Teaching Methods: Tradition and Innovation

Author(s): Nikolai D. Nikandrov

Source: International Review of Education / Internationale Zeitschrift für
Erziehungswissenschaft / Revue Internationale de l'Education, Vol. 36, No. 2, Issues in Aims,
Content and Methods of General Education (1990), pp. 251-260
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3444565 .
Accessed: 10/06/2014 03:07

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International Review of
Education / Internationale Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft / Revue Internationale de l'Education.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.57 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 03:07:08 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TEACHINGMETHODS:TRADITIONAND INNOVATION

NIKOLAID. NIKANDROV

Abstract- It has always been difficultto distinguishbetween traditionand

innovationin teachingmethods,not least because of the absence of clear-cut
criteria.Definitionsof teachingmethods are also loose rather than binding.
Neverthelessa trend towardsactive participationby studentsis noticeableand
very often taken as marking'progressive'teaching.Startingfrom the basic rela-
tionshipof methodand objective,an attemptis made to furtherrelatecognitive
activityof studentsto specific levels of achievementwhich are consideredas
teachingobjectives.It is suggested,too, that a loose notion of methodcan for
practicalpurposesbe replacedby a more reliablenotionof teachingtextwhether
presentedorally or given in writtenform. Then the problemof innovationin
teachingmethodscan be stateda bit more preciselyas that of creatinga good
teachingtext.Somesuggestionsof howthiscanbe achievedarediscussed.

Zusauuuenfassung - Es warimmerschwierig,auf demGebietder Lehrmethoden

zwischenTraditionund Innovationzu unterscheiden,nicht 7nletvtmangelsklar
umrissenerKriterien.EbensofehlenklareDefinitionender Lehrmethoden. Es liBt
sichjedoch ein Trendzu aktiverBeteiligungder Lernendenfeststellen,worinoft
ein Merkmal'progressiven'Lehrens gesehen wird. Von der gruntsaitlichen
Beziehungvon Methodeund Ziel ausgehend,wird auf die Verhiltnissezwischen
kognitiven Aktivititen der Studenten und besthnmtenLeistungsniveausals
Lehrzieleniher eingegangen.AuBerdemwird vorgeschlagen,eine zu lockere
Auffassungder Methodenaus praktischenGriindendurcheinen zuverlissigeren
Begriffdes Lehrtextes,ob in miindlicheroder in schriftlicherFormunterrichtet,
zu ersetzen. Erst dann kann die Frage der Innovationenauf dem Gebiet der
Lehrmethodenetwas prazisergestelltwerdenals die der Erstellungeines guten
Lehrtextes.Einige Vorschlage zur L6sung dieses Problems werden erliutert.

R6sumi - I1 a toujours 6et difficile de faire une disti,ction entre tradition et

innovationdans les m6thodespedagogiques,surtout i cause de l'absencede
criteresclairementd6finis.Les definitionsdes methodesd'enseignement sontaussi
libresplut6tqu'obligatoires.N6anmoins,la tendancea une participationactivedes
eleves est sensible et elle est tres souventconsid6reecomme la marqued'un
enseignement'progressiste'.En partantde la relationfondamentalequi existe
entre la m6thodeet l'objectif,on s'efforcede trapiocher ractivit cognitivedes
ileves et les niveauxd'instructionsp6cifiquesqu'onconsiderecommeles objectifs
pedagogiques. ailleurs, suggere,pour des raisonspratiques,qu'unevague
Par on
notionde m6thodesoit remplactepar celle plus exacted'enseignement de textes,
qu'ilssoient prdsentisoralementou par ecrit.Le problane d'innovationdansles
methodesp6dagogiquespourraalors etre formuleun peu plus precisment que

-
InterationalReviewof Education- InterationaleZeitschriffiir Eniehungswiusnschaft
RevueInternaionalede Pcdagogie36(3): 251-260, 1990. 0 1990 UnescoInstitutefor
EducationandKluwerAcademic Printedin theNetherlands.
Publishers.

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.57 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 03:07:08 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
252

comme la simple creation d'un texte d'enseignement.On examine quelques

suggestionsrelativesa la manieredontcettetachepeutetrerealisee.

