Class 2 - Teaching Perspectives
Introductory Activities (Actividades Introductorias o de Inicio) Individual
Think of teachers at Secondary School or University with different teaching styles, that is, think of the following:
o How did they conceive “knowledge”? As a set of premises that should be learned by heart? As a social construction?
o How did they “teach” the class? Was it clear that the teachers’ choice of theories reflected one of all possible perspectives? Or, were the teachers or authors, theories they chose presented as the only source of truth? Were they willing for contributions from students?
o How did they consider “learning”? Did they think that once the content was presented in class everybody had to know it? Did they think that learning was a process?
Write your comments here
I think that most of the teachers conceive knowledge as a social constraction, and I agree because it is that. We get knowledge based on what happens in the external world. However, sometimes what teachers forget is that getting knowledge are more than a set of premises that should be learned by heart. we need to experience and enjoy every thing we incorporate in our mental lexicon.
ReplyDeleteIn general, my teachers presented or have presented different perspectives from several authors. The problem appears when they were not willing for students´choices to carry out a specific topic in a final exam.
I would say fifty-fifty. I met some teachers who say "topic given, topic discarded" , assuming that everybody knew or understood it perfectly at once. They stop working on the tasks earlier, leaving students on their own way. On the other hand, I met some other amazing teachers who have made such an effrot for their students to understand and embrance the content/subject that the feeling of self-fullfilment is quite satisfying.
Most of my teachers at secondary school were focused on grammar so the knowledge had to be learned by heart and the rest of the skills were put aside. Professors at the university generally promote learning through quality and frequency since it is a process that takes time and effort.
ReplyDeleteSome teachers were or are not interested in students' contributions and only read the information provided by the book. Other teachers were or are interested in students' opinions trying to encourage students to search for more topics that interest them.
In general, my teachers were willing to explain as many times as needed to facilitate the learning process by turning activities into tasks that were useful for real-life situations.
During Secondary School, I had several teachers with different teaching styles. Most of them used traditional methods to make us learn by heart the lessons. I remember a Geography teacher that I had in third and fourth year of Secondary School and she only passed your test if you had learned by heart the information from the book or her dictation. These teachers that uses this teaching style think that with one explanation and just reading the book are enough to understand the topic. On the other hand, a few teachers implemented dynamic ways of teaching to make the learning process more interesting. I remember a Political Science teacher taught us different political perspectives through analysing texts and Presidents’ speech to develop our critical thinking. She said that she used that way of teaching in order to help us be prepared for University. Besides this, I also remember my English teachers at the institute were very passionate about teaching and they motivated me to learn more about English. I think nowadays more and more teachers are trying to make the difference by implementing innovative styles of teaching.
ReplyDeleteAt secondary school the learning process was not taken into account as much as the result of it in our lessons and that is an important part. Knowledge should be learned in a way that students acquire the content of the topic and not by heart. Students have to be able to use it in future situations so they take advantage of it.
ReplyDeleteAs regards the material used in class, it did present only one perspetive and students had to study the topic by the book, being that theory the only source of truth. There were just few teachers who accepted contributions from the students in order to expand the theory proposed.
When I was at secondary school teachers explained the topic so we could understand it completely. There were one or two who explained the topic once and assigned us some tasks to check student's understanding. However, teachers gave just one explanation and they did not want to do it again so the result of those tasks were not good as the teacher expected. The problem of these teachers is that they do not take into account that learning is a process and thay had to guide students during it if they want them to acquire the contents successfully.
Most of my teachers from secondary school did not have updated methods of teaching, since they used to provide us with the material needed for the class and we had to learn it by heart. Few teachers would let us work freely and by making our own process, as we do at university, since they wanted us to do everything at the same pace.
ReplyDeleteMy teachers used to give us the pages that we had to read from the book, and then we had to answer questions about what we had read. After answering, the teacher would explain us what we had read. Some of my teachers would recommend us other sources of information in case we wanted to know more about it, but most of them assumed that the information in the book was enough for us. We were able to give our opinion about the topics studied, since professors liked us to participate in class.
Once the content had been explained in one or two classes, we went on to the next topic. Although they may have thought that learning is a process, sometimes they did not want to loose time explaining an old topic because we were lacking time. In some special occassion, at the end of one unit, the teachers explained again topics that we had not understood, but it was not common. It was assumed that we all knew the topic.
The majority of my teachers since I was a child, believed that knowledge are premises that should be learnt by heart. For example, in History or Math, you had to memorize dates and equations to apply them, instead of reasoning them. The teachers that believed knowledge was a social construction, and used more modern methods to teach us, were mainly Epistemology, Introduction to Investigation, Psychology and Sociology teachers. They gave us the material, and made us analize movies, songs, or our lives in relation to the theory, so as to get a deeper understanding of it.
ReplyDeleteThese last teachers gave us the material, and made us analize movies, songs, or our lives in relation to the theory, so as to get a deeper understanding of it. They were always willing to listen to different perspectives, and encouraged us to debate on them. With this method, we could develop critical thinking and learn to support our ideas, and as it was debating, there was no wrong or right answer, just different answers.
The more traditional teachers always believed that the book they were using was the only source of information, and told us it was "unbiased", when we all know no text is innocent.
Some teachers believed that even if the content was not presented in class, we had to know it because it was in the textbook and the material (and our responsiblity as students was to study it on our own, without explanation or guidance).
Our Psychology teacher gave us activities that needed to be uploaded on the due date, but always reminded us that if we handed them in later than expected, it wouldn't affect our grades. She considered that the fact that some people take more time to understand and do activities was not a reflection of the students' capacity, so it shouldn't affect their grades.
ReplyDeleteMy previous' teachers perception of knowledge varies depending, mainly, on the skill that is being practised at that specific moment. Regarding Grammar and Speaking, it used to be perceived as a tool which involves certain rules, and these rules must be learned by repeatition. Certain rules from Grammar were taught by heart, leaving aside some exceptions from grammatical rules and some other structures that are considered grammatical as well. This perception of knowledge leads to the students' dichotomy of considering a certain oral/written structure as wrong or right, missing the inevitable changes in knowledge.
Throughout my studies, from primary school up to the university, I can say that every teacher has encouraged the critical thinking about the object of study. Of course, I have found a few exceptions, teacher who believe their word/knowledge as the only truth possible. Most of the teachers who encouraged critical thinking hope for the student's contribution. In this teaching perspective, the contribution from the student plays such an important role, and it turns the class into a pedagogical and didactic learning process, where the focus is on the student's thinking.
Specifically in language teaching, mainly in grammatical skills, I think there is a clear tendency to assume that the content presented is known by the very moment it is shown to the students, as if it was something automatical. It was not considered as process, I believe. Or, perhaps, Grammar was considered as closed structure which did not go through changes. Besides, there are some teachers who cannot perceive teaching as a process where the students needs to be accompanied and guided, leading to the student's frustration by dealing with certain content on its own.
To answer this, I'm thinking about grammar and language (at university level). Since these subjects are so different, I think the professors also have different perspectives in respect to their way of teaching.
ReplyDeleteIn grammar, I'd say that the contents are presented in a way that they should be known by heart and professors present their theories as the only source of true. I wouldn't say that knowledge here is a social construction.
On the other hand, in subjects like language I'd definitely say that knowledge is a social construction since the professors do not present their perspectives as the only source of truth and that students have many opportunities to learn the contents taught not only through the professors but also through all the others students since they can contribute to the classes more freely.
To summarise, I'd say that the way of teaching depends largely on the subject itself but also on what the teachers consider it's the best way to teach. Over all, I think that at universities students do have more chances to learn as a social construction since most professors are willing to accept comments, ideas and suggestions from students.
