Edev_502 response wk8_1

Minimally guided instruction can be a very powerful learning tool. However, its use may need to be mediated by an understanding of its functional weaknesses in the particular learning environment. Tim Murphey (2003) describes three teacher modes in the move away from guided instruction: autocratic, where teachers dictate student involvement; democratic, where the educator role is that of a negotiator and facilitator; and autonomy-inviting, where the teacher is more of an ethnographer, seeing learning from the students’ perspective (i.e. emically). This move may be described as an ideal, a target rather than a practical possibility with (as you mention) younger students.

Jim

Murphey, T. (2003). Learning to surf: Structuring, negotiating, and owning autonomy. In A. Barfield & M. Nix (Eds.), Autonomy you ask! (pp. 1–10). Tokyo: JALT Learner Development Special Interest Group.

About theCaledonian

Scot living in north Japan teaching at a national university.
This entry was posted in EDEV_502, individual differences, learning theory and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s