Thoughthereare a numberof books and articleson educationalinnova-

tion, the criticismstill persiststhat of all humanenterpriseseducationis
the most backwardand conservative.And this is trueat least in the sense
that with the advent of quite sophisticatededucationaltechnologythe
most widespreadteachingaid in the world at large remainsthe chalk-
board.And any criticof educationwill maintainthat teacher-talkis also
the mostwidespreadteachingmethod,as it used to be ages ago. Whenever
and whereveran educationalinnovation(or would-be innovation)does
spring up, sceptics will always find that somethingsimilarhas already
existed.A veryconvenientfigurein historyis thatof Socrates,who is said
to have inventedprogrammedlearningand the problem-solvingapproach
amongmany other things.In those far-offtimes people understoodthat
teachingand learningare formidabletasks.When PtolemyI asked Euclid
to show him the easiestway of learninggeometrythe answerwas, 'O king,
thereis no king'swayin geometry!'
Progressin teachingmethodsmay look very slow indeed if one com-
pares them in, say, two immediatelysucceedinggenerations.Only when
comparisonis drawn between moder times and medievalages is this
progressdefinitelyperceptible.For example,in medievaluniversitiesonly
mastersof artswent as far as the fifth propositionof Euclid,thatis, in an
equal-sidedtrianglethe two angles at the base are equal.The reason is
quitesimple:teachingmethodsin those days were such that this 'difficult'
propositionwas too much for an ordinaryuniversitystudent,let alone a
pupilin a school.Now it is studiedby elevento twelve-year-oldchildren.

DefiningTeachingMethods

If, however,we do not indulgein reminiscencesof far-offtimes and take

only the presentcentury,it may indeed look as if therewere nothingnew
underthe sun,as if therewere only traditionand hardlyany innovationin
the field of teachingmethods.But to have a closer look at the problemit
is necessaryat this stage to define a bit more preciselywhat is meantby
teachingmethods.I will not makeany attemptto add one more definition
to perhapsseveralhundredalreadyavailable.But the great diversityof
existing approachesmakes it imperativeat least to limit the field of
enquiry.
It is usual to juxtapose teachingand learning,the latter being the

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.57 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 03:07:08 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 253

activityof the student and the former that of the teacher.Sometimes,

however,instructionis understoodas the activityof the teacher taken
alone, whereasteachingmeans the activityof both teacherand student.
This is not hair-splitting.Teacherand studentare interdefinable,in the
sense that they cannotexist withouteach other.If, for example,we learn
thatthereis wateron a planetit does not necessarilymeanthat thereare
also fish - the two notionsare (logicallyspeaking)not interdefinable.
But
if we learnthereare teacherson a planetit does meanthereare students
too. The practicalconsequencefor us is thatthereis verystronggroundto
regardteachingas the activityof teacherand studenttaken togetherand
to bearthis in mindwhenwe speakaboutteachingmethods.It meansthat
thinkingabout teaching methods as ways of controllingor facilitating
student learningis perfectlyall right given that the student learningis
implicitlyincluded, too. We can also with good reason use the term
'cognitiveactivity'instead of learning,and then a workingdefinitionof
teachingmethodwould be that it is a meansof controllingthe cognitive
activity of students directed towards specific educational objectives.
Tryingto be precise, one may furtherdistinguishbetween method and
approach,butthiswillleadus too farintoabstractions.

'Traditional'and'Progressive'Methods

There have alreadybeen interestingattemptsto contrast'traditional'and

progressive'or innovativeapproachesto teachingand learning.Some are
ratherwide andincludemanythingsthathaveto do withschool ethos and
climatein the classroom.But usuallythey also containwhatis regardedas
pertainingto teachingmethods.Let us take John Dewey for one. He
contrastsimpositionfrom above (as perhapstraditional)withfree expres-
learningfrom texts and teacherswith learningfrom
sion of individuality;
experience;externaldisciplinewith free activity;acquisitionof skills and
techniquesas mere drillwith acquiringthem to attainends of directvital
appeal,etc. (Dewey 1938). Whateverelse all this may mean,it certainly
meansappealingto studentinvolvementand activelearning.This presup-
poses certainmethodsor styles of teaching(such as the projectmethod)
andputsothersin doubt(suchas lectures).
MuchlaterBennett(1976) directlycontrastedelevencharacteristics of
'progressive'and 'traditional'teachingstyles while statingthat the former
ordinarilyresultsin betterlearning.Not to mentionall eleven let us recall
those that certainlyhave to do with teachingmethods:integratedsubject
matter- separatesubjectmatter,teacheras helperin educationalexperi-
ence - teacheras distributorof knowledge;activestudentinvolvement-