Throughout my studies, I´ve experienced different perspectives of what teachers conceived as “knowledge”. Some teachers, especially at secondary school, expected students to read the material and memorize it. I might say that some contents related to Mathematics and Physics require this type of teaching method but, apart from those subjects, we were rarely asked to reason the content given. On the other hand, other teachers conceived knowledge as a social construction and proposed questions related to the content we are dealing with, or a different way to see a particular topic to develop peer work and to foster critical thinking.
ReplyDeleteAs regards how teachers gave their class, I would say that I´ve encountered several teaching methods. Some teachers presented certain authors, documents and books as their only source of information and as an absolute truth, leading students to turn down or to become indifferent to the content. In contrast, other teachers not only presented their lectures and material but also were open to students’ suggestions and perspectives of a certain topic, making sure to adapt them to the class objectives.
Lastly, from my point of view, most teachers acknowledged that learning is a process and each student had their own time to learn, even though we were expected to get the content ready for examinations.
During my experience in secondary school and university, I had teachers with different teaching styles.
ReplyDeleteSome teachers believed that knowledge was a set of facts that needed to be memorized. They focused on students learning these facts by heart. For these teachers, there was usually one correct answer, and they expected students to repeat this in exams or assignments. In their classes, they presented theories or information as if there was only one way to understand the topic, and they rarely encouraged students to share their own ideas or perspectives. As one of my classmates mentioned, some of these teachers even assumed that if the content was in the textbook, it was our responsibility to learn it on our own, regardless of whether it was covered in class. They expected us to understand and study the material independently, without any additional explanation or support.
On the other hand, I also had teachers who saw knowledge as something that could be constructed through discussion and interaction. These teachers encouraged students to share their thoughts and contributions, showing that there were multiple ways to understand a topic. They made it clear that the theories they presented were just one perspective among many. In these classes, learning was seen as a process. They understood that students might need time to fully grasp the content, and they supported students in developing their understanding over time.
In every learning I experience I had in my life, I came across a lot of teachers with very different teaching styles. Some of them conceived knowledge as a social construction and always fostered in their students the desire to learn; and others were the perfect example of what Paulo Freire was completely against which was “educación bancaria”, i.e. the students were some sort of “bank” where the teacher would put all his knowledge, which was by no means questioned. In these cases, the way of teaching was totally different: in the first case, they called for the students’ participation to give their opinion and discuss about topics, whereas in the second case their word was the only truth and it has to be studied by heart. However, all of these teachers left a mark on me and it was something that I could realize at university because now I see that even the strictest teachers that wanted every student to take their word as sacred encouraged me to become more disciplined and to improve my study pace to keep up with their classes.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the conception of knowledge in the classroom can vary significantly, and this has to do with approaches viewing it as a set of fixed premises to be memorized, while others see it as a social construction that evolves through interaction and critical thinking. Similarly, teaching can go from presenting a single, authoritative perspective as the absolute truth, to fostering an environment where multiple perspectives are explored and student contributions are valued. In turn, learning can be perceived as an immediate acquisition of knowledge, where students are expected to know the content after it is presented, or as a continuous process where understanding develops over time, acknowledging the diverse paces and ways in which students learn.
In conclusion, I think the conceptions of knowledge, teaching, and learning in the classroom are deeply intertwined with the ideologies that both educators and students carry.
In my personal experience, I attended a technical high school, and a lot of the class content had to be learned by heart and followed a strict set of rules. I struggled a lot during secondary school because everything we studied or practiced in class had to be precise, and there was no room for creativity or thinking outside the box here. I believe that it was an outdated educational approach, and I would not apply this method in my teaching. The knowledge taught in class was the only source of truth and the only possible perspective, leaving aside any other possibility. For them, learning was memorizing the content covered in class, and the only way to pass an exam was to have a good memory. The teacher was the one who held all the knowledge, so the task for the students was to listen to the teacher and take down everything they said. I remember that this approach did not make me feel motivated to learn, so when I become a teacher I would make sure that the students feel understood and motivated.
