Know students and how they learn 1.1 Physical, social and intellectual development and characteristics of students (Australian Professional Standards for Teachers)

 

Standard 1 Know Students and how they Learn – 1.5 Physical, Social and Intellectual development and Characteristics of Students

 

Student’s Name

 

Institutional Affiliations

 

Date

 

 


 

Standard 1 Know Students and how they Learn – 1.5 Physical, Social and Intellectual development and Characteristics of Students

Pedagogical Practice in Australia

In Australia, there are many requirements in which one has to meet the minimum to be said to be fit for pathology. This situation is faced by challenges though (Gannon, 2012). We will use factors such as physical, social and intellectual development and Characteristics of a student.

Physical appearance refers to the outlay of how something practically looks. The image that everyone gets at first look is the physical appearance. Physical appearance is one thing that brings an impact to the society and every other situation in general (Semiz, 2011). How a teacher will appear to look to the student will determine their perspective towards him, and hence this will affect the way they handle the subject that they happen to be feeling (Semiz, 2011).

Based on social and intellectual development, social livelihood is the way of their life and anything that goes against what they believe hence deemed as a taboo and not acceptable. For this reason, a teacher must in all ways be able to fit into the society and not in a way that they defy the way of life as insinuated by the given society (Gannon, 2012). In other situations, a teacher not doing according to what they believe is not the problem but him/her doing against what they believe because it apparently shows him/her to be an enemy (Power, 2010).

Based on pedagogy, the features of a student are merely those that affect the learning of the student. The learning traits of the student could be slow, medium or even quick which in fact dictates the understanding of the student. If the student is hardworking or not and how he/she reacts to every situation such as if a job is tough and they would proceed to tackle it or will it mean that they will lose hope (So & Kim, 2009).

Regarding challenges faced in classes as recorded in the research, in physical there was a case of pretending (Aitchison & Lee, 2006). In here, both the teachers and the students could prtend and this definitely gave preasing answers that were not real. For instance, a teacher would pretend to be very friendly with the students and furthermore involve them in the study just because there was observation being taken

In the interectual and development the challenge was that it was very difficlt to base intellectuality and development. Knowoing what basis to use in intellectual and development was difficult since in some instances it seemed to vsry from one lerning session to another. Perceiving and understanding a student is a difficult task basically because it calls for critical observation and time. Time factor is always a limited resource during research and so it was tough to get to observe a student and come up with a characteristic basis and also list the students as per their characteristics (Aitchison & Lee, 2006).

In conclusion, I will consider the following steps that assist teachers to make the students all rounded (fullers). The first step include fully understanding what you are teching and all it entails inside out and setting goals on what is to be achieved at end to be a guideline. The next is knowing the students, that is, their strengths and weakmess. This is followed by ultimately involving students in the lessons in all possible ways. The last step is running general tests after teaching to make them uderstand better and test their understanding.

 

References

Aitchison, C., Kamler, B., & Lee, A. (Eds.). (2010). Publishing pedagogies for the doctorate and beyond. Routledge.

Aitchison, C., & Lee, A. (2006). Research writing: Problems and pedagogies. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 265-278.

Gannon, S. (2012). Changing lives and standardizing teachers: The possibilities and limits of professional standards. English Teaching, 11(3), 59.

McWilliam, E., & Dawson, S. (2008). Teaching for creativity: Towards sustainable and replicable pedagogical practice. Higher Education, 56(6), 633-643.

Power, A. (2010). Community engagement as authentic learning with reflection. Issues in Educational Research, 20(1), 57-63.

Semiz, K. (2011). Pre-Service Physical Education Teachers’technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge, Technology Integration Self-Efficacy And Instructional Technology Outcome Expectations (Doctoral Dissertation, Middle East Technical University).

 

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: