Lynch , Smith , Howarth
Our key argument then is that ‘ teaching ’ needs a rethink .
The Learning Management concept and approach thus alters this traditional way of thinking about teaching to provide both an explanation of more productive teaching and processes for accomplishing it . In effect Learning Management provides an improvement on the traditional models of curriculum as outlined in the previous chapter . Learning Management represents an amalgam of knowledge , personal capacities and mindsets which , when transacted by the teacher in a strategic way , define how teaching might ensure that students make the required learning gains ( Smith and Lynch , 2010 ; Lynch , 2012 ). It puts prime emphasis on the capacity of teachers to design and then execute teaching so as to achieve predefined learning outcomes in students .
Missing in these discussions thus far is a process through which the aspirations of Learning Management can be achieved in classrooms . This process is known as the Learning Management Design Process ( LMDP ) and its goal is to place teaching design in the centre of the classroom curriculum development model . Chapter Five provides a step-by-step guide to its use . Let us elaborate this idea further .
The Teaching Design Idea
Learning Management is essentially about design . Notice that we prioritise the design of teaching rather than “ planning ” because it implies that the teacher :
( i ) is actively engaged in achieving definite , articulated student academic outcomes , ( ii ) intends that he or she and the students are guided by empirically justified pedagogical strategies that credible research suggests should be done in order to accomplish the outcomes , ( iii ) identifies and consciously checks student background knowledge , attitudes and behaviours that are pre-requisites to learning success , ( iv ) establishes performance standards and the means for collecting data to demonstrate personal and student standards .
Under this kind of regime , teachers can begin to be confident in their capacity to do the work , while knowing that nothing is guaranteed .
In previously published ideas about learning design , we contended :
“ Like any other professional with the obligation to deliver health , legal , architectural , dental or optical services for clients , teachers are obligated to deliver learning services at an appropriate standard to their students and their families . Teachers are not free to do what they choose , because there is an expectation that the services will be successful ” ( Smith and Lynch , 2006 , p . 54 , emphasis added ).
Wilson ( 1997 ) expands this contention by adding that the purchasers of education , its principal investors , parents and students , still expect today , that education should result in greater knowledge . In a Knowledge Society , where qualifications and capacity to apply what is known are highly valued , success at school now has enormous implications for the future wellbeing of most individuals and society . In response to teachers and others who might challenge this proposition , one might ask which credible principal authorises a teacher to deny or reject credible research in favour of idiosyncratic opinions when it comes to determining the educational futures of students ? It is apparent then that intentional pedagogical design that achieves learning outcomes in students must lie at the heart of a professional teacher ’ s repertoire of knowledge and skill .
43