ReplyDeleteIn my own experience with university teachers, I’ve encountered a range of approaches to knowledge, teaching, and learning. Some of my teachers, especially in Grammar, viewed knowledge as a set of premises that I needed to memorize, using lectures and exams to ensure we knew the material thoroughly. Others approached knowledge as something that’s socially constructed, such as English Language or Culture, encouraging me to engage in discussions, group projects, and case studies to see how understanding evolves and to think critically. In terms of teaching styles, I had professors who presented theories as just one of many perspectives, fostering an environment where we could debate and contribute our own ideas. On the other hand, some teachers presented their chosen theories as the definitive truth. When it came to learning, I found that some teachers saw it as reaching a specific set of outcomes by the end of the course, with clear objectives and assessments to measure our progress. In contrast, other teachers viewed learning as a continuous process, emphasizing ongoing growth and reflection through feedback and iterative work.
ReplyDeleteIn conclusion, I could say that all of these approaches deeply influenced how I engaged with and understood the subjects.
During my years at secondary school, the most of my teachers had a traditional teaching method.
ReplyDeleteThey would make us learn the content by heart through repetition. For example, my history teacher would give us the textbook and a questionnaire and we had to answer all the questions. Then she would explain what we had just summarize and we had to participate and read our answers. In addition, we had similar questions in the exam, so it was really easy to pass even if some students didn´t understand the topic at all.
On the other hand, I also had some teachers that would take different approaches. For example, the biology teacher wanted us to understand the material. She divided the topics into the class, and each group had to prepare a presentation to explain it to the rest. She didn’t want us to memorize the topic and just repeat it, so we had to explain our part of the material with our own words so our schoolmates could understand them.
Now, as regards the learning process, in some subjects as Physics and Chemistry the teachers would give us a lot of practice and we even had to solve some things at the blackboard, just to make sure we understood the topics. It was important for them, as they told us that we had to completely understand a topic in order to learn the following one. Also, we had to do some research about the upcoming topics to know a little bit of them before studying them.
But in the most theoretical subjects, we just had to answer some questions and learn by heart the topics presented in class.
In my experience at secondary school, my teachers used to give us the content through power points presentations. All of classmates had to learn it by heart.
ReplyDeleteI had teachers with different styles of teaching, some of them let us make contributions but i had others which only what they said was the only truth.
It was fifty-fifty, some would explain as many time as needed but others didn't want to explain more than 2 times.
Part 1:
ReplyDeleteI would say that the view and conception of ¨knowledge¨ among educators either at university or at secondary school can vary significantly depending on the teachers' educational philosophy, the teaching model that heavily influenced them during their training and formation as professionals, and the culture of the institution where they teach. By ¨educational philosophy¨ I refer to the ideas teachers have about the purpose of education, the role of teachers and learners in the classroom, the conception they have about learning, and the methods they consider to be the most efficient ones to achieve educational goals.
In this day and age, modern teachers, especially those influenced by constructivist theories, advocate that knowledge is a social construction because it is widely accepted that in the process of learning, students play an active role in the construction of their knowledge. When building their own understanding of the world through meaningful interactions with the environment that surrounds them, learners, at a cognitive level, take new information coming from that environment, and process it (reflect on it) so as to internalize it (by means of cognitive processes like assimilation and accommodation), and integrating it in their schemata, i.e their prior knowledge formed by their past experiences.
This new perspective of learning challenged the traditional view of it, in which learning is merely considered as a linear process that consists of the transfer of information from teachers to students. The role of the latest is exclusively a passive one consisting of absorbing, memorizing and reproducing the information, while the role of the teacher is to provide that information and make sure it is taken in.
Over time, theories that back up the view of learning as a construction process based on the individual’s (social) interaction with the external world, and the reflection of his/her experiences, like the Cognitive Development Theory by Jean Piaget and the Socio-Cultural Theory by Lev Vygotsky gained ground worldwide, causing educational systems around the world to begin developing and implementing experimentative methodologies at all levels that could help foster students’ cognitive skills, and therefore, enhance their learning process.
