as this is where the real potential for impact under APSTs 1.1 and 1.2 lies.