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.57 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 03:07:08 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
254

passivestudentrole;learningby discovery- accenton memoryand rote

learning; cooperation - competition; accent on creativity - little crea-
tivity. Again one would suggest that, minute details discarded, the
diffelence is betweenactiveinvolvementand passivity.Dissatisfactionwith
school that accentsrote learningunderdirectteachercontrolled Illichto
the idea of 'deschoolingsociety'.What interestsus most in his argument
canwellbe demonstrated by thefollowingquotation(1971: 44):

Learning is thehumanactivitywhichleastneedsmanipulation by others.Most

It is ratherthe resultof unhampered
learningis not the resultof instruction.
participationin a meaningful setting.Mostpeoplelearnbestby beingwithit;
yetschoolmakesthemidentifytheirpersonalcognitivegrowthwithelaborate
planningandmanipulation.
Similarcriticismof traditionalteachingled Rogers (1965) to student-
centredlearning,whichcan as well be called student-centredteaching.In
fact, perhapsthe second term would be even more appropriatein the
sense thata studentis alwaysat the centreof his own learningwhereasnot
all teacherswouldregardeach and every studentas at the centreof their
teachingeffort. Carl Rogers' numerousfollowers sometimes subsumed
under student-centredlearningall that was (or looked) 'progressive'.I
would say this is the approachtaken in a very informativeand practical
book by Brandesand Ginnis (1986). They write about 'a continuumof
teachingstyles whichextendfrom traditional(didactic)to student-centred
(p. 2). And thoughwe mightwell say (as has manytimes
(participatory)'
been said) that antecedentsof active studentinvolvementare numerous
and can be traced in preceding ages, this is perhaps one thing that
distinguishesnewermethodsfromearlierones.
But here a word of caution would be in place. As has been very
cogently shown by Hare (1986), some ideas, methods and approaches
tend to become educationalslogansif takentoo uncritically.He mentions
discoverylearningas one of five examples(alongwith, it is interestingto
note, back-to-basics,values learning,the hidden curriculumand behav-
ioral objectives).He mightas well have mentionedactive involvementor
activelearning.Or rather,as in manyothercases, thatwhilethe idea itself
is hardlyrefutable,some of the concreteproceduresadvocatedto realize
it may seem dubiousand requireat least some serious argumentation in
theirdefence.

ProgrammedLearning

Progiamled learning(otherswould say teachingor instruction)stressed

studentactivityfrom the end of the fifties, thoughits originshave been

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.57 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 03:07:08 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 255

tracedby some throughPresseyand Freinetin the twentiesto Socrates,

twenty-fivecenturiesago. It may well be calleda methodsince it is a way
of teachingcomprisinga set of coordinatedprinciples.It experienceda
real boom, then a periodof slow declineand it is sometimes(quiterarely
though) used nowadays in its 'traditional'Skinnerianor Crowderian
variety.Perhapsfor some readersof the youngergenerationthat would
requireclarificationbut I will put the temptationof a mini-lectureaside.
Whatis, however,importantis the renaissanceof the methodin computer-
assistedlearningin our own time. The termitself is certainlynot new. It
existedin the late fifties,too, the computersbeingthenquitebig machines.
Withthe smallpersonalcomputersaccessiblenow to millionsof peopleat
home,in the workplaceandat school,thereis a comparatively easywayto
-
involveany student the hardwarebeingdifferentbut the methodology
being in many ways very similarto programmedlearning.The computer
involvesstudentsin a dialoguein a veryrealsense.It is infinitelypatient;it
asks questions;it answersstudents'questions;it tests the studentsand
keeps track of their progress;it can simulatea situationwhich would
otherwisebe impossibleto do because of time scheduleor risk factors,
etc. And, of course,like the much biggermachinesof older times,small
personal computerscan also be networked(in fact, in a much easier
fashion)so thatall participantscan learnfromone anotheras well as from
externalsources.

Categorizationsof TeachingMethods

Manyattemptshavebeenmadeto categorizeteachingmethodswhilerarely
differentiatingbetween methods, techniques,strategiesand approaches.
As is well known,any rlassificationin its propersense requiresa criterion
and it is here that a stumblingblock appears.Any single criterionwould
seem insufficient,several taken together would (1) in most cases fail
logical requirementsand (2) make the classifirationa very cumbersome
thing and difficultfor teachers to use. This is why in many cases for
practicalpurposesa classificationis replacedby a simple enumeration,
whichmay be quite sufficientFor example,in manyeditionsof Teaching
Tipsby McKeachie(1986 and earlier),checklistsof teachingtechniques
are given which include books, lectures, discussions,student panels,
student reports,guest lecturersor resource persons, films, TV, slides,
bulletinboards,recordings,field trips,laboratorywork,role-playing,buzz-
groups, study-guides,periodicals,teaching machines and programmed
texts,and computer-aided instruction.A standardtextbookused by Soviet
students of education (ed. Babansky 1983) suggests a very elaborate
system of methods.It containsthree groups:methodsof organi7ingand

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.57 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 03:07:08 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
256

controllingthe cognitiveactivityof students,methodsof stimulatingand

motivatingtheir activity,methodsof testingand self-testingthe resultsof
the activity.Since each basic group is dividedinto subgroups,a table of
about 50 methods appears,some of which are still subject to further
divisions. While the attempt may be interestingin its subtlety, it is
certainlya difficulttask to keep all these methodsin mind while actually
teachinga class.
Other categorizationsare based on differentsingle criteriasuch as
source of knowledge,objectives to be achieved at a certain stage of
teaching,or characterof the cognitiveactivityof studentsto be called
forth by this or that method. In fact, overtly or otherwise,many well-
knownbooks on teachinguse one or severalof these criteriain presenting
their case (see for exampleNisbet and Shucksmith1986; Bonsch 1986;
Perrot1983;DavidandDavid 1983, etc.).
A very basic relationshipis, of course, that of method and objective,
where an objective determinescorrespondingmethod(s).Here again a
discussionwould be in place abouthow objectivesare to be categorized,
whichwouldrequirea lot of space but wouldhardlytake us muchfurther
in the analysis.The reason is quite simple:there are too many concrete
objectivesfor a teacher in a class to be squeezed into a manageable
scheme. But it is still possible to relate methods of teaching to, say,
Bloom'sclassicalschemaof knowledge,understanding, application,analy-
sis, synthesisandevaluation.

Levelsof Achievement

Experimentingwith studentsof differentages,I found out thatfour levels

of achievementcan be differentiatedwhich, in turn, can be used as
objectives.The first level is recognition,whichis identifiedin a multiple-
choice test when a studentcorrectlychooses a responsefrom a repertory
givento him.The second level is reproduction,when the correctresponse
is elicited without prompting(responsesbeing given in advance for a
choice are also a prompt).The thirdlevel is skillsand habits,whichin fact
mean the ability to use knowledgeto solve problemswith little or no
transfer.The fourthlevel is transformation, whichmeanschangingknowl-
edge to solve problems of a creativenaturerequiringtransfer.A teacher
shouldfirstdecideat whichlevel this or thatportionof knowledgeshould
be assimilated,which in turn dependson what is to be achievedwith it.
Reproductionand sometimeseven recognitionwould suffice for general
orientationin a practicalor theoreticalfield;routineactivityrequiresskills
andhabits;creativeproblem-solving is impossiblewithouttransformation.

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.57 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 03:07:08 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 257