At this point is needless to say that the widely acceptance of the new view of learning affected the conception of knowledge, which has gradually changed from a set of premises that should be learned by heart to a set of premises that are constructed through meaningful interaction with the environment individuals find themselves in, a concept that does not discard the role memory plays at some point during the learning process.
Even though many educators nowadays try to adapt their lessons according to their students’ needs and interests, many others, especially the older generations, and also some rigid institutions of the educational system still resist to embrace this new conception of knowledge, probably because they were just brought up to passively acquired information from memory, without reflecting on the process of learning, or because they find it easier this way. Hence, they conceive knowledge as just a set of premises that should be learned by heart.
1) In my experience, knowledge was often seen as a combination of both approaches. In some classes, especially in subjects like math and science, we were expected to learn specific facts and formulas by heart. However, in subjects like literature and history, knowledge was often presented as a social construction. We were encouraged to explore different perspectives, question established norms, and understand that knowledge can be influenced by cultural, social, and historical contexts.
ReplyDelete2) It really depended on the teacher. Some teachers made it clear that the theories they discussed were just one of many views. They encouraged us to think critically and consider other perspectives, and they welcomed student contributions and class discussions. However, other teachers presented their theories as the only truth and didn't allow much room for different opinions or student input.
3) Unfortunately, a few teachers seemed to understand that learning is a process. There was an expectation that we would immediately grasp the material without much room for questions or further clarification. This approach often led to stress and confusion, as it didn't account for different learning paces and styles
In my experience, teachers have greatly varied in how they conceive knowledge, as some of them considered that the only way to prove your knowledge eas to repeat by heart the topics or definitions and gave no room to questioning or discussion. On the other hand, many teacher found knowledge to be an individualized process and they encouraged us to think critically and to engage deeply with the material they provided us with.
ReplyDeleteAs regards the teaching method, I believe that most of them had a very outdated system, and they presented their own opinion as the only source of truth making it very hard for students to actually understand the material and absorb the information as we were not able to question or have a different opinion on it. However, some teachers, who trully made an impact on me and my classmates saw knowledge as something that was cocreated inside the classroom, we learned at the same time that they did, because they adapted their methods according to our needs creaqting a better learning environment
In my experience, I had different teaching styles.
ReplyDelete1) In subjects as maths, science and history, the teaches conceived knowledge as something that should be learned by heart. You needed to know the theory as it was in the book. However, in language and psychology, they encourage us to expand our knowledge outside of the school, to go the extra mile.
2) After the topic was given, most of my teachers gave their own perspective but allowed us to express ourselves and choose our own perspective on the matter. On the other hand, there were teachers that didn't gave us the space to think for ourselves, the book or their perspectives were the only source of truth.
3) The majority of my teachers aim to make us understand or know the topic they gave us. They consider learning as a process, we would make a review of the previous class before learning the new topic. They always told us that we could ask them if we had a doubt.
In my experience, I remember that all the teachers I have had generally used different methods to teach, which I think is totally fine and very enriching because by using games, posters, group work, I felt that my knowledge was more grounded than learning something by heart. Similarly, I have had some teachers who gave the content to be learnt based on what was quoted in a book, from which we then had to learn it by heart. Most of the teachers I had were open to new points of view from the students, they were not very closed in that sense, which was great.
ReplyDeleteYes, they gave importance to learning and asked questions all the time if something was not clear, yes there were some times in high school when I would have liked some teachers to give office hours classes, I think it is a necessary tool that every student should have no matter what level he/she is at.
From middle school to university I've had many teachers with different teaching styles. Most of them, as I recall, had (and still have) presented their subjects as a set of premises to be learnt by heart and there wasn't much room for doubt or questioning the content. Some of them, though, conceived knowledge as a social construction and were capable of taking into account the students' needs and different capabilities in order to get the students to engage with their lessons and make the most out of them; they were aware of the fact that learning is a process and were receptive to our contributions/opinions.
ReplyDeleteClass 6
ReplyDelete¿Por qué hay tanto debate y conflicto acerca de la inclusión de ciertos contenidos como por ejemplo la ESI?
Para mí se debe a que los adultos padres de los alumnos que van a clases, no se les ha enseñado esas materias o conocimiento previamente, por lo que miran ese tipo de contenido con una cara un poco excluyente y discriminadora. También se debe al hecho de que ciertos padres y/o profesores piensan que ese tipo de contenido debe ser enseñado en casa, cuando en realidad, a mi parecer, ese tipo de padres que fomentan el hecho de enseñar en casa, son los que menos terminan dándoles ese tipo de información a sus hijos. Ya sea por tabú o vergüenza, lo que es contradictorio.
¿Quiénes determinan lo que se debe enseñar en el aula?
Los que determinan lo que se debe enseñar en el aula son los mismos profesores, directores y padres, es decir, los responsables de los niños a los que se les va a enseñar. Pero siento que deberíamos tomar un poco más en cuenta la opinión de los alumnos también y considerar las opciones que ellos piensan que son materias o contenidos interesantes de los cuales informarse. También pienso que podríamos considerar contenido propuesto por psicólogos y pedagogos ya que estos poseen conocimientos sobre lo que ayudará al mejor desarrollo de la mente del alumno.
Estoy de acuerdo con vos María en ambas respuestas. Yo creo que con lo que respecta a la ESI y los padres que exigen que esos contenidos no sean enseñados en la escuela terminan siendo los que menos terminan dándole esa información a sus hijos. Además, no todos los hogares son iguales o no todos consideran la enseñanza de estos temas como importantes, por lo tanto enseñarlos en la escuela es mucho más importante para poder educar a los alumnos.
DeleteCon respecto a quiénes son los que deben determinar qué se enseña en el aula, creo que también es importante señalar que además de por los profesores, directores y padres, los contenidos están regidos por políticas públicas y decisiones gubernamentales de cada época en conjunto con organismos expertos en el ámbito educativo, como el Consejo Federal de Educación y el Ministerio de Educación aquí en Argentina. La propuesta de considerar la opinión de los alumnos es interesante y estoy de acuerdo ya que creo que también haría el proceso de aprendizaje más ameno para el alumno. También me parece importante lograr encontrar un balance entre lo que los alumnos desean aprender y los conocimientos que necesitan de formas de adaptar estos contenidos planteados en los planes de estudio a actividades que llamen la atención del alumno.
Estoy de acuerdo con Emilia, ya que pienso que la Teoría de la Relatividad conlleva un proceso de comprensión cognitivo mayor, si es explicada con el detalle necesario. Por lo que sería complicado proponerle esto a alumnos de secundaria. Aunque igual pienso que tal vez a alumnos de 6to o 5to año de secundaria esta teoría podría ser explicada y entendida. Tal vez no con gran detalle ya que son alumnos que todavía se encuentran cursando un nivel secundario, pero por el hecho de que ya no son ciclo básico, sino ciclo avanzado/orientado, creo que podrían entender esta teoría si un buen profesor se propone explicarlo de una manera que les sea comprensible. Creo firmemente que un alumno de 5to o 6to año que está realmente interesado en la ciencia y la física podría entender esta teoría sin necesidad de tener los conocimiento de un nivel superior como lo es la universidad.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCLASE 6
ReplyDelete¿Por qué hay contenidos que se enseñan en la escuela mientras otros quedan excluidos?
Creo que lo que se enseña en la escuela está muy influenciado por lo que la sociedad y las autoridades educativas consideran importante en un momento dado. Hay una mezcla de factores culturales, históricos y políticos que determinan qué se incluye en el currículum. Los contenidos que se eligen suelen ser los que se cree que ayudarán a formar ciudadanos capaces de adaptarse a las demandas del mercado laboral y del sistema en general. Sin embargo, muchos contenidos quedan fuera porque no encajan con esa visión o porque no hay suficiente consenso sobre su importancia. También creo que hay una tendencia a dejar de lado temas que podrían generar controversia o que no se alinean con las ideologías predominantes.