It is certainlyverytemptingto statethatany teacher'saimis to makeall

knowledgeassimilatedat the highestlevel.However,theoreticalreasoning
predictsand experimentation partlycorroboratesthat a typicaluniversity
studentwould have to spend about a hundredyears if all he or she is
supposedto learnduringthe course of study shouldbe at level four.At
the same time much of the knowledgehe must acquireneed not realisti-
cally be at more than level two. So an importanttask of teachers(and
curriculumspecialists)is to find out in a reliableway which part of the
contentof educationshouldbe assimilatedat whichlevel.
Now, what has this to do with teachingmethods?The level at which
any contentof educationis assimilateddependslargelyon the characterof
students'cognitive activity and, consequently,on teachingmethods. If
recognitionor reproductionsufficesin a particularcase, pure information
transmissionby the teacherwill achieve the purpose.So, a monologue
such as a lecture will be in place. This is not to say that in order to
enhancemotivationwe shouldnot try to use a seriesof measuresto make
the narrativemore appealingto students(a sort of discussiontechnique,
etc.), but the general principle is there. If, however, some education
contentis necessaryat the level of skillsand habits,muchmore cognitive
activityon his/herown is requiredfromeverystudent.Thenmethodssuch
as discovery learning/teaching,problem solving and, to some extent,
projectswill be used witha good chanceof success.And, finally,levelfour
(transformation) will requirea very high degreeof independentwork on
the partof the student,whilemuchof it will be to do withsolvingcreative
problemsandtakingpartin real-lifeor simulatedprojects.
Relatinglevels of assimilationof knowledgeto the characterof the
student cognitiveactivityhas heuristicvalue in the sense that it helps
teachersto choose betweenvariousmethodsusing this (essentiallyquite
simple) criterion.I like it, too, because of two other advantages.First,
experimentationdoes confirmthe realityof this connection,so it is not
abstracttheorybuilding.Second,it seems to exemplifya veryrealtrendin
the developmentof teachingmethods from earlierdays to the present:
traditionis to innovationwhat passivityis to active involvement.It is a
historictrendin educationto strivefor greaterinvolvementon the partof
successivegenerationsof students;it is also a sort of trendto successively
raisetheassimilationlevelof educationcontent.

The TeachingText

However, a unidimensionalcontinuum'passivity- active involvement'

does not seem to representthe whole reality of the developmentof

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.57 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 03:07:08 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
258

teachingmethodsin historicalperspective,thoughit is perhapsthe most

importantsingle developmentalline. To incorporatea fuller variety of
teacheractivitythat determinesstudentlearningI would suggestwe use
the term'teachingtext'.In fact, almosteverythingwe do while teachingis
or may be representedas a teachingtext, be it vocallypresentedor given
to students in wiitten form. Analysis of teaching texts allows more
precisionthan live teachingcategorizedinto teachingmethods.In fact,
while tryingto analyselive teaching,researchershave used and do use
interactionanalysis in which teacher and student talk is meticulously
subdividedinto segmentsof text having differentfunctions.In a wider
sense of the word a pictureor a photographor even a dynamicpicture
can be regardedor described as a text. Why this shift from 'teaching
method'to 'teachingtext'? One reason has just been given - this is to
subsumemore concretecharacteristics of whatis teaching.The otheris to
takeone furtherstep and give a few hintsto a teachertryingto compilea
betterteachingtext.Whatfollowsis basedmostlyon experimentson what
makes an efficient teachingtext, or, in other words, teachingmethods
which best suit present-dayrealities.The order of presentationdoes not
meanhererelativepriority.
Clearstatementof purposeis of primaryimportance.Whateverwe take
as our teachinggoal (the Bloomiancognitive,affectiveand psychomotor
domains,level of assimilationof knowledge,or particulartasks to be
performedby studentsafterlearning),it shouldbe madeintelligibleand -
as far as possible - acceptableto students.If this is not built into a
teachingtext thereis no reliablebasis for motivation,i.e., for being aware
of one's own progress.And no progresscan be assessedunless thereis a
criterion(purpose,goal, objective)to compareit with.A 'single-purpose'
text is certainlypossible. But generallystudents learn better if several
objectivesare addressed at a time. It may happen, for example, that
objectivesin the cognitive,affectiveand psychomotordomainsare kept in
mindandeitherovertlyor indirectlypresentedto students.
The startingpoint should be realisticallychosen.It may mean achieve-
ment testingor student-t^-chertalk to find out what we can build on in
termsof students'knowledgeand/or whatremedyshouldfirstbe taken.If
this conditionis not met, the text may (and sometimesshould)appearto
have little or no meaningto the students.This is not to say the text is
intrinsically'bad'- perhapsit may work quite well in anotherteaching
situation.Sometimesthe term 'readability'helps us to understandthe
problem,for it maybe low or high.But in manycases readabilityis taken
too narrowlyas meaningonly style,withsuchvariablesas choice of word,
length of sentence, etc. But a text can be 'un-readable'for the simple
reasonthatsome knowledgeis assumedthatthe readerhas not in fact got.

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.57 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 03:07:08 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 259

Very complexstyle is a formidablebarrierto the understandingof texts.