¿Por qué hay tanto debate y conflicto acerca de la inclusión de ciertos contenidos como por ejemplo la ESI (Educación Sexual Integral)?
En mi opinión, el conflicto en torno a la inclusión de contenidos como la ESI surge porque toca temas que son muy personales y sensibles para muchas personas. La educación sexual no solo habla de biología, sino también de valores, derechos, y temas como la diversidad de género y sexualidad, que no todos ven de la misma manera. Para algunos, estos contenidos son necesarios para educar a las nuevas generaciones de manera integral, dándoles herramientas para tomar decisiones informadas sobre sus cuerpos y sus vidas. Sin embargo, para otros, estos temas pueden chocar con sus creencias religiosas o culturales, lo que genera una resistencia. Al final, el debate se da porque la educación refleja los valores de la sociedad y no siempre todos estamos de acuerdo en cuáles deberían ser esos valores.
Estoy de acuerdo con lo que planteas Roxana sobre los factores cognitivos, culturales y la preparación para el mercado laboral en la selección de contenidos escolares. A eso, añadiría que también influyen las políticas educativas y las ideologías vigentes en cada momento histórico. Por ejemplo, algunos contenidos pueden quedar fuera por razones políticas o porque no se alinean con las creencias predominantes en la sociedad o el gobierno de turno. Esto hace que, en muchos casos, lo que se enseña no solo responda a las necesidades educativas, sino también a intereses políticos o ideológicos.
ReplyDeleteLas preguntas que elegí son:
ReplyDelete¿Quiénes determinan lo que se debe enseñar en el aula?
En mi opinión, las autoridades, los profesores y las normas educativas son el conjunto que determinan que se debe enseñar en el aula. A su vez el profesor de acuerdo a los NAPS (Núcleos de aprendizajes prioritarios) que están legitimados por el ministerio de educación decide o hace un recorte sobre que contenidos son los más adecuados para la institución y su planificación.
¿Por qué hay contenidos que se enseñan en la escuela mientras otros quedan excluidos?
Los contenidos que se enseñan dependen principalmente de la institución, el entorno, los tiempos académicos y el personal profesional del cual se dispone. Inclusive pueden llegar a ser más relevantes por los valores éticos/morales de la sociedad o lo que el mercado laboral demanda. Debido a esto las instituciones escolares se ven afectadas en la toma de decisiones en cuanto a que deben enseñar y que contenidos priorizar.
¿Por qué hay contenidos que se enseñan en la escuela mientras otros quedan excluidos?
ReplyDeleteEn primer lugar, hay un enfoque en enseñar habilidades y conocimientos que se consideran esenciales para el desarrollo académico y personal de los estudiantes. Estos suelen incluir matemáticas, lengua, ciencias y estudios sociales, que son fundamentales para la formación básica. Sin embargo, las diferencias culturales y las prioridades de cada comunidad pueden llevar a dejar de lado contenidos que no se alinean con sus valores o necesidades, como mencionó mi compañera Belen Oro dando como ejemplo a Argentina en la época de dicadura militar.
¿Cómo influyen los textos escolares en la selección y transmisión del contenido?
De acuerdo a la idea o propósito de cada profesor es como influirán los textos en la transmisión del contenido. Por otra parte, los textos escolares son una de las principales herramientas didácticas en el aula e influyen significativamente. Estos libros no solo determinan qué conocimientos se presentan, sino también cómo se estructuran y se contextualizan, lo que puede afectar la comprensión de los estudiantes. Por ejemplo, si un libro de historia se centra principalmente en las grandes civilizaciones y excluye las contribuciones de culturas indígenas, esto puede dar lugar a una visión limitada y sesgada de la historia. Así, los textos escolares no solo reflejan decisiones curriculares, sino que también moldean la percepción de los estudiantes sobre el mundo y su diversidad.