Researchundertakenin the USSR when school reformwas proclaimedin
1984 showed that a thirdof school textbookswere just too complexfor
pupils to understand;this is partly true about actual teaching,for it is
rather closely related to the style and manner of presentationin the
textbooks.
The problemof relevanceis also of importance.This is mostlytakento
referto relevanceof educationalcontent.A text is certainlycontentto be
learned, but it also makes sense to talk of relevanceof method. For
example,it has been shownthatintrovertscan be quitehappywithsimple
programmedtexts or independentwork of other sorts while extraverts
prefet live teaching,that some students profit more from texts where
generalstatementscome first and examplessecond while others preferit
the other way around.But if a text is understoodintegrally,both content
andmethodareincludedin the analysis.
While tryingto do away with materialof lesser importance,we still
have to includevery much in textbooksand orally-presentedtexts.This
requirespromptsof differentsorts to be built into any teachingtext to
supportthe learner'smemory.Names may differ- or summarynotes or
supportsignals- but the main point is the same. We are dealingwith
schemataanddrawingswhichmaysometimeslook quitesimple,not to say
primitive.But they are not supposedto be shortenedpresentationsof the
materialwhich students have to learn. Rather, they help settle things
comfortablyin the memory and help students to recall them approxi-
matelylater.
A good balanceof theoryand empiricalevidenceis certainlyadvisable.
Whilepure theorymay appealto some 'theoretically-minded' studentsof
highabilityit is of verylittleinterestto mostpupilswhennot supportedby
concreteexamples.The properbalancedependson manythings,and it is
herethatteachingis closerto an artthanto a science.
Problem-solving has alwaysbeen partof any learning.As for teaching,
it is partand parcelof a good teacher'smasteryto makestudentssolve the
proper problemsat the proper time. In the last few decades, however,
there has perhaps been an overemphasison the problem approach:
psychologistsin particularhave advocated it as an efficient way of
motivatingstudents.My own experimentsin usingproblemteachingat the
upper level of secondaryschool and in the universitysuggesta cautious
acceptanceof the approach.First,it appearsthat very manystudentsnot
only prefei factuallearningbut profitverylittlefromsolvingproblemson
theirown. Second,it takesmuchmoretimeto assimilatethe sameamount
of materialwith the help of the problemapproachthan throughteacher
explanation.Third,in a typicallearningsituation80 per cent or more is

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.57 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 03:07:08 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
260

factual learning which can more economically be assimilated through

methods such as lecture or other teacher talk. But it is certainly true that
to be creative (which all people can be, but to differing degrees), one must
solve problems of a creative sort: there is just no other way. My estimates
show that 20 per cent or less time should be devoted to creative problem
solving, while the teaching time includes independent study which students
are supposed to undertakeas planned by the teacher.

Conclusion

As is perhaps clear from this analysis, there is no single way to tell tradi-
tion from innovation in the matter of teaching methods. While some critics
of education would merely say there is hardly any innovation at all, there
is still a steady, albeit slow, movement from student passivity to active
involvement as a very general trend. However, another approach is to
subsume the category of teaching method under a wider notion of teaching
text. This makes it possible to include more concrete factors of teaching
which would otherwise seem very remote from methodology.

References

Babansky,Yu.K, ed. 1983. Pedagogika(Pedagogics).A handbookfor studentsof

education.Moscow:Prosveshenye.
Bennett, N. 1976. TeachingStyle and Pupil Progress.London: Open Books.
Bonsch, M. 1986. Rezeption,Entdecken,Erforschenoder Handeln.Eziehung
undUnterricht 36(7):527-535.
Brandes,D. and P. Ginnis.1986. A Guideto Student-Centred Learning.Oxford:
BasilBlackwell.
rialiteset moyens.Paris:
David,J. and C. David.1983. Fairela classeaujourd'hui:
Colin/Bourrelier.
Dewey,J. 1938. EducationandExperience.New York:CollierMacmillan.
Hare, W. 1986. Reflectionson some ContemporaryEducationSlogans.Inter-
nationalReviewof Education32(1):71-84.
Illich,I. 1971.DeschoolingSociety.New York:HarperandRow.
McKeachie,W. 1986. TeachingTips.Lexington(MA):HeathandCo.
Nisbet,J. and J. Shucksmith.1986. LearningStrategies.London:Routledgeand
KeganPaul.
Perrot, E. 1983. Effective Teaching: a Practical Guide to Improving Teaching.
London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul.
Rogers,C. 1965. Client-Centred Boston:HoughtonMiffinCo.
Therapy.

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.57 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 03:07:08 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions